Apple Issues Statement in Support of Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings

[copykris]

Daily Mail? LOL. I read The Guardian thank you.

Last time I checked I lived in a democracy with free speech. The gay lobby is always on the TV, marching through the streets and jumping on any bandwagon they can find to promote their views. And if you say anything against them suddenly you're homophobic or bigoted. No I just don't agree with them. I don't agree with gay marriage. Just my view.

you don't agree with equality?

 

[Asclepio]

now i understand that ios7 GUI!!! ******* *****!!!

 

[handsome pete]

Having a biological connection between parents and their children in a stabile marriage situation is simply something that can't exist for gay couples ,the eldery, infertile couples, making them fundamentally different.

There's some more to add to your list.

Besides the fact that it's just not true.

 

[bradl]

Daily Mail? LOL. I read The Guardian thank you.

Last time I checked I lived in a democracy with free speech. The gay lobby is always on the TV, marching through the streets and jumping on any bandwagon they can find to promote their views. And if you say anything against them suddenly you're homophobic or bigoted. No I just don't agree with them. I don't agree with gay marriage. Just my view.

Not for nothing. If you live in the UK, you are living in a constitutional Monarchy.

If you live in the US, you are living in a constitutional republic. This is *NOT* a democracy. Thank the gods.

BL.

 

[cmChimera]

It's what I believe. The supreme court and I may disagree, but so be it. We don't see eye to eye on many of their decisions.

Oh ok, well when the Supreme Court believes something, it's the law.

 

[ConCat]

If the judge is acting on behalf of the state, why then should he be able to adorn the proceedings with his own personal religious symbol?

Because the state has no right to say he can't. I understand that these days he'd get in trouble for putting a giant cross behind him, but doing so doesn't mean the government is advocating any specific religion if the judge is acting as an individual. I don't believe that anyone's individual freedoms can be revoked depending on where they happen to be employed. He has the right to express his religious beliefs along with anyone else who happens to enter the courtroom.

Oh ok, well when the Supreme Court believes something, it's the law.

Correct. I still disagree with them.

 

[Happybunny]

What happens in 20 years when whites are the minority in this country? How would you feel if all the African-American and Latino-American voted to ban white people from doing something because of the color of their skin?

If it was dancing in public, I would agree.

 

[JohnnyQuest]

Oooh! Apple gettin you girls MAD with this statement supporting the gay community!

Stay pressed!

​

 

[flux73]

I'm glad Apple support gay marriage, but what do they hope to achieve by announcing it?

Uh, the same question could be asked of anyone? They're a company very much in the public eye. What law or moral code have they broken by voicing an opinion? Who have they harmed? In which case, why *can't* they talk about it?

 

[AppleFan360]

How has this changed YOUR rights any? For the life of me, I just can't figure out why it's so important for people like you to punish gay people for being gay. It's just the most moronic thing I know of. Some people just need something to be upset about, whether it makes any sense or not.

Wow! Again, arogance shows it's head. I never said anything about being against gay marriage. I was speaking in generalities. All of our realities are difference and what is right for one person is not necessarily right for another.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Minorities have all the same rights in voting, they just no longer receive special treatment. If they want to be equal then they don't need any special laws that the rest of us don't have.

They may have all the same rights, but whether or not a state chooses to uphold those rights was at question.

"Special treatment," isn't what minorities received, it was protection against laws that prevented a disenfranchised group of people from practicing their rights.

This is absurd. You have just cordoned off every possible way of meaningful communication. Social progress would be completely halted if people stopped trying to call out and dissuade bigoted behavior.

Not really, unless you plan on making progress through insults and belittling someone's beliefs. Not everyone in the religious circle is bigoted.

 

[iSee]

Whichever side of the issue you come down on, I think it's refreshing to see corporations willing to take a stand on an issue they feel is important. I get sick of how so many companies are afraid of what their shareholders and others will think.

As someone else said in this thread, "Corporations are people." We would all benefit if people could remember that more often.

I wish I could be as uplifted by this, but I think corporations usually do this after an extensive cost-benefit analysis, including Apple. E.g., what do we have to gain by taking a stand vs. what do we have to lose by not taking a stand.

I suspect that tech companies tend to support gay rights because they tend to be forward thinking and see this as an opportunity to be in the right side of history.

 

[ResPublica]

True... I mean, the bible devotes a LOT more attention to eating pork than it does to homosexuality yet somehow there is nearly as much anti-bacon sentiment. (E.g., I have some Jewish friends that wouldn't be caught dead touching the stuff, but they don't seem to hold it against me that I eat it all the time.)

Actually, the anti-homosexuality references in the bible aren't that numerous and are debatable, at least to some degree. For one thing, Christians have a "new and everlasting covenant" which seems (to me) to override the old testament on this.

Most Old Testaments laws are no longer valid, since the death and resurrection of Jesus abolished the Law. That means that a christian can't really rely on that famous verse in Deuteronomy either. Moreover the attitude of the New Testament towards marriage is actually kind of negative (believing and following Jesus is a lot more important than family).

Paul however clearly condemns homosexuality. Moreover even sexuality between man and female has been considered a kind of necessary evil for procreation, that has to be regulated by marriage. This means that gay sexuality, not serving procreation in any way, should be most condemnable for a christian who follows his own tradition.

 

[theheadguy]

Are humans going to evolve enough for parthenogenesis? Or are you saying we simply evolve enough to change the meaning of words and meanings that have survived several millennia? ... Marriage however is extremely well defined and has significant historical precedent...There is more to this whole debate than most people are led to believe.

Take a deep breath buddy, you'll make it through the day. As of today, there is less to debate with you, not more.

Keep fighting the good fight, friend. Eventually, you'll realize you're the only one left complaining.

 

[laurim]

Having a biological connection between parents and their children in a stabile marriage situation is simply something that can't exist for gay couples ,the eldery, infertile couples, making them fundamentally different.

There's some more to add to your list.

Besides the fact that it's just not true.

You forgot gay couples who hire a surrogate or donor to have a baby that's from one of the couple's egg or sperm so there IS a biological connection.

These people are really pulling at straws to make an excuse against gay marriage. All you have to look at is the hetero divorce rate and the number of screwed up kids to know there's nothing magical about hetero marriage.

 

[peterdevries]

Actually, they are. Addiction to some substances can be a genetic cause, just like sexuality can be determined by a chemical composition in the brain.

No, people are not born alcohol addicts. They might have genetic predispositions that make them more easy to become addicted when exposed to the substance.

And it's not a chemical composition, but a physical and probably genetic trait that makes people gay or heterosexual. There is no evidence that a certain chemical compound or chemical balance determines sexual orientation. If that were true, than sexual orientation could be affected by drugs. Thank god that that is not the case otherwise the loonies would get their confirmation that it is a disease that can be cured.

 

[dec.]

Normally, corporations should stay way from politics (Starbucks!), but it seems like they're following a trend to get support.

I don't care about this issue, but quit turning the rainbow into a symbol of being gay. You can't have anything rainbow-colored these days.

Obviously you can (as long as you don't care for greasy deep fried chicken)

 

[Digital Skunk]

Most Old Testaments laws are no longer valid, since the death and resurrection of Jesus abolished the Law. That means that a christian can't really rely on that famous verse in Deuteronomy either. Moreover the attitude of the New Testament towards marriage is actually kind of negative (believing and following Jesus is a lot more important than family).

Paul however clearly condemns homosexuality. Moreover even sexuality between man and female has been considered a kind of necessary evil for procreation, that has to be regulated by marriage. This means that gay sexuality, not serving procreation in any way, should be most condemnable for a christian who follows his own tradition.

Wrong on both counts.

And it's not a chemical composition, but a physical and probably genetic trait that makes people gay or heterosexual.

If it's a genetic trait (which I more prefer myself because I agree, if it were chemical then it could be "reversed or suppressed) that means everyone has that trait.

 

[rdowns]

Once again our government thinks they know what is best for us. Why do we even vote if they are just going to overrule everything?

I don't care if we are talking about gay marriage or gun laws, just the fact that we have a voting process for a reason. If you live in a state where the majority votes for some law that you do not agree with you can get out.

Someone need to go back and read his Constitution.

 

[skunk]

Because the state has no right to say he can't. I understand that these days he'd get in trouble for putting a giant cross behind him, but doing so doesn't mean the government is advocating any specific religion if the judge is acting as an individual.

The judge is not acting as an individual. The judge is only there because of authority invested by the state. The state has no religion. The agent of the state should not dispense that authority below a partisan religious banner.

 

[donutbagel]

Yesterday, 5 individuals in black robes made it more difficult for minorities to vote by overriding an act of congress.

It's a sad day when SCOTUS takes away the rights of minorities.

Isn't the idea that Congress is going to pass something else protect equal voting rights? The Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to target the South, from what I've read.

 

[Tiger8]

my god

hopefully it's about gay marriage this time

but what if tomorrow companies start to give opinions about death penalty ?

I don't know about that, but historically a lot of wars were driven by companies, too. War is a lucrative business

 

[chrono1081]

Most Old Testaments laws are no longer valid, since the death and resurrection of Jesus abolished the Law. That means that a christian can't really rely on that famous verse in Deuteronomy either. Moreover the attitude of the New Testament towards marriage is actually kind of negative (believing and following Jesus is a lot more important than family).

Paul however clearly condemns homosexuality. Moreover even sexuality between man and female has been considered a kind of necessary evil for procreation, that has to be regulated by marriage. This means that gay sexuality, not serving procreation in any way, should be most condemnable for a christian who follows his own tradition.

I'm a Christian but I don't agree with what the English version of the Bible claims that Paul said. The word Paul uses is not directly translatable into a real word. Many Biblical scholars agree that the reference deals with pedophilia not homosexuality.

Basically the way I see it is if God didn't like gays he wouldn't have made me gay.

 

[donutbagel]

What happens in 20 years when whites are the minority in this country? How would you feel if all the African-American and Latino-American voted to ban white people from doing something because of the color of their skin?

It's called Affirmative Action. There are plenty of things that you can't do or are harder to do if your skin looks too white, including white-ish minorities like Arabs.

 

[filmantopia]

How does a gay couple reproduce?

- They don't

Reason why it needs to be illegal^

Should the same apply to sterile couples or couples who do not wish to reproduce?