Apple applauds US Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage

1356789

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 164
    websnapwebsnap Posts: 224member
    mercury99 wrote: »
    What's next? Marriage equality for polygamists? For human-animal couples?

    It says more about you that you think those are the same thing or some how parallel. :no:
  • Reply 42 of 164


    *Someone please delete this double post? I have no idea how.

  • Reply 43 of 164

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mercury99 View Post


     


    What's next? Marriage equality for polygamists? For human-animal couples?



    I don't support it, I don't like it, but if three consenting adults want to have a mutual relationship between each other... why should the government stop them?


     


    The government should stay out of people's lives as much as possible.


     


    Additionally, it is very stupid to compare same-sex couples with human-animal couples. Same sex couples are two consenting adults, where as the example you mentioned is abusing an animal that doesn't have the ability to reason.

  • Reply 44 of 164
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    You'd think Cook & Co. would have more important things to worry about. image


     


    Yes, because worrying about a box full of wires is more important than civil rights. 


     


    I think you need to look at your priorities if the next iPad means more to your than human rights.

  • Reply 45 of 164

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by shadash View Post


     


    The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection of the laws."  Look it up.  



    So why aren't we protecting polygamists? Or for that matter polyandrous? I'd like to go fishing this weekend while that other guy mows the lawn.

  • Reply 46 of 164
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    My view is that the only real purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children in a stable environment with both sexes.  Therefore I am against anything other than civil unions in other cases.  That said, I think government should not even be involved in marriage, after all a marriage license is always a threesome, three parties:  the couple and government.  Marriage should be a private institution and stay out of government all together!  


     


    It seems just about the same sex marriage pushers just want the bennies, which will just raise the prices and lower the wages for everyone ultimately.  Then anyone who are roommates will "get married", just for the benefits...  uggh.  :(

     


     


    Then what about all those couples that don't have kid or can't have kids??? Your saying you favor nullifying their marriage after say 12 months if not producing kids? And don't give me that "possibility of kids" BS...


     


    Oh, please actually learn your history before speaking... marriage was around way before religion, it is not the government that should remove it's self it would be religion. Back when people got married they would have a town gathering where everyone used to come. When the towns got to large, the only place big enough for ceremonies usually were the churches. Even today, priest are given temporary notary powers to sign the marriage licence. You don't need a priest, you can go down to your town hall have a judge marry you... no religion necessary.


     


    Befits that go along with marriage, many of the 1200+ of them do not involve kids. Legal right to property bought together, medical decisions, etc. List goes on and on. And I know multiple couples that are married "just for benefits" and don't have kids. My aunt is one of them. Divorced and remarried to the same guy 4 times over the years, and it is just "for the benefits" because she can't have kids. I know multiple same sex couples been together 20+ years and are always worried because they are not married that if something happens to one of them, their family can come in and take everything and leave the other one out in the cold with nothing, because they are not married and have that protection. And before you say "there is legal paperwork", yep gets thrown out of court or not even paid attention too. You can Google the CA case about housing, and TN for the medical. Both couples had all the paperwork and both times the paperwork was just ignored.


     


    So from your name I take it your to be a conservative? Then need I remind you that conservatives are for smaller government and person responsibility. Which means government should not be tell anyone who they can or can't marry. And it should be up to the individual to marry whom they wish.


     


    As for topic - Apple has every right to make any time of statements they want to make. It is up to you to decide if you want to keep doing business with them due to it. I for one have many corps I do not buy anything from due to their practices, or public statements. I commend Apple for believing in equality in everything not just something for some people.

  • Reply 47 of 164
    sambirasambira Posts: 90member


    I think that civil unions should be afforded the same benefits as the legal aspect of married people.  Also, dissolving a civil union should be the same as a divorce from the legal aspect.  The fact that states are trying to eliminate legal benefits unless the union is called a marriage is where the problem lies.  The states are just trying to avoid the only aspect of a marriage they have a say in by lumping it all into the union called marriage.  Allow civil unions to have the same rights and privileges as marriage under the law, then there won't be an issue here with the term marriage.

  • Reply 48 of 164
    mercury99mercury99 Posts: 251member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by alexmarrero View Post


    I don't support it, I don't like it, but if three consenting adults want to have a mutual relationship between each other... why should the government stop them?


     


    The government should stay out of people's lives as much as possible.


     


    Additionally, it is very stupid to compare same-sex couples with human-animal couples. Same sex couples are two consenting adults, where as the example you mentioned is abusing an animal that doesn't have the ability to reason.



     


    Who are you to judge what is "stupid"? You "should stay out of people's lives as much as possible".


     


    Give everybody equal rights - it is democracy! 

  • Reply 49 of 164
    mercury99mercury99 Posts: 251member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by justamacguy View Post


    So why aren't we protecting polygamists? Or for that matter polyandrous? I'd like to go fishing this weekend while that other guy mows the lawn.



     


    That's right, why not? It looks like clear discrimination.

  • Reply 50 of 164
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,458member
    mercury99 wrote: »
    Who are you to judge what is "stupid"? You "should stay out of people's lives as much as possible".

    Give everybody equal rights - it is democracy! 

    RIght! Cause animals are people too and protected under the Bill of...... The US Const......
  • Reply 51 of 164
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,458member
    So why aren't we protecting polygamists? Or for that matter polyandrous?

    I'm OK with the first but the latter is just whack...
  • Reply 52 of 164
    ziadjkziadjk Posts: 55member
    bigmc6000 wrote: »
    Really? "Human rights"?  The "right" to pay more taxes?  The "right" to... what exactly?  No where in any part of the US Constitution does it say marriage is a "right" nor should they be involved in what the definition of marriage is in the first place.

    I have a feeling you think human rights only exists in America.
  • Reply 53 of 164
    mercury99mercury99 Posts: 251member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post





    RIght! Cause animals are people too and protected under the Bill of...... The US Const......


     


    But people are protected and may be they would want this kind of rights.


     


    One can argue, that the fact that animals are not protected, does not mean that this is right and fair. At times even people-minorities and women were not protected by the US Constitution.  

  • Reply 54 of 164
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,608member


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post



    This thread could go south anytime.


     



    In record time....


     


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by mercury99 View Post


     


    What's next? Marriage equality for polygamists? For human-animal couples?




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by justamacguy View Post


    So why aren't we protecting polygamists? Or for that matter polyandrous? I'd like to go fishing this weekend while that other guy mows the lawn.




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    It seems just about the same sex marriage pushers just want the bennies, which will just raise the prices and lower the wages for everyone ultimately.  Then anyone who are roommates will "get married", just for the benefits...  uggh.  :(



    Nothing like a bit of same sex-nes to bring the whackos out of the closet image

  • Reply 55 of 164
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    tbell wrote: »
    Set aside the social issue, banning same sex marriage in California negatively effected Apple.
    How?
    Apple is at a competitive disadvantage if its gay employees cannot share their benefits with their spouses
    Apple's gay employees have been able to include their significant other in full benefits since ~1992.
    The problem with civil unions is states like California wrote the anti gay marriage legislation to disallow same sex couples to share employee benefits made available to married people.
    It's not "disallowed". It's simply that is is not mandated by the state.
    Any company/local government can allow full benefits to gay employees/partners if they wish.
  • Reply 56 of 164
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member


    What's most interesting (and ironic) here is that, I'll bet that many, most or all of the people patting Apple on the back for speaking out on this subject are the same people who (privately or publicly) were bitching about and denouncing the CEO of Chic-fil-a for expressing his opinion on the subject of same-gender marriage.

  • Reply 57 of 164
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    mj1970 wrote: »
    What's most interesting (and ironic) here is that, I'll bet that many, most or all of the people patting Apple on the back for speaking out on this subject are the same people who (privately or publicly) were bitching about and denouncing the CEO of Chic-fil-a for expressing his opinion on the subject of same-gender marriage.
    BAM!
    QTF
  • Reply 58 of 164
    doh123doh123 Posts: 323member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Smurfman View Post


    This is a sad day for America. God's goodness and truth continue to be pushed to the curb. It will come back to bite us in the butt - like ignoring the "Danger no smoking or open flames" at a gas station or jumping out of a plane with the belief that gravity does not exist. Foolish and deadly.



    I get tired of "Christians" (and goes with other religions as well, but as a Christian, I'll just mention it) that think its a good idea to use law to force Christian principles on other people.


     


    Jesus told us to spread the news and teach people... help lead them to Jesus and get them saved... not to form some Christian nation where you can live comfortably and force your views on everyone else.


     


    Trying to force Christian views on other people does the exact opposite of what we are supposed to do... it turns people away from the Lord.  People have the right to make their own decisions.  Jesus doesn't force himself on anyone, and we aren't here to be forceful either.


     


    If the majority of the people want to allow Gay Marriage, then it should be allowed.  I think people mix up legal/illegal with right/wrong too much.  Legal doesn't mean something is right... illegal doesn't mean its wrong.

  • Reply 59 of 164
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by doh123 View Post


    I get tired of "Christians" (and goes with other religions as well, but as a Christian, I'll just mention it) that think its a good idea to use law to force Christian principles on other people.



     


    I'll go one better:


     


    I get tired of anyone (regardless of religious belief or political persuasion) that think it's a good idea to use law to force their principles on other people.

  • Reply 60 of 164
    thebumthebum Posts: 58member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sambira View Post


    I think that civil unions should be afforded the same benefits as the legal aspect of married people.  Also, dissolving a civil union should be the same as a divorce from the legal aspect.  The fact that states are trying to eliminate legal benefits unless the union is called a marriage is where the problem lies.  The states are just trying to avoid the only aspect of a marriage they have a say in by lumping it all into the union called marriage.  Allow civil unions to have the same rights and privileges as marriage under the law, then there won't be an issue here with the term marriage.





    Well put.  Marriage originated as a religious rite, so by getting into the business of marriage, the Government is crossing the church/state divide, which is a two-way separation BTW.  I have no problems with civil unions and agree that they should be afforded the same protections as marriage.  Some people would say it's just a question of semantics, but I see it as something with a deeper meaning.

Sign In or Register to comment.