“On Thursday, dozens of American corporations, including Apple, Alcoa, Facebook, eBay, Intel, and Morgan Stanley will submit an amicus brief in the landmark Hollingsworth v. Perry case broadly arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that laws banning same-sex marriages, like California’s ballot initiative Proposition 8, are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses,” Roger Parloff reports for Fortune.
“At least 60 companies had committed to signing the brief as of Tuesday evening, according to Joshua Rosenkranz, who is counsel of record on the brief and head of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. That number is expected to rise by Thursday, however, according to Rosenkranz. Others who have already committed to sign include AIG, Becton Dickinson, Cisco, Cummins, Kimpton, Levi Strauss, McGraw Hill, NCR, Nike, Office Depot, Oracle, Panasonic, Qualcomm, and Xerox,” Parloff reports. “(Update: Verizon and Cablevision have now joined.)”
Parloff reports, “In an apparent effort to avoid giving offense to customers, vendors, and employees who may favor prohibitions against gay marriage, the brief states in a footnote that the signatory companies ‘do not mean to suggest’ that such laws are the ‘product of ill will’ on anyone’s part.”
Read more in the full article here.
Related articles:
National Organization for Marriage to Steve Jobs: You’ve become Big Brother (with video) – December 17, 2010
Christian Group asks Apple to reinstate pulled ‘Manhattan Declaration’ iPhone app – November 30, 2010
California’s ‘No on 8’ same-sex marriage campaign models ads on Apple’s ‘Get a Mac’ commercials – November 01, 2008
Apple donates $100,000 to fight same-sex marriage ban in California (Proposition 8) – October 24, 2008
Whether members of Apple or any other company privately oppose gay marriage it is necessary to issue statements of corporate support it because it demonstrates that one is tolerant of deviant behavior. What’s next? Polygamy, lawful incest, beastiality? Who decides and why?
That’s your opinion and your fairy tale bible. Bible thumpers said the same about interracial marriage. Divorce is #1 problem. Tell me how equal rights for gays hurts you exactly? Many states and countries have had equal marriage rights for some time now and nothing happened.
I can’t wait for GAY DIVORCE COURT. HAHAHAHAHa.. what a joke. How does it hurt individuals? It’s anything to a libtard to demean others tradition isn’t it? STOP calling it Marriage. Have your stupid civil union.. “civil” right???… but don’t call it a marriage. That is like calling Hanukah, Christmas..IT’s not the same and disrespectful. As always it is the LIBERALS who are intolerant and disrespectful of OTHERS traditions. I don’t feel like telling my kids that MAN MAN sex is the SAME. it is NOT the same. I don’t mind that it is DIFFERENT. fine. Enjoy your butt sex and the chlamydia/aids that goes with it. But NORMAL means within the NORM. Being gay is not NORMAL. sorry you lose. Live your life. But don’t ask traditional people to change the definition of their tradition. MARRIAGE, for your Deviant behavior. (to the full definition of the word) Can’t WAIT for the backlash..
Literally the most ignorant vile comment I’ve ever read on this website. Take everything you just said replace the word “gay” with “mixed or interracial” and you are a repeat of the bigotsnthe churches bussed into the south during the civil rights movement.
So marriage is a sexual act?
So a duck and a squirrel walk into a bar……….
When it comes to humans so called deviant behavior is quite rampant, not in so much as what they do but in terms of what they do not do.
Polygamy from a zoological refers to a mating pattern in which a single individual mates with more than one individual of the opposite sex. The list of animals that engage in this is quite long. For humans, who attach the concept of marriage to sex (quite unsuccessfully in most cases) there are nearly fifty countries where polygamy is legal.
Incest within the animal world happens and you don’t have to go far to figure out that Mendel’s experiments with pea plants that furthered the advancement of modern genetics were pretty well incest based. Incest is legal in some countries including the Netherlands and Spain.
Bestiality is a tricky one, because some definitions consider it to be sexual relations between a person and an animal. Well here’s a news flash, human beings are animals, so by that definition your mother had sex with a human being, hence your mother engaged in bestial behavior, just like mine… according to that definition.
Now another definition might look at it as a human being having sex with an animal of a different species. That sort of works but if you consider that to simply be sexual relationships between two animals of different species and making a mule or a hinny is certainly a case of accepted bestiality between a horse and donkey.
A much kinkier point of view regarding bestiality is a non animal having sexual relationships with an animal. That’s the sort of things flowers do when the bees and butterflies pollinate them.
At any rate bestiality (using the sexual relations between an animal and a human definition) is permitted in a few countries, such as Sweden Denmark and legal in Germany and Russia.
The real deviant behavior is homogeneity or sameness. Diversity is stability and sameness is a real killer for an ecosystem. You just have to look at the effects of monoculture. Fortunately the vast diversity of life is decided by life because that diversity brings stability to the planet’s ecosystem.
I hope that answers your questions.
Tigers and other animals will eat their young when they are hungry. So following your logic. should we allow infanticide and cannibalism then?
Humans have in the past, they do so now and more than likely they will continue to do so in the future.
Wow, you just admitted that it’s morally acceptable to commit infanticide and cannibalism, and someone gave you five stars?
Kinda proves the argument that science does not lead to morality…
I never said that it was that is was morally acceptable to commit infanticide and cannibalism. I am just pointing out that for humans it has existed, it exist today, and more than likely it will continue to exist.
I never heard about an argument that science was supposed to lead to morality. Scientists tend to leave that to the leaders, and generals. Mind you there are some exceptions where scientists do try to meddle in moral affairs.
http://www.reformation.org/leo-szilard.html
Seriously? This is what your idea of logic has taken you to?
People are not animals; however, we do seem to act like them – I don’t know about the cannibalism, but we already participate in infanticide. . . . it’s called Abortion
People are not animals???? Yikes, hate to burst your bubble but we are, in many ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
There are a couple of ways that humans are not like animals, apart from the opposable thumb and other anatomical features. One is war, very few other animals are that inconsiderate. The other is garbage. Homo sapiens is not only the only animal but the only living thing on this planet that produces garbage toxic not only to itself but to every other living creature on earth.
No other living creature is that inconsiderate.
thanks for supporting my point; excellent argument for some of the many differences – don’t forget the ability to create and admire and participate in art, technology, religion and on and on. . . . . and you’re right on about the inconsiderate part, too
My pleasure. I don’t include the ability to create and admire and participate in art, technology and religion because other creatures are capable of that so it’s not unique to humans.
The garbage is though, and I’m glad you got that idea.
Your answer is ridiculous and does not answer the question. We are talking about rights between 2 people. Same ridic argument bible thumpers made about interracial marriage.
Again, how does equal rights for gays hurts YOU exactly?
Equal rights for gays doesn’t hurt me. I don’t have a problem with equal rights for gays or bisexuals and I am quite pleased that my country supports and legally allows same sex marriages.
A person ought to be able to marry anyone they want. You can keep your nose out of it. When it comes to liberty, you only want the kind that suits you.
In fact, your comment has outraged me so much that I am going to find a sister of several wives who has a pony. I’m going to marry them all.
I love your comments tbone!
I agree these christo-fascists are the the loudest about being “freedom loving patriots” but want to act like the damn Taliban when it comes to governance. The only freedom they love is the ability to dictate their fairy-tale reality. Meanwhile their priests prey on their children. Talk about deviant behavior.
Keep, keeping it real…good shit..
Bestality is likley next, Mammal to mammal love ….Ha…Ha..ha…!!!
My wife is a mammal as am I, and we have produced two nice mammals of our own.
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, plane and simple.
Sean Hannity is that you?
OMG! I had no idea apple prefered to penetrate from the rear. It’s time for those steel padlocked undies.
RyanM you appear to be so obsessed with what you *think* gay men do that you’ve completely forgotten about lesbians!
In a twisted kind of way what the gay men do is far more intolerable than what the lesbians do.
How so? I don’t know exactly what gay men do during sexual relations but inserting a phallus into a mouth or anus can be done with a man or a woman. In fact a picture a phallus is an anatomical structure that is unique to males but a mouth an anus have a similar structure in both sexes.
I really don’t see your point.
I understand that some gay men go bowling, while some lesbians may prefer not to go bowling. Of course, this isa all anecdotal evidence.
From a womans point of view guys that are obsessively picky about the panties they wear and their colors are instant turn-offs to most women.
Phew, I am glad I am not obsessed with the type of panties women wear, as long as they take them off. Thanks for the smile.
You have a point because you seem to talk out of your ass a lot.
In recognition of how apple likes to innovate that steel padlocked undie may not help you.
In recognition of how apple likes to innovate that steel padlocked undie might not help you.
Cue every 8 year old that posts on MDN…
Like clockwork C1, defender of the oh-so-oppressed gay community, shows up…
Apparently you think that inequality before the law is OK. If you’re a citizen of the USA, you’re not a very good one.
I’ve never seen a single, rational argument for opposing gay marriage. No, religion is not a rational basis for the law, nor is prejudice or your own preference a basis for denying people equality before the law based on how they were born.
No Ron, you’ve never accepted a single rational argument opposing gay marriage, probably because you had already made up your mind before you started listening. There are a lot of non religious reasons for opposing marriage arrangements other than the one man one woman arrangement we have now. perhaps you should look into them. If you think sexual orientation is as genetically predetermined and innate as skin colour, you’re operating on false info, which makes the foundation of your idea of equality weak.
Actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove that someone doesn’t deserve equality before the law. It’s upon your to prove that gay people are not born that way.
You’re obviously ignorant of the struggles of gay people who know they never chose to be gay, who fought it in every way possible, and yet finally come to accept that it is part of who they are, then go on to be at peace and happy with their lives, despite the profound ignorance and viciousness of people like yourself. Stay out of other people’s lives. You are unqualified to comment on them. You have no right to make decisions about their lives. They are not telling you how to live and who to love. What makes you think you have that right? And this gets to something that’s puzzled me my entire life, even as a little boy I remember wondering about it. Why do people think they get to decide how others should live? Mind your own life.
I have heard the same sob story before Ron, in print and personally. Is this where you try a little victim mentality and an attempt at public shaming to completely run away from the FACTS? The FACT is that skin colour and race cannot be treated as the same thing, so your argument for civil rights is BS. So your continual arguing that it is , is you perpetuating an untruth. If I have ‘no right to make decisions’ on your life, the gay community in turn has no right to continually demand we recognize same sex pairings as marriages. You can love whoever you want Ron, what you dont have a right is demand that the majority legitimate it.
Argument by assertion. Stating something is a fact doesn’t make it so. We don’t argue that YOU personally have to recognize gay marriages. No one gives a damn what you want to recognize. The argument is what the government does. The majority doesn’t have to recognize it, it’s not in their purview anyway. Rights are inherent, not crowd-sourced. Obviously, you don’t understand that. The only question is whether you don’t understand because you don’t want to, or are mentally incapable of doing so.
“Argument by assertion.” LOL the irony kills me. Thanks for the laugh.
I think it’s more argument by insertion.
Gee, Wil, you’re dumber than a box of door knobs.
You know I know my arguments are making sense to people? When they start insulting me personally.
Thanks!
You are incorrect on all accounts. But you can believe what you want.just don’t ignore the fact that you are wrong especially with regards to what you think the majority thinks, feels or believes. You are obviously in the minority on this one. No matter what your closed loop information trap tells you. Read the actual polls.
Will, at what age did you choose to be straight?
One rational argument that I’ve found supports heterosexual relationships (marriages) is to sustain the species. Gay marriages do no help increase the population. Gay relationships from what I understand increase when there are high population densities. At that point gay relationships would be an advantage as a way of bringing the population levels back down.
That’s not a rational argument. It treats people as existing simply to breed. There is more purpose to life than breeding. And if it’s to sustain the species, then people who are infertile, past menopause or otherwise unable to have children wouldn’t be allowed to marry either. Procreation is not the purpose of marriage. One can procreate without marriage. One can be married without procreation. It’s a classic straw man argument.
I did not say that the only purpose of marriage is for procreation. I said “One rational argument that I’ve found supports heterosexual relationships (marriages) is to sustain the species.” I meant support as an added feature or ingredient that supports the relationship on a population level. I have no problem with what you said about the other aspects of marriage and life.
Chill.
Hi Road Warrior, I’m not attacking you. I’m pointing out that what you are proposing as a “rational argument” is not actually a rational argument, but rather is a straw man argument. It’s not germane to the question of whether gay people have a right to equality before the law.
Thanks ron. I think I am getting misinterpreted around here by both sides…LOL.
I still think there may be a relevancy to it based on what I said earlier but it’s based on theoretical aspects.
Some animals show different behavioral characteristics based on population densities. I suspect humans are the same. Prior to the industrial revolution our population density was low. I suspect, but cannot prove that the percentages of homosexuals was low, lower than it is today. The rationalizing argument for opposing gay marriages at that point would simply be lack of demand. Social stigma of course would play a major role in the rationality of the day, after all a few hundred years ago people getting married at the ages of 15 was not unusual and that could be rationalized for those times because of the short life span. Today’s rationale is a lot different, but then again, we live longer.
After the industrial revolution and to this day our population has been exploding and to me that is one of the biggest issues that humankind faces. While I suspect that homosexuality (and bisexuality) is on the rise percentage wise I could be wrong. That may not matter as the sheer number of people now dictates an economy of scale so to speak to warrant the development of gay marriages.
So to your main point “I’ve never seen a single, rational argument for opposing gay marriage.” I’d still stick with what I said but with this background I’d add there was no argument for gay marriage way back when for a variety of reasons (social norms, population densities etc.). Now however there is a population level, social sophistication to promote gay marriage. That is however a change, and any change is usually met with resistance. Yes some of that is irrational, and there are those that fear change. There are some rational arguments for change, one is that we are not aware of the repercussions when we introduce something new. History is loaded with examples of that.
You can take this one step further. You could say that there is no rational argument for sum sex marriages (two male bisexuals and two female bisexuals) but there isn’t a demand for it…yet.
I suspect that there will be, and this whole issue will be revisited again.
Anyway, I don’t know if I am making sense, but you got me thinking and that is always the joy of exchanging ideas. Thanks for the kind word, it really made my day.
While I get we are on the same side of this argument, my retort to the “sustain the species” argument is that not all hetero marriage couples procreate. Also not all people who have kids are married at all.
Add to it the fact that same sex couples can use modern fertilization methods and still have children, as well as adopting unwanted children, so that argument doesn’t hold water.
Marriage has nothing to do with species survival. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with ones ability to parent either.
“my retort to the “sustain the species” argument is that not all hetero marriage couples procreate…”
what is the procreation percentage of homosexual marriage couples?
A thing which is supposed to be of a certain class, but by its very nature (not by occasional circumstance, but by its nature) excludes any of the required attributes of that class, cannot be of that class.
One of the required attributes of marriage is the possibility of procreation. While there may be an occasional circumstance where a male and a female cannot have children, that does not violate the nature of the relationship. However, a homosexual pairing by its very nature excludes the possibility of procreation, and therefore cannot by the natural law be a marriage.
The entire pro-gay-“marriage” argument, when you clear out all of the irrelevancies and misstatements of so-called “equal rights” which are actually SPECIAL rights (gays have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like anyone else), is based upon a simple emotional – and not very mature or well-thought-out – argument.
Maybe you should have a look at the animal kingdom where over 1500 species (and growing) show homosexual behavior as quite normal. Some species (dolphins in particular) will even pair bond with the same sex but will mate with females to procreate. Thinking that that being gay will destroy the population is a weak argument. You think that we just get to wave a magic wand and convert everyone?
And yes, we are born this way and not converted by a sexual predator. I would like to know when you chose to be straight (we know you didn’t) Besides, how in the world are you harmed by gay marriage? Either your marriage is strong or it isn’t, don’t blame us.
I certainly don’t think that being gay will destroy the population. What I’m saying is that it has been observed that there is a rise in population densities in homosexuality in populations. More than likely it is a reactive process, not a proactive one and it may be a mechanism that helps lower the population level, but not to the point of destroying it.
To the point of the magic wand, yes indeed I think there are more than several mechanisms at work that trigger this response. There is a magic wand for example that makes human women in a closed living condition (like a convent) develop a synchronous cyclical pattern. Pheromones, social inputs they all have an affect on individuals of a population. There is a magic wand for lobsters, who in the juvenile stages can change sex. I have no doubt that this helps stabilize the population over the long run.
There certainly are many animals that show, well I prefer to call it bisexual behavior but I know what you mean. I most definitely have looked at a lot of that, and even plants, which like some animals are hermaphroditic and self fertilizing. Some plants will respond differently depending on the carbon to nitrogen ratios, that is there magic wand. It may not convert everyone, but it does convert some.
I certainly see a lot of differences between people when I travel from an urban to a rural area. The magic wand of the media certainly promotes an association with sex and violence, one of the reasons I stay away from a lot of TV.
If you know I didn’t choose to be straight then asking me that you would like to know when I chose to be straight is can be viewed as… well I’ll let you fill in that blank, since you already seem to have made up your own mind about that.
I’ve said it before here and I’ll say it again. I am not harmed by gay marriage and I am glad to come from a country where it is legal. I see benefits to both straight and gay marriages and I hope in the future bisexual marriages will be considered.
Oh one more thing, thanks for bringing in dolphins into your post. I hope one day that the human species will become as intelligent and humane and sexually open as they are.
penelopepickles, that little piece of “research” was disclaimed by its originator well over a decade ago as having no relationship to what humans describe as “homosexual behavior.” Do your research.
And it doesn’t really matter to me if you’re born that way. So are paranoids, schizophrenics, and people who are born missing various parts of their bodies. Abnormalities do not automatically confer special rights, nor do they give anyone the right to change the definition of marriage.
Thanks Wil, for instantly proving me right and responding like an 8 year old.
Your air of superiority schtick is old, C1. You’ve often been just as insulting as some of the people who disagree with you.
And I will continue to be so, as long as you’re such a bunch of infantile assholes. But really, I only convey an air of superiority if you really are 8.
Enjoy the very wrong side of history that you’re on.
Wow her highness, CI is a Photoshop wizard and can predict the future. When’s your almanac coming out?
I didn’t predict it.
I calculated it.
Better check your calculations again. New data might be coming down…
What, has the KKK gained a few House seats?
The KKK is about racism. We’re talking about human sexuality. And I’m not white.
Try to keep up, hon.
C1 has a unique ability to bash with panache and grace. It’s fun to watch!
I remember when there was a dust-up over the “gay” imojicon. The things people say ONLY when it’s anonymous. Weak and sad people.
It should be a requirement that someone who wants to post comments on any website be over the age of 17. It must be time for recess.
Chronological age is no indicator of maturity… we need a test for determining mental age.
Note: this post is not intended to demean the voices of the young.
There really should be a way to give zero stars, or even minus stars. Otherwise, how to indicate that a post is in utterly poor taste? Give it one start to counteract those that have given it 4, but -5 would be so much more effective and appropriate. Please make it so MDN.
I’d like to see a simple thumbs up / thumbs down / inappropriate option.
I don’t care about 3 stars versus 5.
Apple as a public corporation owned by shareholders has no business endorsing or conveying any political views on any issue period. If individual employees at Apple want to convey their views do it outside company business.
+1000
Apple should not be a public company.
A person’s right to marry is not a political issue. It is a civil issue. It is a Human Issue. My personal relationship with someone else if none of the government’s business. However if the government chooses to offer benefits and privileges to a segment of the population it must offer equal access.
Gays are already afforded Civil Unions which address most of your argument. Exactly what gov. benefits are you referring to that I or others may not be informed of. The right to divorce and pay alimony, the right to pay more taxes as a married couple or the right to lawful child custody? Do you really think this is an issue that should be taken up by a company that has 100’s of thousands of employees with diverse views and opinions. Should Apple fire everyone that doesn’t agree with it’s political stance on this issue?
Actually no civil unions are not legal everywhere, they only legal in 5 states. Furthermore, our country has already explored the “separate but equal” path and found it to not work.
There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines “marriage” as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples – even if legally married in their state – will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law.
Ever hear of citizens united? Where have you been? Corporations are people too and as such enjoy more influence in our government than you or I…
How do you feel about Churches then? Should they be muzzled as well?
I don’t give 2 sh*ts about a person’s dogma. I also don’t think that just because someone “believes” something that my life should be regulated by it. You keep you your religious practices out of my bedroom and Ill keep my bedroom practices out of your churches.
My comment was in response to Steve and was half snark, half question.
I agree with your statement sir..
Sorry truth…not after you…was a generalization.
Sad beyond words Apple is now involved in social engineering! No society in history has ever endorsed, allowed or promoted same-sex marriage! Now it’s all of a sudden okay? Tim Cook needs to resign and take his sick politics with him! This is the downfall of Apple under his reign in my eyes! Companies and celebrities me to STFU! Disgusting what this country has become!
You know what would make the USA less disgusting, iMaki?
You could move to another country.
I wouldn’t look to the catholic priesthood for guidance on biblical meanings either.
It turns me on when you get all excited like that! Drinks?
You should look up “group marriages” that have indeed happened throughout history (Sandwich Islands, Melanesia, India) and even communal societies in the US (of all places) in the 19th and 20th centuries.
I’ll grant you that it isn’t a same sex marriage, more a sum sex marriage (bisexual marriages) and that will coming up next in a few years. After all the straights got it, the gays are getting it, just wait the bisexuals will be lining up.
Since you seem factually challenged, let me help you with the real answers to your assertions:
1. Wrong! More countries than you have fingers support same sex marriage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
2. Apple has supported same sex couples longer than Tim has been in charge.
Back to your cave Neanderthal!
Don’t be fooled. Get the facts about homosexuality.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/category/pamphlets/
Don’t be a fool. Get the facts on the Family Research Institute.
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/RRR/cameron.html
Sorry, this website is a ‘Christian’ based load of codswallop. Lies, bible nonsense, and simple hatred.
Don’t waste your time even giving it airtime. Wow! I feel dirty just having seen it.
Good for Apple and the other companies that support the union of two people who love each other… gay or heterosexual. Welcome to the 21st century.
Go Apple! Every person and company is a citizen of the world and has an effect on that world. I am glad to see Apple doing something good outside of their product line.
I grew up in a society that was (and still is, for the most part) monolithic, traditional and, in some respect, socially conservative (but not completely) and quite xenophobic. When you grow up in a group where almost everyone looks, thinks and behaves like you, those who don’t are intuitively rejected as wrong. Throughout my childhood and youth, I had genuinely believed that homosexuality was not natural and not normal, and that there should be a way to treat it like any other genetic disorder. I had consequently thought that it shouldn’t be accepted by the society.
Once I had moved outside of my monolithic community, I had a chance to meet people who did NOT fit into the homosexual stereotypes. More importantly, as I matured, I found out that there is absolutely nothing about someone else’s life style that could possibly be detrimental to my own. I realised that this is essentially an issue of human rights, exactly the same as the issue of inter-racial marriage from decades before, or the equality of non-whites, or the equality of women, or any other example when one smaller group of people was restricted by the society in some way, and denied certain rights and privileges that were available to others, based on some arbitrary societal norms.
It seems that the movement continues in the direction of removing these arbitrary limitations from yet another small group. I have no doubt that many who oppose this movement genuinely believe that they have right to do that. Twenty years from now, it will be obvious that they had as much moral right to object to that as their parents did to object to inter-racial marriage, or their parents did to allowing women (or non-whites) to vote.
America, the unusually conservative land among the developed world, is ever so slowly moving forward, and that is a good thing.
zzz.
Is there anything your bigot brain doesn’t hate?
Nope
well, I love the truth…not you, THE truth.
Aren’t you special. Please keep rooting for your colored ball players on your wonderful baseball team. Oh wait you hate blacks.
no, I hate sycophantic, processed, dull bricks of Velveeta such as yourself.
Since you are enamored with cheese, I’ve got some from under my foreskin I am sure you would enjoy.
Thank you for a thoughtful reply to the Neanderthals populating this discussion.
Very, Very, well said.
Well said, true! Well done!
yes! well done O Oracle Of Light! O TwoDales! the shining beacon of CNN regurgitation while liberty is destroyed under Obama Messiah!…lol, the high irony is that you knotheads will be the first to be rounded-up when the dollar collapses and there is anarchy in the streets…can’t wait!
There really is not limit to your stupidity is there?
lol, you vote five stars for yourself..and that’s the truth.
I’s sad when even Apple cannot recognize the will of the people, which s what the country was founded in. Two referendums. Both times the people of Cali said no to the idea of marriage between the same gender, and decided to keep it heterosexual.. Like it or don’t like it, there it was. But like demanding, self entitled 4 year olds who cant take someone telling them no, they continue to force something onto the majority, playing the victim and using a false sense of public shaming as tactics. The gay community may win the battle, but will lose the war, which is real public acceptance. Social engineering and propaganda will only go so far, before people get fed up.
It’s not social engineering. It is morally wrong to legally treat people inequally before the law. Right now, gay people do not get equal recognition of their relationships before the law. I’m sure you thought black people were being demanding 4-year-olds when they DEMANDED (justifiably) equality before the law. I think most of them didn’t give a damn what other people thought, just like gay people don’t give a damn what you think. What matters is that they are treated as equal citizens. Nothing about their lives is your business, nothing about their relationships is your business. Why do you think it is?
Society should not be in the business of deciding who gets civil rights and who doesn’t. It’s not a majority rule question, the majority can be just as wrong as any individual. Rights are inherent and it’s up to the government to recognize and protect those rights. That’s the entire purpose of government. Unfortunately, too many in this country are too f’g dimwitted to see that.
Heres a hint: you are treating sexual orientation and race as if they are comparable things. THEY.ARE MOST ASSUREDLY NOT. Skin colour is genetically predetermined, innate and immutable. Sexual orientation is not. Thus your argument for equality and the rights thereof completely fall apart. Dimwitted indeed.
Just because you claim that sexual orientation is not innate does not make it so. And why is it your business, anyway? What possible business is it of yours the relationships of others and who they choose to love? Get your f’g nose out of other people’s lives, it’s a disgusting lifestyle choice to continually think anyone else’s life is your business.
I would love to get my nose out of your life once you stop demanding us to legitimate and approve who you love.
We don’t demand your APPROVAL, fool. We demand equality before the LAW! How obtuse can you get?
I’ve read plenty of articles that say it is predetermined. So …
Link? There is none. There may be a genetic component, but the thats a far cry from being genetically PREDETERMINED like skin colour is. And besides all behaviour has a genetic component.
Now it’s a fever. I’m always attracted to someone just like you. So, where do you get the science that determines skin color?
Oh, that’s right. The same place where sexual orientation is created. And, God does not Care. He’s too busy to worry about your phobias. Now, Let’s go have cocktails.
No one is being treated unequally before the law. Every person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Anything else is SPECIAL rights. Why is it, Ron, that (to quote you) you are too f’g dimwitted to see that?
I’m quite certain that had the denizens of the southern states been given an opportunity to vote on a referendum to abolish slavery when it was still legal, they would have voted such a referendum down in a big way. Would that have made slavery any less morally reprehensible? I’m not equating slavery and the question of its legality to the question regarding the rights of gays to marry, I’m questioning your apparent belief that the majority has the final say in matters of social conscious.
Will this is actually very simple. The will of the Majority should never have the option to vote on the rights of a minority. Simple. Imagine if the majority got to vote on ending slavery. (we’d still have it). Imagine if the majority got to vote on a Woman’s right to vote (women still wouldnt be voting). Imagine if white people got to vote on interracial marriage. (we would still have a ban).
An equal society is a more economically successful society. Libertarians understand this. Why don’t Republicans?
Because the premise on which pro gay marriage advocates define ‘equal’ is completely false. Sensible people understand this, why don’t you?
So nice to see the traditional marriage destroyers in such blind support of Apple’s arrogant, utterly intolerant stance against what history has proven is correct: one man and one woman. Marriage is about sacramental unity and raising children in the best possible way. Sodomy is a sin, fornication is a sin, adultery is a sin, homosexual acts r sins. All 3 religions agree. Anyone with common sense know its wrong. Endorsing, encouraging and praising the sin is as bad as the sin itself. It’s been wrong throughout history. It will be wrong forever! Problem has become everyone feeling sorry for gays. Classic victim syndrome celebrated by liberals. The fall of God and the rise of evil is in full swing! Anyone who endorses same-sex anything, porn, abortion, legalizing drugs, legalizing prostitution, etc. is destroying the moral fabric of society. Morally barren airheads, I want to thank u for ruining my country! U will meet your maker some day, so bring a good lawyer!
How’s that divorce rate going these days? Still climbing?
That’s your opinion and your fairy tale bible, bigot. Bible thumpers said the same about interracial marriage. Divorce is #1 problem. Many states and countries have had equal marriage rights for some time now and nothing happened. Tell me how equal rights for gays hurts YOU exactly?
I must admit that while I abhor bigots and stereotyping, there is a burning hatred in my belly for the likes of you. You are destroying society, you are a cancer, you base your life on a fairy fucking tale and reject science. You are a fucking sheep..
Jesus Christ can suck my dick, when he is done I will fuck him in the ass. Now you be a good boy and suck him off while I fuck him OK? Then we can all smoke a fat blunt..If god doesn’t like it, TOO FUCKING BAD…
You will regret saying those words that you said about God and Jesus. You my friend are headed for an everlasting HELL for Eternity. SATAN loves people like you.
The number #1 thing that threatens marriage is divorce. You bible thumpers go out and put a nationwide ban on all divorces.
Then go ahead and make adultery illegal.
After that we can talk about how to treat other people’s relationships.
NHL, I feel the same about u, but more so!
So only faggots and dikes are allowed to buy Apple now?
Fuck off you filthy whore of shit and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
If it would exclude you, you homophobic fat boy, then yes, absolutely!!
Why don’t you go and have a wank with your little weiner, calm down and realise just how obnoxious and odious you are to most of the decent people posting here.
I think we should send Apple staff for heterosexual training. You know the proper kind according to the Bible.
Oh look, academics are now saying that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and may not be deviant:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/01/many-experts-now-view-pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation-google-hangout.html
Looks like the consevtards were onto something…
Dirty little secret: NAMBLA used to march in the Pride Parades up until the late 80s before the organizers kick them off . Not for any moral outrage, but it made for bad PR, when you’re trying to gain mass acceptance.
Always fun when MDN runs another Turing test.
It is a shame that all the issues related to civil rights in the US are ultimately settled either by the courts or by the actions of large influential corporations. Why is it not possible that support for such important changes can come from the people like in other countries that have already accepted gay marriage. There never was a vote on the abolition of slavery, on the civil rights for minorities or more recently on abortion. What kind of democracy is that?
Sure there was. Slavery was abolished by constitutional amendment, which required votes of the Congress and of 3/4 of the states. Civil rights for minorities were guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act, voted on by the Congress (who, please remember, was mostly white Christian males at the time, and really still is).
Abortion, however, was decided by 9 lawyers who have a job for life (regardless of senility), who are answerable to no one, and whose historical “hit parade” includes the Dredd Scott decision.
There is one main point here that I can’t understand.
On the one hand, we have people for equality who support the desire of gays to be able to get married amongst themselves. On the other hand, we have people who don’t want to give them that right. The supporters’ principal argument is that this would finally give them equal rights that they didn’t have before. The opponents argue that the gay issue is not the same as race issue, or gender issue, and that this is not about civil / human rights.
Then what exactly is it about? How does somebody, somewhere, being able to marry another person (of same sex), affect your own ability to marry another person (of opposite sex)? Clearly, majority of opponents object on moral or religious grounds, claiming that the “lifestyle” of homosexuals is NOT accepted by the majority of the society. Let us for the moment accept their opinion. How does this prevent THEM from leading morally proper lives? If homosexuals are doomed to eternal damnation (by default), how does giving them right to live their lives in a legal unity (to their common eternal damnation) change the moral fiber of anyone else’s marriage? Homosexuality itself (as a lifestyle) is NOT illegal in the US (nor is it in any other country in the world other than a few ultra-conservative, islamic lands). So, in the eyes of the law, homosexual life is acceptable. How can then there be a limit to the extent of that?
Last century has produced countless studies and medical research that has determined that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but a genetic one (if you really are hell-bent on calling it a disorder). Apparently, a mutated gene seems to be one common link among the homosexual people. A person doesn’t just choose to be attracted to people of same sex; practically all homosexuals have struggled during their adolescence against the same sex attraction, until they have finally accepted it. Our still extremely conservative society makes sure of that (who in their right mind would choose to live a life of constant derision and struggle for identity?). Many continue to refuse to accept it, or accept it in private, riddled with shame. Others embrace it and take pride in it; yet others make it a defining element of their personality; still others just live their lives. The point is, homosexuality in today’s society (even in most liberal ones) still carries plenty of stigma and every single person who lives life as a homosexual will sooner or later, and many times, encounter bias or discrimination. So, if it isn’t a choice, how exactly is it different from being born with a certain skin colour?
Repeat after me: there has been no study that has conclusively shown that sexual orientation is genetically predetemined. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Let me do the same thing to you:
Repeat after me: there have been plenty of studies concluding that homosexuality is NOT a choice.
On the other hand, this point is not really relevant to the whole discussion of human rights for all anyway. Giving a certain group of healthy and responsible humans same rights as exist for the other healthy and responsible humans cannot have negative consequences to any of those humans. There is simply no valid argument to prohibit this.
Remember, nobody is setting precedents here. This has been tried elsewhere around the world, and it seems to work perfectly fine. Heterosexuals in those places continue to get married, raise children, and some get divorced, without any difference from before the law changed. Homosexuals continued to exist, live together, die together, but also got to be married. No increase in homosexuality was noticed as a consequence of these changes (probably the biggest fear of the opponents), no noticeable change in the society happened in any way.
This has been done elsewhere, and successfully. There is nothing to fear. It will all be fine, you’ll see (and if you live in one of the ten American states, you can already see).
“Repeat after me: there have been plenty of studies concluding that homosexuality is NOT a choice.”
Who has said that? No one. No one has ever said the development of same sex attraction is a choice. It’s most likely a developmental disorder. What some opponents have said is that to ACT on the attraction is a choice.
And acting on that development or characteristic is a CHOICE they have the right to make. It is not a developmental disorder, it’s a developmental difference, just like the color of your eyes or skin, being left or right-handed, and innumerable other characteristics. On what basis do you think you have the right to deny other people equality before the law? So far you’ve just spouted a bunch of nonsense.
While homosexuality is not a mental illness, it is most likely a developmental disorder.
You wrote:
“just like the color of your eyes or skin, being left or right-handed, and innumerable other characteristics.” You know Ron, all the things you listed are predetermined by genetics, and not my environment, or nurturing. So again, you are arguing that same-sex attraction is genetically predetermined when none of the literature supports that. None.
Secondly, the fact that you would offer these characteristics as examples of what you term “developmental difference” (which is anon-standard term and basically a term you made up) tells you you don’t know the difference between genetic predeterminism, healthy development, and developmental disorders. Or maybe you do, but you can’t deal with reality, and you like to try to confuse people so you mix the terms and concepts all up like a big gumbo and hope no person who has read a fair bit on the matter will catch you. Surprise!
And of course you have to keep reiterating “equality before the law” like a mantra, so that the masses will just accept as such without seeing that it just begs the question.
Nonsense indeed, Ron.
You don’t deal well with concepts, do you? I made a point about the difference between a disorder and a difference. Being gay is not a disorder, it’s a difference. Just like the color of one’s eyes, hair color, skin color, being left or right-handed. There are “norms” for all of those things, but not being part of the norm does not mean one is disordered or whatever, just different. That’s a very simple point to understand for most people.
You just don’t like that science and logic are not bolstering your bullshit. One doesn’t even need to be a scientist to know your views are wrong. You keep thinking that your views should be enshrined into law, and you keep acting like having equality before the law means you and those like you personally have to accept it. The rights of equality are not rationally up to majority opinion (aka mob rule), but are inherent in all. Sexuality of others is not your decision, how they act upon that sexuality is not your business. You keep dancing around the question of “equality before the law” and in this case mocking it in an attempt to sidestep the central question of equality before the law. You don’t like the possibility that gay people will have equality before the law. Tough shit.
This is what The New King James Bible says about same sex relationships. You can call me a Bible Thumper all you want, but I will never accept this as a healthy lifestyle. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. I will not argue with you on this subject. You go and argue with God about it and see how far you get! Read below what God says about it.
Leviticus 18:22-30 (NKJV)
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
24 ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.
25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants.
26 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you
27 (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled),
28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
29 For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
30 Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God.’ “
I’m sorry, but, as an atheist, can you please tell me, how do I argue with God?
relax, Diddly, your opportunity will come.
Oh, thank God. /s
All of what you quote was written hundreds of years after the supposed events supposedly took place. So, what do your quote prove? That you can quote a book? Well, how exciting. You can claim it’s the “inspired word of god” or whatever, but that doesn’t make it so, or even provide proof that there is a god.
It is amazingly ignorant to quote from an obviously translated translation of yet another translated book, and claim it is somehow divine or some kind of proof that your viewpoint is justified or correct. Even if the people in the book did exist, that doesn’t mean the book you are quoting is truly representative of their lives or views. Even if it is representative of their own lives or views, doesn’t mean those views are legitimate. I do not believe your book is particularly useful or representative of the facts of life or morality. In fact, it advocates some of the most immoral viewpoints possible, that of slavery. Slavery is the view that one does not have the right to their own life. Major fail on your part if you think you have in any way justified denying gay people the right to equality before the law.
Come back when you can make a logical argument.
Incidentally, there are older versions of the text you quote that come out quite differently when translated more carefully.
My “Bible” made a thump when I dropped in the incinerator… does that make me a bible thumper?
Hey, Will, why do you continue to post your nonsense on this topic? It is, by definition, insane. Get back to class. And stop using the internet while the teacher is trying to lecture.
Why do I continue to post? Why does it bother you so much that I post? Is it because I can accurately challenge your preconceived notions what you believe to be true, and you can’t rebut back? So like the other guy, you choose to insult me personally? That’s the easy way out. How about having the courage to examine your own perspective and seeing whether what you have been believeing is accurate?
Take your own advice. You’ve been clearly and accurately disputed, but you just continue to argue by assertion. Perhaps what was said wasn’t an insult, but an accurate description or comparison. Your views are obviously very poorly thought out. You seem to think that people having equality before the law means you have to like it or approve it. It IS something you should like or approve, but isn’t necessary.
“You’ve been clearly and accurately disputed” No I haven’t.
“Your views are obviously very poorly thought out.” Again, the irony kills me.
You keep repeating “equality before the law” as an argument by assertion (ironic), but it merely begs the question. Skin colour and sexual orientation are not comparable Ron. Now I know that they taught you in your culture jamming/activists workshops that if you repeat something enough times, people will start to accept it as truth…unless you are a critical thinker and actually examine the premises of your argument. As usual Ron, your premises are faulty.
It is obvious to me that you refuse to accept the fact that gay is NOT a choice. Let us leave that for the moment, as an irrelevant point in this discussion that it is.
WHY are you NOT willing to allow someone to marry someone else? I understand that you personally don’t like their lifestyle, but I’m sure you agree that nothing about the lifestyle is illegal, so WHY NOT? How does it affect you?
In my first post on this article (further up), I had mentioned that I used to think very much like you. Over time, I came to understand that it is simply NOT RIGHT to deny certain rights and privileges to a certain group of people only because I happen to disprove of their lifestyle. If the state already recognises such lifestyle as legal (and sodomy laws have been repealed long ago), and even to a certain extent acknowledges it (by conferring some sort of legitimacy by calling it a “union” of some kind), what is the justification of the “separate but equal” approach? Yes, you are equal, but you can’t go to white schools, you have your own black ones (Plessy v. Ferguson, overturned by Brown v. Board of Education). It looks very familiar, and I would really like an answer, if unions are OK, why is the institution of marriage reserved for only a subset of people?
Please, please, please do not do what Ron does view race and sexual orientation as comparable. The fact that you do tells me you miss the point. They are NOT comparable, so whipping out court cases are meaningless. Apples and oranges.
Homosexuality is in my view, a developmental disorder. It is not a choice as you said, gay people didn’t ask to be gay – true But there is no evidence at all that people are born gay or that homosexuality is genetically predetermined. Something happened that shouldn’t have happened, or something didn’t happen that should have. Either way, they are not born that way.
You argue from the point of rights but where does it says that every type of pairing should get the same value, privileges – especially when it hasn’t been proven that all pairings are equal? From here, the argument leads to “how can society judge my love for another human being” or something like that. Society is not judging your love; frankly society as a whole could care less about your love. What society cares about which entities in society are giving legal standing, WHY they are given legal standing, and the implications thereof.
The issue at hand is that marriage should remain a heterosexual perogative. Absolutely. Heterosexual pairings are the best possible to raise a family and maintain society.
Heterosexuality is a naturally superior because it is the life-creating dynamic in the universe. Masculinity and Femininity are transcendental realities, two opposite polarities. Men and women are the embodiment of these polarities who, when joined, complement each other so much that, barring medical impairments, new life created. As such, it is to be celebrated. The ancient Jewish and Chinese philosophers understood it well in their writings.
Homosexuality is not on equal standing with heterosexuality because its sameness makes their joining redundant. It creates nothing, and adds nothing to the universe. To say this is not, “homophobic” or “heterosexist” – it’ simply a fact of life. Even asexual organisms procreate. So why are people extolling the virtues of sexual acts that denigrate their personhood, much less defining themselves by these acts?
All men and women were created by the heterosexual dynamic, even homosexually inclined men and women. Let’s just say that if it wasn’t for heterosexuality, homosexuals wouldn’t exist.
Therefore, marriage should really be reserved as a celebration of heterosexuality. Sorry if this offends some people, but deep down, despite the brainwashing for the last 30 years, it’s true.
You seem fanatically convinced that you are right, which is admirable.
You defend marriage within its religious context (as a celebration of life, etc). I don’t think anyone here is asking that religious institutions begin performing weddings for homosexuals.
The argument here is the concept of marriage as it is defined by the law of the land, and within the context of a lawful society. Therein, no definition of marriage proscribes, not even implies, the purpose to be procreation, or celebration of procreation. It simply defines it as a union of two people. Other laws define various rights, privileges and obligations that are conferred to those who are married. Vast majority of these rights and privileges have nothing to do with celebration of heterosexuality; they tend to deal with common property, decisions to be made in each other’s name, right to succession, etc.
As I said, many of these privileges have already been given by the law to homosexuals in the form of “unions”. This tells us that the society does NOT reject homosexuality as a social concept, nor does it reject the legitimacy of claims by homosexuals to the rights that stem from this concept. The legal problem with such unions is pretty much the same as was the legal problem with the “Plessy” decision — separate but equal is essentially exactly what’s wrong with this one (and what was wrong with the ‘Plessy’) — it can never be equal until it is actually no longer separate. Mind you, this is not comparing apples to oranges (let us for a moment accept your argument that colour of skin is not in the same way pre-determined as is homosexuality); from an abstract legal point of view, a separate-but-equal doctrine fails, no matter what.
Yet more argument by assertion. You have far from proved that being gay is not equivalent to race or other characteristics. You just say it’s different and go on from there. You do long posts all based on false premises, all in an effort to justify what are simple prejudices on your part. You are unable to articulate a rational reason why gay people should be treated differently under the law.
Why do you keep repeating everything I’m saying to and throwing it back to me? You know that since we are using different arguments, that tactic won’t make any sense. Is that what they taught you to do at the activists meetings whenever you encounter someone who has critically thought through your arguments? Shame.
NO, you are an insane..
On one hand you demand scientific proof, dismissing argument as having no proof. Yet provide ZERO scientific data to backup your assertions.
We are left to assume that your assertions are based on a mythical god and book of badly translated fairy tales from the middle ages, well because that is the typical profile of those who would deny this civil right to gays.
Our perspective is humane, compassionate and has science to back it up. Your perspective is narrow minded, hurtful, and based on anti-science.
You are by definition a lemming. The absolution of your position puts you in the same category as racists, bigots, and an antiquated mentality.
“Yet provide ZERO scientific data to backup your assertions.”
Actually all the research the APA did up until the 1970s (before they declassified it as a mental illness due to political pressure) support my assertions. In addition, the APA never provided research to support their move to declassify homosexuality as such. Do your homework and look it up.
Ah, name-calling. The last refuge of those who have no salient argument for the topic at hand.
WRONG, WRONG WRONG. There was no scientific evidence to support the claim that it was a mental illness. There is STILL no scientific evidence that “aversion” therapies work. You are full of Bigoted propaganda, you are the one who needs to read up on facts and science.
Read up nitwit: http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/TVC_APA.html
I never claimed it was a mental illness. I said same-sex attraction is indicative of a developmental disorder, of which there is plenty of scientific evidence.
So many nutbars, so little time to read the comments 🙂
I am amazed at the deviation in arguments. I have my own thoughts on gay marriage but that is SEPARATE for the issue of being gay.
I am tired of people equating being gay is being deviant. There are gays that I dislike (i.e.those who dislike non-gays and yes there are some) but they have the same counterparts in this comment section, non-gays who dislike gays. Both should be put together in the same boat and cast adrift from the rest of the remaining tolerant society.
As for gay marriage, I wonder why they or even heterosexuals want to even do so but I don’t particularly care. To me, marriage is for when you want to have kids. It is unimportant if you are gay or not. If you don’t want kids, then marriage is not worth the hassle.
To the bible thumpers…. I believe in God. My God is a tolerant one. He embraces all of us, even the gay haters. I just wish you could come to terms with that.
This has nothing to do with religion pro or con. This has to do with how America is run, and how democracy works. California has said “no” twice to the idea of gay marriage. This issue is done and over. Move on. Any less is a waste of time and taxpayers money.
There is a fundamental problem with the concept of referendum as a weapon in defense of democracy.
A large enough group of people can make any kind of decision seem valid if majority of them vote for it in a referendum. This does not automatically mean such decision is correct, never mind constitutional. If a group of people decides that, because divorce rates are rapidly growing because women are allowed to work, instead of raise children, to prohibit women from working, it would be a democratic decision made by the majority, but it would be wrong and unconstitutional.
The argument about the democratic process is not necessarily strong.
I think it was a perfectly acceptable mechanism for the issue. Plus it was done TWICE. People are whiners when they are losers.
You already said that.
In my example, it would be a perfectly acceptable mechanism for the issue of women working instead of staying at home with the children. And if the majority of the population voted for a proposition that would make it illegal women with children to seek employment (and they did the voting twice), women would then be whiners, because they are losers… right?
quit whinin’ already.
???
joking.
Wow, just wow. Most of any point I could have made has been said before.
I see this as a very simple issue, why does the government care about who I marry? I should be allowed to marry any consenting adult ( so let’s not bring in this leading to child marriages,goats, busses etc.)
I don’t care about your mythology and what books you quote from, my marriages isn’t your concern, at all.
Cheers to Apple and other leaders in the world on this issue.