Apple Among 60 Companies to File Statement with U.S. Supreme Court Backing Gay Marriage

[rdowns]

DOMA too!

Here's a list of more companies for the haters to boycott.

Nearly 300 companies, along with several law firms and municipalities, have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Many recognizable companies signed on, including Adobe, Amazon, Apple, CBS, Cisco Systems, Citigroup, eBay, Electronic Arts, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, Google, Intel, JetBlue Airways, The Jim Henson Company, Johnson & Johnson, Levi Strauss, Mars, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Nike, Pfizer, Planet Fitness, Starbucks, Sun Life Financial, Twitter, Viacom, the Walt Disney Company, and Xerox. They are joined by the cities of Baltimore, Boston, Los Angeles, New York City, Providence, San Francisco, and Seattle, among others. One interesting signatory of note is Bain & Company, the management consultant firm that Mitt Romney once worked for — not to be confused with Romney’s private equity firm, Bain Capital.

The brief argues that DOMA places burdens on companies that impede their ability to recruit and retain productive employees because of the strains on benefits. In many ways, these companies are bound by the law to discriminate against their employees against their wishes, and they often incur financial burdens to simply find ways to navigate around DOMA. These companies make it clear that it violates their business models to comply with DOMA:

Link

 

[laurim]

I see. Where do you stand on the rest of Levitcus?

Of course, the Bible is merely a MENU of possible sins to accuse other people of. Choose the ones you want to ignore because they are inconvenient for you but definitely believe in the ones that can hurt people you don't understand. Of course, later in the bible there was the whole "Judge not that ye be not judged." or the "he who is without sin cast the first stone" admonishments against judging other people but who cares what Jesus would do when the awesome things people use to hurt other people are in the old testament.

 

[xShane]

DOMA too!

Here's a list of more companies for the haters to boycott.



Link

Glad to know anyone who uses those services/products supports gay marriage SO much

 

[doelcm82]

Glad to know anyone who uses those services/products supports gay marriage SO much

Me too. Things are definitely looking up.

 

[bradl]

DOMA too!

Here's a list of more companies for the haters to boycott.



Link

Great find!

Interesting to know this and note that every company listed is either on the Pacific West Coast or nearby, or along the NE Corridor. Nothing in the midwest or south of the Mason-Dixon line. In short, I'm expecting companies like United Airlines, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and a few others to step up and join (though it probably won't happen). Then we can all look at Walmart and say WTF.

BL.

 

[Moyank24]

DOMA too!

Here's a list of more companies for the haters to boycott.



Link

That's awesome.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[inscrewtable]

I think men like "denuded" pubes for the same reason they like women to shave their pits and legs, it's tidier. Hirsute women just aren't in fashion right now. Also, they won't get hair in their teeth . I know I prefer a man to shave down there and it's not because I like pre-pubescent boys.

You know, (and don't take this as if I'm being arrogant) (well you can if you want but there's no value in that) I could talk for days about the damage that this strange recent phenomenon causes, from overt physical to deep psychological to just plain weird, but that will be elaborated on fully on my website currently being built. But... I will say this...

The major error that most women appear to make so naturally as to not even notice how ridiculous it is, is that they seem to think that they know men. Especially 'what men like'. They Do Not.

It's difficult for me to say very much here because my work is a complete paradigm shift. When I say paradigm shift i mean it in it's true sense, like how Einstein turned the world upside down. So there is no basis for you to understand my work other than in the current paradigm.

But your superficial argument that denuding the pubic area is equivalent to shaving arms or legs, is as fallacious as equating female genital mutilation with circumcision.

To think clearly about all the issues I raise requires a bit of thought about what it is to be a human being. Where we came from (regarding out development as a species) and where we are going.

Women do not understand men at all. Neither men women. And the reason for that is that it requires a deep understanding of the fundamental human problem first. And a real commitment to honesty.

The fundamental human problem is one of 'insecurity'. It manifests in men as a fear of being laughed at (thus jealousy) and it manifests in women as a fear of death (thus anger at men looking at young girls) It's all a big F up.

Any more than that I cannot say on this forum. But you will be hearing about it soon enough.

 

[Moyank24]

I think I may speak for more than one person reading this thread when I say, what in the heck are you talking about????

**that's rhetorical, because I really, really don't want you to answer**

 

[quagmire]

I think I may speak for more than one person reading this thread when I say, what in the heck are you talking about????

**that's rhetorical, because I really, really don't want you to answer**

Translation: We're all pedophiles if we hate hair down there.......

 

[inscrewtable]

How would you define a good parent?

My point was that what's the point of having a male & female parent if they aren't good role models? If they don't provide care and love for their children?

Children have the right to a parent or parents that love them. Whether that's a man/woman, 2 men, 2 women, 1 woman, or 1 man. I'm in favor of surrounding your children with good role models, no matter the number or sex of your parents.

I'd also say (since you ignored everything else i responded to), that I invite you to try and tell my children that I've made an "unhealthy psychological choice".

And frankly, if you have children, you aren't being a good role model to them if you believe in telling them they shouldn't "condone" things and people that are different than they are.

define a good parent?

Well it would be a parent that actually has something of value to teach their children. Something of real value. A person who understands that their child, is not their child in the sense that this child may be of their flesh but not their mind. This would go for whether the parent is single, gay, or het and is separate from the issue of gay "marriage".

But in order to have something to teach the parents themselves should be emotionally mature. This is rarely the case. Humans are unlike other animals in that every other animal merely needs to stay alive and after an amount of time they will be mature. A human on the other hand has both physical growth which happens by itself, AND emotional growth, which requires some work.

I do not think that there would be many parents in America who are fit to raise children, in the current world where at a very young age they are bombarded with misinformation. So a parent really would have to be very on the ball. Parents themselves have too many of their own problems to be of any use to their children.

I don't mean to be rude (really) but it is impossible to respond to this post as it was to your other because you are talking like you are on remote control gossip mode yapping away to like minded people.

for example...

I invite you to try and tell my children that I've made an "unhealthy psychological choice".

I mean seriously do you expect me to respond to that? My only response would be to walk away, what's the point in even trying to make sense of it.

OK try this on for size...

Children have the right to a parent or parents that love them.

Yeah? Ya think. Well that is just bollox. Children have the right to not be lied to. To not have anger put on them. They have the right to not be the brunt of their parents problems. There is no such thing as "the right to be loved" that sort of a statement is the product of a lack of clarity of thought.

 

[CalWizrd]

You know ...

Maybe this is what you get from the proverbial infinite number of monkeys just a little before Gone With The Wind or the complete works of Shakespeare.

 

[Moyank24]

I mean seriously do you expect me to respond to that? My only response would be to walk away, what's the point in even trying to make sense of it.

Your responses are a long way from trying to explain what you meant when you said children have the right to a male and female parent.....And how that's better than having parents who actually want them - no matter the sexual orientation.

Now you know how I feel, because who can make sense of this:

Children should be taught toleration for the lifestyle that people choose to live, including homosexual couples however they should also be told that it is not condoned as a healthy psychological choice.

If you are going to be in favor of teaching children that homosexuality is an unhealthy psychological choice I hope you have some science to back that up. Ironic that you think parents are bombarding kids with misinformation when you are bombarding us with misinformation.

----------

Children have the right to a parent or parents that love them.

Yeah? Ya think. Well that is just bollox. Children have the right to not be lied to. To not have anger put on them. They have the right to not be the brunt of their parents problems. There is no such thing as "the right to be loved" that sort of a statement is the product of a lack of clarity of thought.

But there is such a thing as "the right to a male and female parent"? Please.

Insult me all you want, but that doesn't take away from the fact that you've written a whole lot of nothing backing up that statement.

 

[inscrewtable]

If you are going to be in favor of teaching children that homosexuality is an unhealthy psychological choice I hope you have some science to back that up. Ironic that you think parents are bombarding kids with misinformation when you are bombarding us with misinformation.

Well I have not actually given you any information yet. But OK let me just take for one teeny tiny example. Keep this in mind it's just a response to your challenge to add a bit of hard science, it's not the main game...

Let's just take male homosexuals for example. Now it may not be the case, but it is implicit for most people that they will be engaging in anal sex. From the perspective of my new paradigm I point out that anal sex is utterly pointless and unnecessary for men or women gay or not. I'm not ordering people how to live, of course people may live as they choose I have no problems with it. If I were ruler of the universe I would not make it illegal or a crime or in any way interfere in how people choose to live their private lives. So lets be clear on that. However....


But from a scientific utilitarian perspective a poop chute is not designed for the purpose, and more so for women fecal matter is very dangerous if it gets in the wrong places. People seem to have a pre microscopic attitude to bacteria as if it does not exist. Remember when women would die in childbirth in hospitals because the doctors still had blood all over themselves from recently dissected cadavers.

Even with a condom the walls of the anus are delicate and easily damage. There is no natural lubrication. And it is patently obvious that seeing as anal sex does not produce children and since the major function of the organism is to pass on genetic material otherwise the organism simply ceases to exist, then it follows that there will be no psychological or mechanical predisposition to engage in this activity.

Now lets follow this a bit further, I would contend and this would need to be established under proper research conditions, yet I contend that that many men who consider themselves to be homosexual are in fact just scared (with good cause) of women, or shy or otherwise and have sort of drifted into it as a lifestyle choice. That's cool. BUT...

Let's say a teenager at school, thinks that he may be gay, OK so he might get involved with another similar person. OK so far no harm done. Now they should at least be warned that there is a psychological line that they would not want to cross unless they know what it means, that is, if subsequently they decide they are not gay later in life and there are memories of maybe a bit of cock play with their friend, that's one thing, but if they have engaged in anal sex, then it is my contention that it puts them in a very difficult psychologically messed up condition.

Now this has been necessarily brief due to the fact I'm in this forum, so don't take this as some sort of definitive analysis. But I'm just giving you a bit of insight into the duty of care and the psychological damage we are inflicting on our children and teenagers.

This is due to the fact that the "experts" that the governments rely on for advice are themselves pretty messed up with regards to their own intimate relationships.

Apologies for being crude but sex is more than a dick going into a hole, which is what kids are being taught.

Further, girls don't need to be told how to put a condom on an artificial penis which is permanently stiff thus not really any use as far as the reality goes. They need to know how to get the phallus harder than chinese arithmetic more to the point. Comprende?

 

[Moyank24]

Well I have not actually given you any information yet. But OK let me just take for one teeny tiny example. Keep this in mind it's just a response to your challenge to add a bit of hard science, it's not the main game...
.

Wow.

So, so, so much ignorance.

Instead of making sh** up, why don't you stop and listen to those of us who have actually gone through it. As I said before, the only psychological damage being done to us and to our children is from people like you.

----------

Further, girls don't need to be told how to put a condom on an artificial penis which is permanently stiff thus not really any use as far as the reality goes. They need to know how to get the phallus harder than chinese arithmetic more to the point. Comprende?

What the hell??

And you're accusing us of having a psychological condition? I think maybe you should stop looking at us and start looking in the mirror.

 

[quagmire]

Besides pointing out the main function of the anus and the dangers of anal sex, the rest of that is not scientific.

My head hurts......

 

[inscrewtable]

OK Check this out http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3451584.htm

The relevant bit begins at 19 mins and 20 seconds.

Utter and complete bollox. These are the so called experts. Look at Craig Gross, he has his own money making anti masturbations site, and then there's self professed gay boy Ben Law, professing to know about women and having a go at the Clint Eastwood wannabe pastor Gross. Then there's Germaine Greer wanting to put her little slant on it, without elaborating. Each panelist has their pet project and none of them can see the big picture.

----------

What the hell??

Please elaborate. Is it difficult to talk in an adult way. What part did you not understand. Seems pretty obvious does it not.

 

[Moyank24]

Please elaborate. Is it difficult to talk in an adult way. What part did you not understand. Seems pretty obvious does it not.

You want me to respond in an adult way to a statement which contained this?

They need to know how to get the phallus harder than chinese arithmetic more to the point. Comprende?

It's not obvious at all. In fact, I have no idea what in the hell you're talking about....and what the hell it has to do with gay marriage.

 

[inscrewtable]

You want me to respond in an adult way to a statement which contained this?

Yes, if you expect me to engage further.

----------

The world's gorn mad

Nice to see that the doctors thought that genital mutilation for a 6 year old should be done a little later. Obviously the well adjusted parents concurred.

 

[Moyank24]

Yes, if you expect me to engage further.

I actually don't want you to engage further. You lost me at your ridiculous "teeny tiny example". That is not reality. That is the made up tale of someone looking to justify why they are homophobic.

I tried to engage in a discussion regarding your statement about a child having the right to a male and female parent - you spoke in circles and deflected instead of coming up with an articulate, real defense.

 

[inscrewtable]

I actually don't want you to engage further. You lost me at your ridiculous "teeny tiny example". That is not reality. That is the made up tale of someone looking to justify why they are homophobic.

I tried to engage in a discussion regarding your statement about a child having the right to a male and female parent - you spoke in circles and deflected instead of coming up with an articulate, real defense.

Got a bit too real did it? But you see that's okay because it's not your job. The problem is that it also gets too real for the professionals.

By the way if you want the luxury of calling me homophobic you should back it up. You're not even talking to me you're talking to an idea in your own mind.

 

[Moyank24]

Got a bit too real did it? But you see that's okay because it's not your job. The problem is that it also gets too real for the professionals.

By the way if you want the luxury of calling me homophobic you should back it up. You're not even talking to me you're talking to an idea in your own mind.

Yes. It did get a bit too real.

If by real you mean ridiculous.

 

[inscrewtable]

Yes. It did get a bit too real.

If by real you mean ridiculous.

By 'real' I meant 'real'. However if all you have left is calling something 'ridiculous' without any further explanation as to what precisely you deem to be 'ridiculous', then that's fine, I wouldn't really expect much else.

However... you do cross a line when you call me 'homophobic', that's just stepping out of the realm of ad hominem verbiage and drifting into the slanderous.

Therefore if you refuse to quote anything I've said and then show how you draw a conclusion of 'homophobic', you have revealed your modus operandi as simply using name calling to defend your lifestyle choice. Which is not really necessary, your lifestyle choice is fine by me, and I suspect that if it was fine by you then you would not need to label anything that challenges it as 'homophobic' with no further explanation of what you consider is actually 'homophobic' followed by the reasoning you used to arrive at that conclusion.

Further, if an adult, such as yourself is unable to talk to another adult such as me, in an adult way about sexual matters that affect young people, then how pray tell are you able to talk about sexual matters with your children? If you 'love' your children as you claim then surely one would think you'd be able to get over any embarrassment you may have otherwise how can they come to you with their genuine concerns.

But this is exactly why I will have a special area on my site as well as plenty of you tube parodies, where young people can get straightforward non hypocritical, deductively analysed, empirical facts that they are able to verify themselves.

 

[AdonisSMU]

By that measure, there are a lot of undercover racists as well. Too bad there isn't a massive push from Apple to help fight the injustices of Latinos and Blacks.

Then again, doing so wouldn't put the company in the spotlight.

Huh? What does my post have to do with blacks and latinos? Get a grip dude. We aren't talking about them right now. While we are at it black people were the main ones voting against gay rights in California that helped get that prop 8 law passed. So when given the opportunity to afford freedom to others Black people refused.

----------

Of course, the Bible is merely a MENU of possible sins to accuse other people of. Choose the ones you want to ignore because they are inconvenient for you but definitely believe in the ones that can hurt people you don't understand. Of course, later in the bible there was the whole "Judge not that ye be not judged." or the "he who is without sin cast the first stone" admonishments against judging other people but who cares what Jesus would do when the awesome things people use to hurt other people are in the old testament.

I just don't believe in any of the religious stuff. If I need a book someone wrote thousands of years ago in order for me to know the difference between right and wrong, something is seriously wrong with me.

 

[Oletros]

I think I may speak for more than one person reading this thread when I say, what in the heck are you talking about????

**that's rhetorical, because I really, really don't want you to answer**

You don't understand him because he is so up about us that he is the only that has seen that paradigm shift, when he publishes what he has been elaborating all of us will be enlightened

 

[inscrewtable]

You don't understand him because he is so up about us that he is the only that has seen that paradigm shift, when he publishes what he has been elaborating all of us will be enlightened

See how easy it is to make friends on the interweb. It gladdens my heart to know that I have brought you and Moyank24 together as friends united by your shared inability for logical deductive reasoning and intellectually challenged outlook.

Maybe you can assist your new playmate in fashioning some reasoning to back up the accusation of 'homophobic'.

Here's a little story, Krishna, Vishnu and Brahma are walking down the street, someone calls out 'hey Krishna', Krishna turns around. Later someone calls out 'hey Vishnu' Vishnu turns around. Then 'hey Brahma' Brahmaji turns around.

After a while someone calls out 'Hey Idiot'. All three turn around.