So let me get this straight, Is apple applauding the fact that the supreme court basically sided with Gov Brown and Attorney General Harris on NOT doing the job the the PEOPLE elected them to do.
LETS SEE IF APPLE IS HAPPY WHEN COURTS STOP HEARING APPLES CASES THAT ARE AGAINST APPLE BEFORE THEY GET TO SCOTUS!
Apple, I have your products, I DONT NEET YOUR JUDGEMENT!
What's next? Marriage equality for polygamists? For human-animal couples?
I see know reason why polyamorous relationships should not be formally acknowledged. I know two triads within my social network and they are lovely people.
I think you would have great difficulty establishing mutual informed consent in the second instance.
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.
Yes pretty much. The chic-fil-a guy is just on the wrong side of a civil rights issue. When people arent treated equally under the the law they tend to get pissed and are willing to protest, like with chic fil a. Its tougher to get people to protest a company (Apple) when they are promoting treating people equally.
One of them has to be wrong on this issue. So there is no irony that I see.
Yes pretty much. The chic-fil-a guy is just on the wrong side of a civil rights issue. When people arent treated equally under the the law they tend to get pissed and are willing to protest, like with chic fil a. Its tougher to get people to protest a company (Apple) when they are promoting treating people equally.
One of them has to be wrong on this issue. So there is no irony that I see.
Your opinions about who is on the right or wrong side of the issue aside, the irony (and hypocrisy) is in the criticizing (or praising) the head of a company for commenting on the issue merely because you disagree (or agree) with the position they hold.
It's not specifically about the position per se, it's about the criticism (or praise) of the company head merely for speaking out on the issue.
You don't like one's position, so you criticize him for expressing his opinion.
You do like one's position, so you praise him for expressing his opinion.
The further fact is that the guy from Chic-fil-a wasn't even raked over the coals for speaking about any specific law or legal decision (as Apple has done) but rather for expressing his opinion about what a biblical marriage is.
Your opinions about who is on the right or wrong side of the issue aside, t<span style="line-height:1.231;">he irony (and hypocrisy) is in the criticizing (or praising) the head of a company for </span>
<em style="line-height:1.231;">commenting</em>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">on the issue merely because you disagree (or agree) with the position they hold.</span>
It's not specifically about the position per se, it's about the criticism (or praise) of the company head merely for speaking out on the issue.
You don't like one's position, so you criticize him for expressing his opinion.
You do like one's position, so you praise him for expressing his opinion.
The further fact is that the guy from Chic-fil-a wasn't even raked over the coals for speaking about any specific law or legal decision (as Apple has done) but rather for expressing his opinion about what a biblical marriage is.
It wasn't for having an opinion that chic fil a was criticized. It's that his opinion involved denying rights to a group based on his opinion of the bible. So in turn lots of people gave their opinion on his opinion. Those same people happen to agree with Apple (and the Supreme Court) on this issue. No one (reasonable)would say that chic fil a didnt have a right to say what he did, but everyone else has that same right too.
The mistake you have made, however is that in saying you have "fixed" you have implied that what was said was wrong. Do you have any special knowledge that would support this implication? Probably not.
30 years of personal experience, not that I would expect you to take my word for it.
Apple has taken a stand, and good for them. I still can't believe that there are actually people who think they should decide who other people should love or marry - but, of course, if you have a huge imaginary friend in the sky, you're probably a bit crazy anyhow, so maybe it shouldn't be a surprise...
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.
So, then heterosexual couples that are either infertile or past reproduction age should be forced to separate, since they can't bear children?
"Bennies"... Yes, like rights to hospital visitation, health insurance, joint tax filings, sick leave, property rights, etc.—like "normal" married people have.
It might also be possible that they actually love each other, just like "normal" married people do, and they want that love to be given the same affirmation (legal and social) that "normal" married couples get.
It makes total sense that Apple would comment on this issue, because a significant number of their employees—all the way up to their CEO!!!—are LGBTQ folks, so it has a large impact on the company, at the very least, for the moral of Apple employees. Apple has always been a powerful advocate for gay rights, and when it comes to the politics surrounding DOMA and LGBTQ equality, they're gonna speak up, and good for them!
Marriage is basically two people agreeing to live their lives as a unit. And that is only going to work if you are very similar people to begin with, otherwise one or the other will have to compromise too much and will begin to resent the relationship. 50% divorce rate anyone?
Now it seems to me that men have more in common with other men, and women have more in common with other women (in terms of general interests) than the other way around, so you might expect gay marriages to be more successful.
But on the other hand, I often see gay men wear more expensive clothes, or have a more expensive hair cut, than straight men. And vanity is one possible cause of marrying someone who is not your soul mate, just to associated with their fame/looks/money.
So maybe neither type of marriage will be intrinsically any more successful than the other, it will always come down to the individuals involved...
Apple should stay out of politics. It is a listed company and should not be used to lobby, even if indirectly, a cause that many shareholders and employees may not agree with.
Apple should stay out of politics. It is a listed company and should not be used to lobby, even if indirectly, a cause that many shareholders and employees may not agree with.
But on the other hand, I often see gay men wear more expensive clothes, or have a more expensive hair cut, than straight men. And vanity is one possible cause of marrying someone who is not your soul mate, just to associated with their fame/looks/money.
So maybe neither type of marriage will be intrinsically any more successful than the other, it will always come down to the individuals involved...
This statement is even more common for straight marriage as people often marry for fame, looks, money, and very often just political power. Very often you see political leaders marry their "Trophy Spouse.", and they live in a loveless marriage.
So, ultimately, the government should stay out of marriage entirely. It has no business in it at all. Not defining what it is or saying who can do it (with the possible exclusion of someone exploiting a minor in some manner.)
It makes total sense that Apple would comment on this issue, because a significant number of their employees—all the way up to their CEO!!!—are LGBTQ folks...
What is a "significant number" and what source can you cite for this?
So, then heterosexual couples that are either infertile or past reproduction age should be forced to separate, since they can't bear children?
"Bennies"... Yes, like rights to hospital visitation, health insurance, joint tax filings, sick leave, property rights, etc.—like "normal" married people have.
It might also be possible that they actually love each other, just like "normal" married people do, and they want that love to be given the same affirmation (legal and social) that "normal" married couples get.
The issue we're going to run into now is whether or not those who disagree with the idea of same-gender marriage will be forced to accept it in one way or another. For example, will churches be forced to perform same-gender marriage ceremonies. Will companies be forced to provide benefits for such couples? Will businesses be forced (or sued) to accomodate a same-gender wedding ceremony even if they are morally opposed to it?
I have no problem with anyone "marrying" whomever they like (consenting adults assumed here.) To each their own. I don't agree with same-gender "marriage" personally and believe marriage is a defined by God to be between a single man and a single woman. But it's not my right to impose that on anyone else. At the same time, it no one's right to impose a differing view on my or my business or whatever. In other words, do as you wish...but it stops short when you want to compel others to support, recognize or approve of it. That, I'm sure, is the next step here.
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.
Hilarious.
Marriage was a way to bolster estates, increase you wealth by merging other families (read: selling your daughter or buying another) - for lack of a better term, pagan. Religion got into the marriage business much like it got into everything - to default convert (see: christmas/winter solstice). Marriage, as it exists today is a legal term to everyone but has spiritual connotations for some and is sacred (as is a cow in hinduism) however that doesn't mean that the spiritual connotations has to be enforced on all of society. Most importantly, one family's marriage does not negate the personal and legal importance of another's if both are viewed on equal footing - unless you are petty and just want to view yourself above someone else.
Comments
Is apple applauding the fact that the supreme court basically sided with Gov Brown and Attorney General Harris on NOT doing the job the the PEOPLE elected them to do.
LETS SEE IF APPLE IS HAPPY WHEN COURTS STOP HEARING APPLES CASES THAT ARE AGAINST APPLE BEFORE THEY GET TO SCOTUS!
Apple, I have your products, I DONT NEET YOUR JUDGEMENT!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury99
What's next? Marriage equality for polygamists? For human-animal couples?
I see know reason why polyamorous relationships should not be formally acknowledged. I know two triads within my social network and they are lovely people.
I think you would have great difficulty establishing mutual informed consent in the second instance.
Yes pretty much. The chic-fil-a guy is just on the wrong side of a civil rights issue. When people arent treated equally under the the law they tend to get pissed and are willing to protest, like with chic fil a. Its tougher to get people to protest a company (Apple) when they are promoting treating people equally.
One of them has to be wrong on this issue. So there is no irony that I see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David
Yes pretty much. The chic-fil-a guy is just on the wrong side of a civil rights issue. When people arent treated equally under the the law they tend to get pissed and are willing to protest, like with chic fil a. Its tougher to get people to protest a company (Apple) when they are promoting treating people equally.
One of them has to be wrong on this issue. So there is no irony that I see.
Your opinions about who is on the right or wrong side of the issue aside, the irony (and hypocrisy) is in the criticizing (or praising) the head of a company for commenting on the issue merely because you disagree (or agree) with the position they hold.
It's not specifically about the position per se, it's about the criticism (or praise) of the company head merely for speaking out on the issue.
You don't like one's position, so you criticize him for expressing his opinion.
You do like one's position, so you praise him for expressing his opinion.
The further fact is that the guy from Chic-fil-a wasn't even raked over the coals for speaking about any specific law or legal decision (as Apple has done) but rather for expressing his opinion about what a biblical marriage is.
It wasn't for having an opinion that chic fil a was criticized. It's that his opinion involved denying rights to a group based on his opinion of the bible. So in turn lots of people gave their opinion on his opinion. Those same people happen to agree with Apple (and the Supreme Court) on this issue. No one (reasonable)would say that chic fil a didnt have a right to say what he did, but everyone else has that same right too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
The mistake you have made, however is that in saying you have "fixed" you have implied that what was said was wrong. Do you have any special knowledge that would support this implication? Probably not.
30 years of personal experience, not that I would expect you to take my word for it.
Apple has taken a stand, and good for them. I still can't believe that there are actually people who think they should decide who other people should love or marry - but, of course, if you have a huge imaginary friend in the sky, you're probably a bit crazy anyhow, so maybe it shouldn't be a surprise...
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall
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.
So, then heterosexual couples that are either infertile or past reproduction age should be forced to separate, since they can't bear children?
"Bennies"... Yes, like rights to hospital visitation, health insurance, joint tax filings, sick leave, property rights, etc.—like "normal" married people have.
It might also be possible that they actually love each other, just like "normal" married people do, and they want that love to be given the same affirmation (legal and social) that "normal" married couples get.
It makes total sense that Apple would comment on this issue, because a significant number of their employees—all the way up to their CEO!!!—are LGBTQ folks, so it has a large impact on the company, at the very least, for the moral of Apple employees. Apple has always been a powerful advocate for gay rights, and when it comes to the politics surrounding DOMA and LGBTQ equality, they're gonna speak up, and good for them!
Marriage is basically two people agreeing to live their lives as a unit. And that is only going to work if you are very similar people to begin with, otherwise one or the other will have to compromise too much and will begin to resent the relationship. 50% divorce rate anyone?
Now it seems to me that men have more in common with other men, and women have more in common with other women (in terms of general interests) than the other way around, so you might expect gay marriages to be more successful.
But on the other hand, I often see gay men wear more expensive clothes, or have a more expensive hair cut, than straight men. And vanity is one possible cause of marrying someone who is not your soul mate, just to associated with their fame/looks/money.
So maybe neither type of marriage will be intrinsically any more successful than the other, it will always come down to the individuals involved...
Hmmm. I thought Anderson Cooper was the most powerful gay man.
My mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAPL II
Apple should stay out of politics. It is a listed company and should not be used to lobby, even if indirectly, a cause that many shareholders and employees may not agree with.
And politics should stay out of LOVE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks
30 years of personal experience, not that I would expect you to take my word for it.
With Tim Cook?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
But on the other hand, I often see gay men wear more expensive clothes, or have a more expensive hair cut, than straight men. And vanity is one possible cause of marrying someone who is not your soul mate, just to associated with their fame/looks/money.
So maybe neither type of marriage will be intrinsically any more successful than the other, it will always come down to the individuals involved...
This statement is even more common for straight marriage as people often marry for fame, looks, money, and very often just political power. Very often you see political leaders marry their "Trophy Spouse.", and they live in a loveless marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmikeo
And politics should stay out of LOVE.
So, ultimately, the government should stay out of marriage entirely. It has no business in it at all. Not defining what it is or saying who can do it (with the possible exclusion of someone exploiting a minor in some manner.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futuristic
It makes total sense that Apple would comment on this issue, because a significant number of their employees—all the way up to their CEO!!!—are LGBTQ folks...
What is a "significant number" and what source can you cite for this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futuristic
So, then heterosexual couples that are either infertile or past reproduction age should be forced to separate, since they can't bear children?
"Bennies"... Yes, like rights to hospital visitation, health insurance, joint tax filings, sick leave, property rights, etc.—like "normal" married people have.
It might also be possible that they actually love each other, just like "normal" married people do, and they want that love to be given the same affirmation (legal and social) that "normal" married couples get.
The issue we're going to run into now is whether or not those who disagree with the idea of same-gender marriage will be forced to accept it in one way or another. For example, will churches be forced to perform same-gender marriage ceremonies. Will companies be forced to provide benefits for such couples? Will businesses be forced (or sued) to accomodate a same-gender wedding ceremony even if they are morally opposed to it?
I have no problem with anyone "marrying" whomever they like (consenting adults assumed here.) To each their own. I don't agree with same-gender "marriage" personally and believe marriage is a defined by God to be between a single man and a single woman. But it's not my right to impose that on anyone else. At the same time, it no one's right to impose a differing view on my or my business or whatever. In other words, do as you wish...but it stops short when you want to compel others to support, recognize or approve of it. That, I'm sure, is the next step here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBum
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.
Hilarious.
Marriage was a way to bolster estates, increase you wealth by merging other families (read: selling your daughter or buying another) - for lack of a better term, pagan. Religion got into the marriage business much like it got into everything - to default convert (see: christmas/winter solstice). Marriage, as it exists today is a legal term to everyone but has spiritual connotations for some and is sacred (as is a cow in hinduism) however that doesn't mean that the spiritual connotations has to be enforced on all of society. Most importantly, one family's marriage does not negate the personal and legal importance of another's if both are viewed on equal footing - unless you are petty and just want to view yourself above someone else.