I'm really shocked at the number of people who are insulting people who are saying they will no longer buy apple products because of this. That's exactly the power you have as a consumer (and just about the only power you have). I don't think insulting people because they choose to use their consumer power as they see fit is a bad thing. Would people be insulting a windows user who now wants an Apple because of this? I doubt it - tolerance is about much more than just tolerating the views of the minority - it's about tolerating the views of those different than you. If you support gay marriage but don't tolerate those who disagree with you then you're nothing more than an intolerant person. The point is it goes both ways (tolerance)...
On the topic of consumer power - after Kanye West did his little "Bush doesn't like Black people" thing I stopped listening to any of his music - ever. It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with some ridiculously rich guy playing the race card. If he cared about poor blacks of N.O. he would have donated a ton of his money but he didn't. Throw on top of that the posing as Jesus on the cover of a magazine (can't remember which) and he's nothing but an idiot with a good manager... Now, is me boycotting Kanye going to make any difference at all? Probably not but it's the power that I have as a consumer and I choose to use it.
I think that these days people are well aware of what unjust prejudice is. In the case of homosexual marriage, there is a degree of ambiguity.
I don't buy the point of view that children are born homosexual because that means children are born heterosexual and AFAIK children do not exhibit meaningful sexual behavior in any way.
Children are born with a gender divide. Society typically follows this as a guideline - females are generally segregated from males (locker-rooms, toilets, clothing lines, footwear). This is not prejudicial behavior any more than nature is prejudicial by there being two genders at all.
Hermaphrodites are either one sex or the other - I haven't heard of any human autogamy - and sexuality arises from social factors as well as genetic factors - having predominantly male genes will mean you receive more male-oriented social contact.
Now, homosexuality is accepted as a lifestyle even if people don't agree with it and presumably bisexuals should have the same rights. But they are bisexual so they should be allowed to marry both a man and a woman? Ah but then we're talking about polygamy. But if you limit marriage to just one partner, aren't you being prejudiced against someone attracted to both sexes?
The point being that it's all semantics. What does marriage represent and who defines it?
Once that question is answered then the choice should be easy. I don't think it can be answered because it's one of those questions defined by a majority rule.
Is the term marriage defined as the joining of two heterosexual people? If so then it's no more prejudiced than saying a gay person is gay and differentiating from straight people.
If it is decided that marriage simply means a partnership with no implications then why can't I marry 3 people? If multiple consenting adults want to be together forever, who is the government to decide my relationships? Women outnumber men greatly so weighing up the stats, it's kinda prejudiced to say men only get one wife thereby implying some women have to go without husbands.
Anyway, I don't really want to take sides because it ends up with narrow-minded people shouting bigotry no matter the points made but I thought I would try and show that it's not as clear cut as people want it to be. In that light, I also disagree with Apple's public stance as well as Google's.
What I think should happen is that companies should put up a fund and give each employee/director a portion based on rank and as individuals, they can donate to the cause of their choosing (perhaps from a list) or choose not to donate. This way the opinions of the company directors are not automatically projected onto their workers by association. I think it's unfair of them to do that.
Because even his hate mongering racist church doesn't support it...
No, it's because of all the issues, this one effects the least percentage of people, and taking a stand against gay marriage makes him look a bit more conservative. I really have so much respect for Barack Obama, and he definitely has my vote, not because he's a democrat - before I knew anything about him or heard him speak about issues I was quite on the fence about him - but because he seems to be very intelligent, strong and has an aim to treat people fairly. But this issue really stinks. I wish he would be as outspoken as Colin Powell, but if he gets into office I have hopes he will be.
I think that these days people are well aware of what unjust prejudice is. In the case of homosexual marriage, there is a degree of ambiguity.
I don't buy the point of view that children are born homosexual because that means children are born heterosexual and AFAIK children do not exhibit meaningful sexual behavi in any way.
A catepillar isn't born a butterfly, but that does mean it has a choice not proceed with the next step in its life process. I don't think anyone is arguing that babies are born with either straight or gay tendencies, but that the physical constructs that make up the psychie are mostly decided prior to birth.
Quote:
Children are born with a gender divide. Society typically follows this as a guideline - females are generally segregated from males (locker-rooms, toilets, clothing lines, footwear). This is not prejudicial behavior any more than nature is prejudicial by there being two genders at all.
There is a gender divide, because we have two genders. But that does mean that 100% of all people are regulated, either by mistake or design, to be attracted to the opposite sex.
Quote:
Hermaphrodites are either one sex or the other - I haven't heard of any human autogamy - and sexuality arises from social factors as well as genetic factors - having predominantly male genes will mean you receive more male-oriented social contact.
By defintion they have both sex organs, though I haven't read of a situation where the either organ was able to promote life.
Quote:
Now, homosexuality is accepted as a lifestyle even if people don't agree with it and presumably bisexuals should have the same rights. But they are bisexual so they should be allowed to marry both a man and a woman? Ah but then we're talking about polygamy. But if you limit marriage to just one partner, aren't you being prejudiced against someone attracted to both sexes?
That is like me saying because I'm in love with more than one women I should be allowed to marry both of them. A legal union is two, which isn't likely to change any time soon. But you bring up an interesting point. Mormons still practice polygomy albeit not under law, and from a biogical standpoint it makes sense as a single dominate male doesn't have the gestation limitations like women do. But I disagree with that practice in society as I feel it treads on civil rights of women.
Quote:
The point being that it's all semantics. What does marriage represent and who defines it?
Once that question is answered then the choice should be easy. I don't think it can be answered because it's one of those questions defined by a majority rule.
Is the term marriage defined as the joining of two heterosexual people? If so then it's no more prejudiced than saying a gay person is gay and differentiating from straight people.
If it is decided that marriage simply means a partnership with no implications then why can't I marry 3 people? If multiple consenting adults want to be together forever, who is the government to decide my relationships? Women outnumber men greatly so weighing up the stats, it's kinda prejudiced to say men only get one wife thereby implying some women have to go without husbands.
How it's defined has always varied by religion, all this opposition does is allow same sex couple to have a legally recognized union. The Catholics don't recognize divorce, most Christians dont recognize polygomy. This isn't about religion, but about civil rights under law. If you think that gay couples should be allowed t date each other, then I don't see a reason not to let gay couples marry under the law. Personally, I'd rather get rid of the whole idea of a legal union altogeter. If you want to do it under your God, so be it; if you want to get benefits from work or Gov't then prove that you have lived together for x-many years. I know of people got married to "save" their relationship or to prove their commitment to each other. I think that is hogwash.
Quote:
Anyway, I don't really want to take sides because it ends up with narrow-minded people shouting bigotry no matter the points made but I thought I would try and show that it's not as clear cut as people want it to be. In that light, I also disagree with Apple's public stance as well as Google's.
What I think should happen is that companies should put up a fund and give each employee/director a portion based on rank and as individuals, they can donate to the cause of their choosing (perhaps from a list) or choose not to donate. This way the opinions of the company directors are not automatically projected onto their workers by association. I think it's unfair of them to do that.
SpamSandwich has been asking for a decent argument that is in favour of Prop. 8, I think he finally got it. Nice posting.
Its as forward thinking as Apple taking away firewire from the Macbook ...lolololol sorry had to say this.
Why did they do it, I suspect that they are forward thinking in that this move is inevitable and just. People (heteros or gays) shouldn?t be obliged to get married but we should give them that possibility if they want it. Good move Apple. I also think that most of the creative people in this world are Gay so I suspect a lot of them use Apple products (or are employees), just my thought.
Again, it is not about whether homosexuality is good or not. The problem is that many diehard apple fans will switch now to linux or even worse windows. Most of us have opinion about this problem, so buying apple products means supporting homosexuality. Remember the incident with McDonald? People even stopped to buy their hamburgers.
I don't believe for one minute that any diehard Apple fans will switch, despite what some of them are saying on here. Buying an occasional burger from Wendy's instead of McDonalds is one thing. Changing your preferred hardware and software is quite another; especially when, as has already been pointed out, the alternative's policies on homosexuality suggest that they are in accord with Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrrrrrrrr
Homosexuality is no longer someones personal opinion. Many religions just deny it and there are a lot of fighting politicans. Some religions state the answer cleary. I suppose it's even prohibited in islam and no one objects it.
Homosexuality has never been 'someone's personal opinion', it is a fact of life and no amount of denial by any backward looking religion will alter that fact.
gosh, nothing better than barmy liberal initiatives make the gender benders come out of the woodwork. Eleven pages of drivel and counting. Bad initiative - Apple should stay out of politics and concentrate on what they do best. Apple's customers around the world wouldn't have the faintest idea of what Prop 8 campaign is and couldn't care less, but for Apple to lend its name to this pc campaign it just attracts derision.
gosh, nothing better than barmy liberal initiatives make the gender benders come out of the woodwork. Eleven pages of drivel and counting. Bad initiative - Apple should stay out of politics and concentrate on what they do best. Apple's customers around the world wouldn't have the faintest idea of what Prop 8 campaign is and couldn't care less, but for Apple to lend its name to this pc campaign it just attracts derision.
please go back to your own woodwork (closet), sarges.
Black,Yellow,White outside looks it's different but inside we are the same HUMAN so please don't separate the humanity by the race. We are in the same world and only one world the right things that we should do is "Be A Nice And Help Each Other"
Dude, using big type is so gay!
Ooops!
While I'm very busy working on the campaign to elect a Black, Muslim, Communist, Terrorist-sympathizer who will break into your homes at 3am, butt-rape your sons, and force your daughters into same-sex marriages...all the while raising your taxes and making abortion mandatory, I couldn't pass this thread up.
Ignorance is wrong. Bigotry is wrong. Intolerance is wrong. Equating homosexuality with pedophilia is wrong. Being small minded is wrong. However, clearly no one is telling you that you don't have the right to be or do any of these things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YTV
Sorry I'm not religious. But I do recognize that things are either right or wrong.
Its so bad, bacause its wrong. Just like pedophilia is wrong. Just like stabbing random old ladies is wrong. Just like touching your sister is wrong. Its just plain wrong.
Why would I be scared they would make me gay? That is the stupidest thing I ever heard. Would I be scared of becoming a pedophile if pedophilia was legalized or becoming a crackhead if crack was legalized? Seriously thats the stupidest shi I ever heard and makes negative 2 ounces of sense.
As I mentioned above, many parents don't want their kids being taught about gay marriages in school (myself included). Whether you think that is right or wrong is irrelevant. It's my right to teach them the morals I believe in. You can do the same with your children, but schools do not (or at least should not) have that right.
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.
You need to get your facts straight. This will not lead to any penalties to your chuch in any way, shape or form. I guess you didn't notice that the ads pertaining to your ignorance have been removed due to the fact that they were complete and total lies. Just as it is a complete lie that teachers will have to teach gay marriage in schools.
By the way, have you notice that the main supporters of this law aren't even from CA, but instead religious groups like the Mormans from Utah. Why should I listen to them when in their religion it's OK to have more than 1 wife and marry (and have sex with) 14 year old girls. Get a clue and get your facts straight before spewing your venom on the rest of us.
Apple should not make such a donation. If Jobs and/or other executives wish to support a political cause not directly related to the operation of the company, they can and should certainly make private donations.
You are correct but God forbid that people only ever speak out when it is the safe or popular thing to do. If that were the case, who would ever stand up for the rights of the minority?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleAnt
Certainly Apple Inc. has the right to speak out on this issue, but many of their customers also have the right to feel alienated by that position. Companies that enter the political arena do it at the peril of loosing customers.
I just thought I'd log in and state for the record that I don't really care one way or another how Apple feels about this issue. I mean, there are probably worse ways to blow a hundred grand (like buy a bunch of PCs and a site license of Vista for your small office).
But since Apple, Inc. has chosen to take up this cause, my fervent wish is that all the grateful gay, lesbian and transgender society members... (did I leave anyone out? It's hard to keep the acronyms straight... whoops, pun not intentional) ...would pick up signs, march to the Apple campus and BEG Steve to put the FREAKIN' FireWire port BACK on the new MacBook!!!
Taking it off was an abomination against the creator, and was quite possibly a mistake of similar porportions as the invasion of Georgia, voting for any politician who makes more money than yourself, the internal combustion engine, wearing pointy-toed high heels with blue jeans, or marrying either of my first two wives.
(Anybody left with an ox needing a gentle, mischievous goring?)
But one question- Why does Barack Obama oppose gay marriage? Isn't gay marriage all about "CHANGE"?
Does he? Whatever his reasoning, at the minimum it should be decided by the states, but ideally government would be 'divorced' from having any say regarding this issue.
We already voted on this in california. WE BANNED GAY MARRIAGE. Then 4 stupid liberal judges on the 9nth circuit overturned our votes.
We will BAN it again. YES ON 8 signs are EVERYWHERE in socal, i have yet to see a NO ON 8 sign. I think it will be a landslide vote. Im predicting 65/35.
And apple.... I love your products, but I will never purchase another NEW one again.
As a long--time Apple lover, and as an Apple promoter to all of my friends, I find this upsetting. Apple needs to stay out of politics. Did it learn nothing from Disney?
I love apple, and God knows a lot of gay people are instrumental to the success of Apple. I love my Mac, which was designed by a gay guy, make a living with Final Cut Pro (also created by a gay man). I owe a lot to Apple. I won't stand for Apple attacking and trying to diminish my marriage though.
------
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Anyone who understands what marriage is understands that. Even a business marriage fails if it is not based on combined production of some sort. This is idiocy.
Proposition 8 is about protecting a class that needs protection. It's about preserving the rights, benefits, and requirements for the creation and maintenance of the traditional family - which is the core to the continuation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The principles at stake of a traditional marriage warrant the creation of a protected class.
Comments
On the topic of consumer power - after Kanye West did his little "Bush doesn't like Black people" thing I stopped listening to any of his music - ever. It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with some ridiculously rich guy playing the race card. If he cared about poor blacks of N.O. he would have donated a ton of his money but he didn't. Throw on top of that the posing as Jesus on the cover of a magazine (can't remember which) and he's nothing but an idiot with a good manager... Now, is me boycotting Kanye going to make any difference at all? Probably not but it's the power that I have as a consumer and I choose to use it.
I don't buy the point of view that children are born homosexual because that means children are born heterosexual and AFAIK children do not exhibit meaningful sexual behavior in any way.
Children are born with a gender divide. Society typically follows this as a guideline - females are generally segregated from males (locker-rooms, toilets, clothing lines, footwear). This is not prejudicial behavior any more than nature is prejudicial by there being two genders at all.
Hermaphrodites are either one sex or the other - I haven't heard of any human autogamy - and sexuality arises from social factors as well as genetic factors - having predominantly male genes will mean you receive more male-oriented social contact.
Now, homosexuality is accepted as a lifestyle even if people don't agree with it and presumably bisexuals should have the same rights. But they are bisexual so they should be allowed to marry both a man and a woman? Ah but then we're talking about polygamy. But if you limit marriage to just one partner, aren't you being prejudiced against someone attracted to both sexes?
The point being that it's all semantics. What does marriage represent and who defines it?
Once that question is answered then the choice should be easy. I don't think it can be answered because it's one of those questions defined by a majority rule.
Is the term marriage defined as the joining of two heterosexual people? If so then it's no more prejudiced than saying a gay person is gay and differentiating from straight people.
If it is decided that marriage simply means a partnership with no implications then why can't I marry 3 people? If multiple consenting adults want to be together forever, who is the government to decide my relationships? Women outnumber men greatly so weighing up the stats, it's kinda prejudiced to say men only get one wife thereby implying some women have to go without husbands.
Anyway, I don't really want to take sides because it ends up with narrow-minded people shouting bigotry no matter the points made but I thought I would try and show that it's not as clear cut as people want it to be. In that light, I also disagree with Apple's public stance as well as Google's.
What I think should happen is that companies should put up a fund and give each employee/director a portion based on rank and as individuals, they can donate to the cause of their choosing (perhaps from a list) or choose not to donate. This way the opinions of the company directors are not automatically projected onto their workers by association. I think it's unfair of them to do that.
Because even his hate mongering racist church doesn't support it...
No, it's because of all the issues, this one effects the least percentage of people, and taking a stand against gay marriage makes him look a bit more conservative. I really have so much respect for Barack Obama, and he definitely has my vote, not because he's a democrat - before I knew anything about him or heard him speak about issues I was quite on the fence about him - but because he seems to be very intelligent, strong and has an aim to treat people fairly. But this issue really stinks. I wish he would be as outspoken as Colin Powell, but if he gets into office I have hopes he will be.
I think that these days people are well aware of what unjust prejudice is. In the case of homosexual marriage, there is a degree of ambiguity.
I don't buy the point of view that children are born homosexual because that means children are born heterosexual and AFAIK children do not exhibit meaningful sexual behavi in any way.
A catepillar isn't born a butterfly, but that does mean it has a choice not proceed with the next step in its life process. I don't think anyone is arguing that babies are born with either straight or gay tendencies, but that the physical constructs that make up the psychie are mostly decided prior to birth.
Children are born with a gender divide. Society typically follows this as a guideline - females are generally segregated from males (locker-rooms, toilets, clothing lines, footwear). This is not prejudicial behavior any more than nature is prejudicial by there being two genders at all.
There is a gender divide, because we have two genders. But that does mean that 100% of all people are regulated, either by mistake or design, to be attracted to the opposite sex.
Hermaphrodites are either one sex or the other - I haven't heard of any human autogamy - and sexuality arises from social factors as well as genetic factors - having predominantly male genes will mean you receive more male-oriented social contact.
By defintion they have both sex organs, though I haven't read of a situation where the either organ was able to promote life.
Now, homosexuality is accepted as a lifestyle even if people don't agree with it and presumably bisexuals should have the same rights. But they are bisexual so they should be allowed to marry both a man and a woman? Ah but then we're talking about polygamy. But if you limit marriage to just one partner, aren't you being prejudiced against someone attracted to both sexes?
That is like me saying because I'm in love with more than one women I should be allowed to marry both of them. A legal union is two, which isn't likely to change any time soon. But you bring up an interesting point. Mormons still practice polygomy albeit not under law, and from a biogical standpoint it makes sense as a single dominate male doesn't have the gestation limitations like women do. But I disagree with that practice in society as I feel it treads on civil rights of women.
The point being that it's all semantics. What does marriage represent and who defines it?
Once that question is answered then the choice should be easy. I don't think it can be answered because it's one of those questions defined by a majority rule.
Is the term marriage defined as the joining of two heterosexual people? If so then it's no more prejudiced than saying a gay person is gay and differentiating from straight people.
If it is decided that marriage simply means a partnership with no implications then why can't I marry 3 people? If multiple consenting adults want to be together forever, who is the government to decide my relationships? Women outnumber men greatly so weighing up the stats, it's kinda prejudiced to say men only get one wife thereby implying some women have to go without husbands.
How it's defined has always varied by religion, all this opposition does is allow same sex couple to have a legally recognized union. The Catholics don't recognize divorce, most Christians dont recognize polygomy. This isn't about religion, but about civil rights under law. If you think that gay couples should be allowed t date each other, then I don't see a reason not to let gay couples marry under the law. Personally, I'd rather get rid of the whole idea of a legal union altogeter. If you want to do it under your God, so be it; if you want to get benefits from work or Gov't then prove that you have lived together for x-many years. I know of people got married to "save" their relationship or to prove their commitment to each other. I think that is hogwash.
Anyway, I don't really want to take sides because it ends up with narrow-minded people shouting bigotry no matter the points made but I thought I would try and show that it's not as clear cut as people want it to be. In that light, I also disagree with Apple's public stance as well as Google's.
What I think should happen is that companies should put up a fund and give each employee/director a portion based on rank and as individuals, they can donate to the cause of their choosing (perhaps from a list) or choose not to donate. This way the opinions of the company directors are not automatically projected onto their workers by association. I think it's unfair of them to do that.
SpamSandwich has been asking for a decent argument that is in favour of Prop. 8, I think he finally got it. Nice posting.
Why did they do it, I suspect that they are forward thinking in that this move is inevitable and just. People (heteros or gays) shouldn?t be obliged to get married but we should give them that possibility if they want it. Good move Apple. I also think that most of the creative people in this world are Gay so I suspect a lot of them use Apple products (or are employees), just my thought.
Again, it is not about whether homosexuality is good or not. The problem is that many diehard apple fans will switch now to linux or even worse windows. Most of us have opinion about this problem, so buying apple products means supporting homosexuality. Remember the incident with McDonald? People even stopped to buy their hamburgers.
I don't believe for one minute that any diehard Apple fans will switch, despite what some of them are saying on here. Buying an occasional burger from Wendy's instead of McDonalds is one thing. Changing your preferred hardware and software is quite another; especially when, as has already been pointed out, the alternative's policies on homosexuality suggest that they are in accord with Apple.
Homosexuality is no longer someones personal opinion. Many religions just deny it and there are a lot of fighting politicans. Some religions state the answer cleary. I suppose it's even prohibited in islam and no one objects it.
Homosexuality has never been 'someone's personal opinion', it is a fact of life and no amount of denial by any backward looking religion will alter that fact.
gosh, nothing better than barmy liberal initiatives make the gender benders come out of the woodwork. Eleven pages of drivel and counting. Bad initiative - Apple should stay out of politics and concentrate on what they do best. Apple's customers around the world wouldn't have the faintest idea of what Prop 8 campaign is and couldn't care less, but for Apple to lend its name to this pc campaign it just attracts derision.
please go back to your own woodwork (closet), sarges.
Black,Yellow,White outside looks it's different but inside we are the same HUMAN so please don't separate the humanity by the race. We are in the same world and only one world the right things that we should do is "Be A Nice And Help Each Other"
Dude, using big type is so gay!
Ooops!
While I'm very busy working on the campaign to elect a Black, Muslim, Communist, Terrorist-sympathizer who will break into your homes at 3am, butt-rape your sons, and force your daughters into same-sex marriages...all the while raising your taxes and making abortion mandatory, I couldn't pass this thread up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRT3zs23sLk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCimI9QUtc0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5i6BHBuqxE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_IYrltqYrU
^^^^^^ Frugality's Sister ^^^^^^^
Sorry I'm not religious. But I do recognize that things are either right or wrong.
Its so bad, bacause its wrong. Just like pedophilia is wrong. Just like stabbing random old ladies is wrong. Just like touching your sister is wrong. Its just plain wrong.
Why would I be scared they would make me gay? That is the stupidest thing I ever heard. Would I be scared of becoming a pedophile if pedophilia was legalized or becoming a crackhead if crack was legalized? Seriously thats the stupidest shi I ever heard and makes negative 2 ounces of sense.
As I mentioned above, many parents don't want their kids being taught about gay marriages in school (myself included). Whether you think that is right or wrong is irrelevant. It's my right to teach them the morals I believe in. You can do the same with your children, but schools do not (or at least should not) have that right.
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.
You need to get your facts straight. This will not lead to any penalties to your chuch in any way, shape or form. I guess you didn't notice that the ads pertaining to your ignorance have been removed due to the fact that they were complete and total lies. Just as it is a complete lie that teachers will have to teach gay marriage in schools.
By the way, have you notice that the main supporters of this law aren't even from CA, but instead religious groups like the Mormans from Utah. Why should I listen to them when in their religion it's OK to have more than 1 wife and marry (and have sex with) 14 year old girls. Get a clue and get your facts straight before spewing your venom on the rest of us.
Certainly Apple Inc. has the right to speak out on this issue, but many of their customers also have the right to feel alienated by that position. Companies that enter the political arena do it at the peril of loosing customers.
But since Apple, Inc. has chosen to take up this cause, my fervent wish is that all the grateful gay, lesbian and transgender society members... (did I leave anyone out? It's hard to keep the acronyms straight... whoops, pun not intentional) ...would pick up signs, march to the Apple campus and BEG Steve to put the FREAKIN' FireWire port BACK on the new MacBook!!!
Taking it off was an abomination against the creator, and was quite possibly a mistake of similar porportions as the invasion of Georgia, voting for any politician who makes more money than yourself, the internal combustion engine, wearing pointy-toed high heels with blue jeans, or marrying either of my first two wives.
(Anybody left with an ox needing a gentle, mischievous goring?)
But AppleInsider has a lot of new members.
Yes, it's very suspicious. Are hardcore right-wing trolls scouring the web in an attempt to convert 'on-the-fence' independents?
There are a lot of new members that signed up just to comment on this thread. AI need more controversial articles.
Just think of the page ranking they will now have. Great for setting advertising rates. Expect more "articles" like this.
Let gays get married-
1.) It's good for the economy.
But one question- Why does Barack Obama oppose gay marriage? Isn't gay marriage all about "CHANGE"?
Does he? Whatever his reasoning, at the minimum it should be decided by the states, but ideally government would be 'divorced' from having any say regarding this issue.
SO FRIGGIN GLAD I'M CANADIAN!
Heres the thing.....
We already voted on this in california. WE BANNED GAY MARRIAGE. Then 4 stupid liberal judges on the 9nth circuit overturned our votes.
We will BAN it again. YES ON 8 signs are EVERYWHERE in socal, i have yet to see a NO ON 8 sign. I think it will be a landslide vote. Im predicting 65/35.
And apple.... I love your products, but I will never purchase another NEW one again.
I love apple, and God knows a lot of gay people are instrumental to the success of Apple. I love my Mac, which was designed by a gay guy, make a living with Final Cut Pro (also created by a gay man). I owe a lot to Apple. I won't stand for Apple attacking and trying to diminish my marriage though.
------
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Anyone who understands what marriage is understands that. Even a business marriage fails if it is not based on combined production of some sort. This is idiocy.
Proposition 8 is about protecting a class that needs protection. It's about preserving the rights, benefits, and requirements for the creation and maintenance of the traditional family - which is the core to the continuation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The principles at stake of a traditional marriage warrant the creation of a protected class.