Apple CEO Tim Cook celebrates Supreme Court decision on gay marriage with quote from Steve Jobs

1356715

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 291
    danielswdanielsw Posts: 906member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

     

     

    If you understood anything about Tim, you would know that he deeply believes this issue has absolutely nothing to do with "politics", but human rights. But of course, you don't get that, and never will. Tim has cherished and expanded Tim's legacy, and understands, as you do not, that that Steve's philosophy on "think different" applied to much more than computers, painfully obvious from the 1984 ad. It's sad that you're utterly blind to this level of obviousness. 

     

    I'm a heterosexual, have no gay friends, and I've never, and will never march in gay pride parade. But unlike you, I'm happy to see others get the SAME rights as I have, without trying to restrict their actions by shoving my beliefs and morals down their throats. The legalization of gay marriage will positively affect many, and will not negatively affect me in the slightest. I think one has to be insanely selfish and mean-spirited to viciously fight against something like that. If anything, a big shame on you. Nothing that Tim Cook has said or done has ever harmed you, yet, you have no problem harming and restricting others based on your personal beliefs. 




    Very well, put, man. I totally agree.

  • Reply 42 of 291
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    I'm 100% on board with equal protection. I'm against governmental involvement with marriage and private consensual agreements. As I said, these arrangements (gay or straight) are private AND there should be no government extended benefits as a result of these presumably legally binding agreements.



    Which is a 100% Libertarian position.

     

    Libertarians: They'll take over the world and then leave everyone alone. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

  • Reply 43 of 291
    uraharaurahara Posts: 733member
    Narrowing down and limiting the 'Crazy ones' to gays... SO SAD.
  • Reply 44 of 291
    Quote:


    he came to the realization that he could help affect change by disclosing his orientation


     

    Sigh.  How is it that AI can make this affect/effect error?  Isn't this the classic example of "wrong word" usage?

  • Reply 45 of 291
    Think Different
  • Reply 46 of 291
    Should be a 400+ post thread, minus moderator deletions.
  • Reply 47 of 291
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    I agree, except as a Libertarian I believe government involvement in any consensual agreement/arrangement is anti-freedom.



    In the case of marriage, Government has to be involved because of the legal ramifications of marriage in the areas of marital assets, decision-making when one person becomes ill, estate issues, etc.     That was one of the arguments for legalizing gay marriage in the first place:  partners were not recognized by the State.   People would live together for 50 years, one would become ill and hospitals wouldn't recognize the right of the partner to make health decisions.   

     

    Let's take a completely different case:  minimum wage.   As a libertarian, you probably don't support minimum wage laws.   But let's say I reluctantly agree to take a job for $5 an hour, because I don't seem to have any other choice.    So it's consensual, but I can't live on $5 an hour.   So I apply for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.    Now the taxpayers are making up the difference.   If Government was involved, Government could pass minimum wage laws, so taxpayers wouldn't have to make up the difference.     This is where I think libertarians get it wrong.

     

    52% of fast food workers nationwide have at least one family member on welfare.   New York State pays out $700 million annually in taxpayer money to fast-food workers (and that doesn't include any Federal benefits).   That's basically $700 million in corporate welfare.     Why should I as a taxpayer have to fund the wages of fast food workers?    Let the fast food industry pay its workers properly by increasing the minimum wage.    If they can't afford it, they can raise prices or negotiate better real-estate deals.   At least in that case, it's the customers of that business who will pay, not taxpayers.   But that's a government decision, not a "consensual" decision.    Consensual decisions only work when there are no ramifications of the relationship outside of the relationship.   

  • Reply 48 of 291
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    I thought marriage was a states right?



    Regardless let's move on.



    14th Amendment; EQUAL protection under the law. States no doubt have the right to ignore ALL marriage. They can just delete all legal connection to that. 

  • Reply 49 of 291
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member

    So what you're saying is that you support states rights to become involved in consensual agreement/arrangements by banning the ones they disagree with?

    Okay. 

    "Libertarian"  :lol:

    I was trying to think how to say exactly that. Well done.
  • Reply 50 of 291
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    I thought marriage was a states right?



    Regardless let's move on.



    Equal protection laws.     Without them, we'd still have slavery or legal segregation in the south.

    Edit:  JFC1138 beat me to it above.   

  • Reply 51 of 291
    schlackschlack Posts: 719member
    I don't understand how people are talking about religious freedoms in the same sentence as this gay marriage stuff. One has nothing to do with the other.

    Unless your religion requires you to impose your religious views on others, in which case you're no better than ISIS.

    And even if you were evil enough to do this, it obviously is a double edge sword. Gay people only need to pray to the one and only gay god who says marriage is only between man and man or woman and woman and then no one can get married!
  • Reply 52 of 291
    ds92jzds92jz Posts: 90member

  • Reply 53 of 291
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,613member
    As a married, heterosexual male I applaud this decision. The decision has no affect whatsoever on my marriage or the marriages of other heterosexual couples. It simply expands the rights of those that were previously left in the dark.

    So in my pea-sized brain, I don't understand all the hoopla against this ruling. Marriage is not just a Christian ideal, right? So can we really use the bible as a talking point against gay marriage?
  • Reply 54 of 291
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    Sigh.  How is it that AI can make this affect/effect error?  Isn't this the classic example of "wrong word" usage?

    Source: "he came to the realization that he could help affect change by disclosing his orientation"

    IMHO ... When used as a verb it should be affect. He wasn't trying to effect change (as in have an effect on the change) rather create change, thus 'affect'.
  • Reply 55 of 291
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post



    As a married, heterosexual male I applaud this decision. The decision has no affect whatsoever on my marriage or the marriages of other heterosexual couples. It simply expands the rights of those that were previously left in the dark.



    So in my pea-sized brain, I don't understand all the hoopla against this ruling. Marriage is not just a Christian ideal, right? So can we really use the bible as a talking point against gay marriage?



    That's just how powerful the Bible is. Personally I like to use it as a talking point against cotton-polyester blends.....

  • Reply 57 of 291
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post



    As a married, heterosexual male I applaud this decision. The decision has no affect whatsoever on my marriage or the marriages of other heterosexual couples. It simply expands the rights of those that were previously left in the dark.



    So in my pea-sized brain, I don't understand all the hoopla against this ruling. Marriage is not just a Christian ideal, right? So can we really use the bible as a talking point against gay marriage?



    Here's the thing. Surprisingly, all nine justices specifically emphasized the importance of religious freedom and right of expression (genuinely shocked that all nine did). But, what this still does is open the door to more lawsuits. We'll be seeing more of "That mean pastor wouldn't let us get married in his church" or "That mean radio host said he disagrees with gay marriage" or "That mean baker wouldn't make me a wedding cake"

    And given how the court cases for people have been going already, this will just make things worse for people who object on religious grounds.

  • Reply 58 of 291
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    mazda 3s wrote: »
    As a married, heterosexual male I applaud this decision. The decision has no affect whatsoever on my marriage or the marriages of other heterosexual couples. It simply expands the rights of those that were previously left in the dark.

    So in my pea-sized brain, I don't understand all the hoopla against this ruling. Marriage is not just a Christian ideal, right? So can we really use the bible as a talking point against gay marriage?

    Well said.
  • Reply 59 of 291
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Here's the thing. Surprisingly, all nine justices specifically emphasized the importance of religious freedom and right of expression (genuinely shocked that all nine did). But, what this still does is open the door to more lawsuits. We'll be seeing more of "That mean pastor wouldn't let us get married in his church" or "That mean radio host said he disagrees with gay marriage" or "That mean baker wouldn't make me a wedding cake"

    And given how the court cases for people have been going already, this will just make things worse for people who object on religious grounds.

    I suspect people with deeply held religious beliefs will either sue for them to receive equal protection or shut down their business.
  • Reply 60 of 291
    kpluckkpluck Posts: 500member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by woodycurmudgeon View Post

     

    ... not a developed country that prides itself on freedom and personal liberties.


     

    Yet somehow we have far fewer personal liberties and far less freedoms than we did 30-50 years ago. Yeah progress.

     

    -kpluck

Sign In or Register to comment.