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.
Why such hatred?
Usually people hate gays because they are afraid of becomming "infected" or overturned to "the dark side" them selves. It seems you are very afraid or not really secure in your own sexuallity. Why you would ever want someone to die, because they speak out their opinion is beyond me??? I know it´s words... But come on! Just don´t buy Apple products if you disagree.
I applaud Apple for this move! I´m not gay but still.. today I appriciate them even more. A bold and humane move on their part! Adult Individuals should allways have the freedom to chose whom to love. Anything else is discimination.
Furthermore, gay marriage means the legal right to the financial, tax and social entitlement benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy by commiting to one other person and sticking with them. It's not just an gimmick, it's a hugely important issue to gay people and their families. Apple (and Google) are to be congratulated for looking out for the rights of their employees.
On the other hand, many if not all of these legal rights have already been extended to gay couples in California.
I see the real issue as the gay community wanting to take over the term "marriage" be domestic partner" or civil union just isn't good enough, even if it includes all the rights and privileges of "marriage."
Personally, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and reclassify everything as a civil union, thus leaving "marriage" as a purely religious institution/rite. That would be the ultimate separation of church and state over this issue.
I thought the point of government providing special rights and privileges to married couples was to provide some incentive for couples to stick together when when things in the relationship get difficult, for the benefit of hopefully providing a more stable environment for any minor children. But since that seems to have become mostly irrelevant or disregarded in today's society, what is the point of the government continuing to provide privileges to maintain and protect the "marriage" institution. Nowadays so many heterosexual couples never marry, so many children are illegitimate or live in single parent homes due to divorce, what is the point of getting "married?" For a child today to have had a father and a mother married to each other from the time of his/her birth until he/she reaches adulthood, has become the exception instead of the rule.
I maintain the the institution of marriage as outlived it's usefulness as far as government sanction and protection goes. Because of that, I can't fathom why it is so important for the gay community to be able to call their civil unions "marriages."
He also stood up for God's moral values. Jesus/God was against murder, adultery, stealing, lying, cheating, etc. Also, pertaining to this thread, he considered homosexuality immoral.
Murder.
Now you'd think that if fundamentalist christians cared a darn about morals, they would be against murder.
Where have you all been the last ten years while good heterosexual families were being slaughtered by our government?
and furthermore, why legislate your beliefs? I know you believe God doesn't want gays to marry... but why does that affect whether our country or state should allow them to? If God disapproves of an action, let Him deal with it, you don't have to.
If it were only that easy..."Live and let live", as the saying goes...
From my understanding...if gay marriage is passed, that means all ordained ministers would have to marry gay couples, or risk facing lawsuits.
People preach about separation of church and state all the time. I say good; keep them separate. If gay marriage is put into law, you have by default merged the church and the state.
Well I think it's a good thing that Apple is loosing customers. They should never have tied them up in the first place. Come on Mr H you're slacking!
I missed that too! You made my day -- and after hearing the gays made SJ take the Firewire off the Macbook and won't let him release the headless xMac. What is the world coming to?
I had to join to comment on this. Though I think everything has been said. I think the thread says a lot about the state of the country than Apple. As for the world degrading over the last 100 years as one poster commented- I think a lot of it is to do with the US not seeming to want to move forward.
As for marriage being the bedrock of western civilisation, since when? How long have humans been around? You're comparing a small fraction of time to that?
As you can tell I'm not religious. I don't quite hate it. I went to a church of england primary school. I think as you grow and learn you do just that. Religions are the causes of wars. I think enough said.
I'm glad Apple has done this. It shows that they are forward thinking. As for the other chap(s) that said they won't be buying anything else from Apple; if that was a problem then why is it that the share prices were up when I checked a few minutes ago?
I'm proud to have never owned a windows machine in the past 20years of using computers!
Please learn the proper use of words before you use them.
Unethical = not morally correct.
If you feel that it's moral to discriminate against someone because of something they are born with, like their skin colour, then so be it. I'd pray for you, but I have no idea what God that would be or if their even is one. Instead I'll just hope you learn some tolerance in this lifetime.
Everyone knows coolness belongs to Mac. Even if a PC wanted to be called a Mac it still wouldn't be a Mac. (In fact, Apple would sue that PC.) PCs are intrinsically closer to Macs than gay unions are to traditional marriage. I have nothing against someone who says they're gay. Can't we all be friends? But to call a gay union a marriage is simply a misnomer. It isn't - and it will never provide what a traditional marriage provides to society and to the partners themselves. As a big Apple fan, I'm disappointed Apple went PC on this issue. (Also - kind of a one-sided article AI . . . you're better than that.)
Now you'd think that if fundamentalist christians cared a darn about morals, they would be against murder.
Where have you all been the last ten years while good heterosexual families were being slaughtered by our government?
Did you vote him back into power afterwards too?
I like how you assume that I'm a republican. I didn't vote for Bush, if that's what you're implying.
I'm not sure how Christianity and Republicans got tied to each other, anyways? In reality, Democrats are pro-abortion, pro-gay rights... Republicans are pro-war, and don't give a rip about the lower class and poor.
Please tell me...how can a Christian be associated with either side?? When it comes down to it, you just end up picking the lesser evil.
'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."'
Hmmm... what about the Massachusetts case where second grade teachers started reading storybooks about princes marrying princes. When the parents asked about it, they were told that the book was required and that they would not be told when the subject would be discussed. The courts sided with the school. (Massachusetts is in a similar legal position with regard to gay marriage as California right now)
How is that for changes in education? It sounds like the California Superintendent is misinformed and it's regrettable that AppleInsider is so obviously one-sided on this issue.
I can understand why some people may get upset by Apple's decision (although I support it) on aiding the no voters of the proposition, but what I fail to comprehend is the sheer shortsightedness of some people posting ridiculous junk in panic attacks at how homosexual unions might and will affect the american kids, turning them to the 'dark side of the force' or whatever.
Again, I understand why the Catholic Church denies marriage of the same sex couples, since it's the most conservative institution to date (with one of the most numerous cases of pedophilia in history, way to go), but to seek refuge in the will of good old God is just plain weak.
How about Eve being Adam's sister? Either they had some high tech manufactorium to confect the human race, or they had sex. Incest, anyone?
Personally, I know a lot gay people and I can safely say that they are no better or worse than your average Joe. So, please be tolerant.
Everyone knows coolness belongs to Mac. Even if a PC wanted to be called a Mac it still wouldn't be a Mac. (In fact, Apple would sue that PC.) PCs are intrinsically closer to Macs than gay unions are to traditional marriage. I have nothing against someone who says they're gay. Can't we all be friends? But to call a gay union a marriage is simply a misnomer. It isn't - and it will never provide what a traditional marriage provides to society and to the partners themselves. As a big Apple fan, I'm disappointed Apple went PC on this issue. (Also - kind of a one-sided article AI . . . you're better than that.)
I think that if gay couples had the same legal rights as straight couples, we would see no difference in what a traditional marriage provides to society.
This is just awful news. I'm not a republican but I also don't support gay marriage which I am firmly convinced is a perverted lifestyle. Having said that, I also would not get my company involved in support of Prop. 8. I feel this is for individuals and not the place of companies like Apple. What Apple and Google are doing is wrong. I would also be disappointed if the two companies were in support of Prop. 8. It's simply not their place to use their influences in that manner.
I believe that the bible is still the Word of God today and the consequences for sin has not changed. The end of these types of perverted lifestyles, pornography and child porn included is eternal separation from God in hell fire: Romans 6:23 & Genesis 19.
If you feel that it's moral to discriminate against someone because of something they are born with,
Careful with proclaiming that someone is born with homosexual tendencies. The jury is still very much out on that issue. Even Kinsey noted that sexual preferences seemed to be rather malleable.
Everyone knows coolness belongs to Mac. Even if a PC wanted to be called a Mac it still wouldn't be a Mac. (In fact, Apple would sue that PC.) PCs are intrinsically closer to Macs than gay unions are to traditional marriage. I have nothing against someone who says they're gay. Can't we all be friends? But to call a gay union a marriage is simply a misnomer. It isn't - and it will never provide what a traditional marriage provides to society and to the partners themselves. As a big Apple fan, I'm disappointed Apple went PC on this issue. (Also - kind of a one-sided article AI . . . you're better than that.)
Yup, Hallelujah to that! Both Macs and PC's are... computers. Though some bigots may call the PC a 'sub computer' we are tolerant and know this not to be true. A Gay marriage on the other hand is TOTALLY different from a 'Real' marriage because ... because ... well, they are both marriages but everybody knows damned well that certain gay acts are sub human. And those acts when performed within the holy matrimonial union of REAL marriage they are not spoken of. In fact I didn't hear a thing and it never really happened. But can't we be friends... please? Just don't get too close, faggot... I mean, friend.
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 don't understand why this idea is ignored. Other laws protect children and against contractual fraud.
Regardless of how any of us personally feel about gay marriage, this is a smart business move for Apple.
Why?
We are in an economic recession. The smartest business move is to cater to people who can afford to buy your products. Are all homosexuals rich? Goodness no, but the median income for homosexual households is significantly higher than that of heterosexual households.
Apple isn't the first company to figure this out. Many companies have been advertising to homosexuals for years. Budweiser and Levi are the first two brands that come to my mind.
Comments
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.
Why such hatred?
Usually people hate gays because they are afraid of becomming "infected" or overturned to "the dark side" them selves. It seems you are very afraid or not really secure in your own sexuallity. Why you would ever want someone to die, because they speak out their opinion is beyond me??? I know it´s words... But come on! Just don´t buy Apple products if you disagree.
I applaud Apple for this move! I´m not gay but still.. today I appriciate them even more. A bold and humane move on their part! Adult Individuals should allways have the freedom to chose whom to love. Anything else is discimination.
Furthermore, gay marriage means the legal right to the financial, tax and social entitlement benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy by commiting to one other person and sticking with them. It's not just an gimmick, it's a hugely important issue to gay people and their families. Apple (and Google) are to be congratulated for looking out for the rights of their employees.
On the other hand, many if not all of these legal rights have already been extended to gay couples in California.
I see the real issue as the gay community wanting to take over the term "marriage" be domestic partner" or civil union just isn't good enough, even if it includes all the rights and privileges of "marriage."
Personally, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and reclassify everything as a civil union, thus leaving "marriage" as a purely religious institution/rite. That would be the ultimate separation of church and state over this issue.
I thought the point of government providing special rights and privileges to married couples was to provide some incentive for couples to stick together when when things in the relationship get difficult, for the benefit of hopefully providing a more stable environment for any minor children. But since that seems to have become mostly irrelevant or disregarded in today's society, what is the point of the government continuing to provide privileges to maintain and protect the "marriage" institution. Nowadays so many heterosexual couples never marry, so many children are illegitimate or live in single parent homes due to divorce, what is the point of getting "married?" For a child today to have had a father and a mother married to each other from the time of his/her birth until he/she reaches adulthood, has become the exception instead of the rule.
I maintain the the institution of marriage as outlived it's usefulness as far as government sanction and protection goes. Because of that, I can't fathom why it is so important for the gay community to be able to call their civil unions "marriages."
He also stood up for God's moral values. Jesus/God was against murder, adultery, stealing, lying, cheating, etc. Also, pertaining to this thread, he considered homosexuality immoral.
Murder.
Now you'd think that if fundamentalist christians cared a darn about morals, they would be against murder.
Where have you all been the last ten years while good heterosexual families were being slaughtered by our government?
Did you vote him back into power afterwards too?
ugh. and if you don't believe in God...
and furthermore, why legislate your beliefs? I know you believe God doesn't want gays to marry... but why does that affect whether our country or state should allow them to? If God disapproves of an action, let Him deal with it, you don't have to.
If it were only that easy..."Live and let live", as the saying goes...
From my understanding...if gay marriage is passed, that means all ordained ministers would have to marry gay couples, or risk facing lawsuits.
People preach about separation of church and state all the time. I say good; keep them separate. If gay marriage is put into law, you have by default merged the church and the state.
Well I think it's a good thing that Apple is loosing customers. They should never have tied them up in the first place. Come on Mr H you're slacking!
I missed that too! You made my day -- and after hearing the gays made SJ take the Firewire off the Macbook and won't let him release the headless xMac. What is the world coming to?
As for marriage being the bedrock of western civilisation, since when? How long have humans been around? You're comparing a small fraction of time to that?
As you can tell I'm not religious. I don't quite hate it. I went to a church of england primary school. I think as you grow and learn you do just that. Religions are the causes of wars. I think enough said.
I'm glad Apple has done this. It shows that they are forward thinking. As for the other chap(s) that said they won't be buying anything else from Apple; if that was a problem then why is it that the share prices were up when I checked a few minutes ago?
I'm proud to have never owned a windows machine in the past 20years of using computers!
According to a group of Italian researchers, the genes that make men gay evolved because they actually make their female relatives more fertile.
The team discovered that the mothers, aunts and sisters of gay men tend to have more children than those women related to straight men.
Science disagrees
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oc...ation.research
Aww, shucks. *I* was going to post that!
I say, go apple.
Please learn the proper use of words before you use them.
Unethical = not morally correct.
If you feel that it's moral to discriminate against someone because of something they are born with, like their skin colour, then so be it. I'd pray for you, but I have no idea what God that would be or if their even is one. Instead I'll just hope you learn some tolerance in this lifetime.
Am I the last person to have made the connection?
( Darn, just as i said that it turned to Google Chrome. )
Murder.
Now you'd think that if fundamentalist christians cared a darn about morals, they would be against murder.
Where have you all been the last ten years while good heterosexual families were being slaughtered by our government?
Did you vote him back into power afterwards too?
I like how you assume that I'm a republican. I didn't vote for Bush, if that's what you're implying.
I'm not sure how Christianity and Republicans got tied to each other, anyways? In reality, Democrats are pro-abortion, pro-gay rights... Republicans are pro-war, and don't give a rip about the lower class and poor.
Please tell me...how can a Christian be associated with either side?? When it comes down to it, you just end up picking the lesser evil.
Hmmm... what about the Massachusetts case where second grade teachers started reading storybooks about princes marrying princes. When the parents asked about it, they were told that the book was required and that they would not be told when the subject would be discussed. The courts sided with the school. (Massachusetts is in a similar legal position with regard to gay marriage as California right now)
http://www.protectmarriage.com/video/view/6
How is that for changes in education? It sounds like the California Superintendent is misinformed and it's regrettable that AppleInsider is so obviously one-sided on this issue.
Again, I understand why the Catholic Church denies marriage of the same sex couples, since it's the most conservative institution to date (with one of the most numerous cases of pedophilia in history, way to go), but to seek refuge in the will of good old God is just plain weak.
How about Eve being Adam's sister? Either they had some high tech manufactorium to confect the human race, or they had sex. Incest, anyone?
Personally, I know a lot gay people and I can safely say that they are no better or worse than your average Joe. So, please be tolerant.
Everyone knows coolness belongs to Mac. Even if a PC wanted to be called a Mac it still wouldn't be a Mac. (In fact, Apple would sue that PC.) PCs are intrinsically closer to Macs than gay unions are to traditional marriage. I have nothing against someone who says they're gay. Can't we all be friends? But to call a gay union a marriage is simply a misnomer. It isn't - and it will never provide what a traditional marriage provides to society and to the partners themselves. As a big Apple fan, I'm disappointed Apple went PC on this issue. (Also - kind of a one-sided article AI . . . you're better than that.)
I think that if gay couples had the same legal rights as straight couples, we would see no difference in what a traditional marriage provides to society.
I believe that the bible is still the Word of God today and the consequences for sin has not changed. The end of these types of perverted lifestyles, pornography and child porn included is eternal separation from God in hell fire: Romans 6:23 & Genesis 19.
You have no clue if Jesus or God was against homosexuality.
It has never been a part of Christianity that Jesus or God wrote the Bible.
You obviously don't understand why the Bible has come to be what it is.
Believing in something and understanding history can be separate. I can understand the Mormon religion, but not believe in it.
You don't have to believe in the Bible to understand the historical value that it has.
If you feel that it's moral to discriminate against someone because of something they are born with,
Careful with proclaiming that someone is born with homosexual tendencies. The jury is still very much out on that issue. Even Kinsey noted that sexual preferences seemed to be rather malleable.
Everyone knows coolness belongs to Mac. Even if a PC wanted to be called a Mac it still wouldn't be a Mac. (In fact, Apple would sue that PC.) PCs are intrinsically closer to Macs than gay unions are to traditional marriage. I have nothing against someone who says they're gay. Can't we all be friends? But to call a gay union a marriage is simply a misnomer. It isn't - and it will never provide what a traditional marriage provides to society and to the partners themselves. As a big Apple fan, I'm disappointed Apple went PC on this issue. (Also - kind of a one-sided article AI . . . you're better than that.)
Yup, Hallelujah to that! Both Macs and PC's are... computers. Though some bigots may call the PC a 'sub computer' we are tolerant and know this not to be true. A Gay marriage on the other hand is TOTALLY different from a 'Real' marriage because ... because ... well, they are both marriages but everybody knows damned well that certain gay acts are sub human. And those acts when performed within the holy matrimonial union of REAL marriage they are not spoken of. In fact I didn't hear a thing and it never really happened. But can't we be friends... please? Just don't get too close, faggot... I mean, friend.
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 don't understand why this idea is ignored. Other laws protect children and against contractual fraud.
Why?
We are in an economic recession. The smartest business move is to cater to people who can afford to buy your products. Are all homosexuals rich? Goodness no, but the median income for homosexual households is significantly higher than that of heterosexual households.
Sources:
http://www.glcensus.org/downloads/GenRelease.htm
http://www.witeckcombs.com/news/rele...uyingpower.pdf
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/25/maga...gedin_fortune/
Apple isn't the first company to figure this out. Many companies have been advertising to homosexuals for years. Budweiser and Levi are the first two brands that come to my mind.
http://www.aef.com/industry/news/data/2006/6076
Levi's Ad
Straight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43uI5QL0dXs
Gay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTP1K3Vu3r8
Wamu:
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...oynyc/WaMu.jpg
Absolute:
http://www.mysummerwithoutpeanutbutt...olutePride.jpg
Other Misc:
http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/pages/gays.htm
http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gend...es/lesbian.htm