Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Among 60 Companies to File Statement with U.S. Supreme Court Backing Gay Marriage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
How fun.
But all of that is completely meaningless to someone who doesn't share your faith. And since there are many in the U.S. who don't share your beliefs, there is no reason they should have to abide by your rules. The US is not a theocracy like Iran.
As someone who is part Black, I disagree.
What about someone who is white, born in S. Africa, Egypt, etc. and moved here, through one means or another, and started a family here. They are not black, especially in the sense of the S. African person.. Their offspring would then be called "African American".
In short, it shouldn't be a term delegated only to Blacks.
BL.
"Black" is just fine. By the way, not all blacks are African by descent, and not all Africans are black. Egyptians who have moved to the USA are African-American.
My black history teacher liked this sentence describing his white friend who has citizenship in Africa and the USA: "You're my favorite African-American."
Time. Many of SCOTUS's early decisions regarding slavery were clearly unconstitutional, but the 1800's was a time period that lacked any sense of morality so it was accepted by society.
And I totally agree with your statement, even though it had nothing to do with mine.
If you are part black, what do you consider yourself? My point is that person I quoted states that the "vast majority of blacks" are only partially black, and that we should call ourselves "American"
That narrow view is done and over dude. Companies have responsibility to their employees, the communities they serve as well as the environment. "Investors" are only gambling on a probable increase in share price, and if they don't like the politics of a company, they shouldn't be gambling with its stock.
Corporate responsibility is real, don't dismiss it because you don't like it.
Then why are those of Asian descent in the USA considered "Asian", not "Asian-American"? (Variable)-American is nationality. You can be an Indian in France then move to Germany and be French-German. What's wrong with calling a black person "African" if you'd call a Chinese person "Asian"?
----------
I don't fully agree, but I'd be fine with this. The ends justify the means. I'd rather have politicians focus on important and relevant issues.
I think some folks don't know or don't care to understand why some use the term African American.
My Nigerian, Ghanian, and Liberian friends don't consider themselves African-American. They are Nigerian-American, Ghanian-American, and Liberian-American.
Some African-American's call themselves such because we can't trace our lineage back to our original countries. We call ourselves African American because we know we originate from African . . . nothing else.
Not that I am knocking anyone else who does. Just putting it out there.
In the end all humans are Africans by nature.
I don't want to derail the thread much more though, so I will resist the urge to dig deeper into the topic.
----------
Nothing at all. I was never arguing that point. Just that the OP's comment stated the "vast majority" which I doubt he could prove and even if he did it was totally irrelevant to why he/she wanted to use the "N" word.
I agree. Marriage issues are the least of this countries problems.
Really? I haven't met any. I'm sure there are some, but they have no ecumenical or other religious reason to disagree with it. The vast majority of those who reject and vilify gay marriage is unquestionably religious. Each of the three main monotheisms, being equal glimpses of a man-made untruth, condemn it.
On the contrary; the majority of religious institutions, regardless of ethnicity, condemn it. In fact, per capita, predominantly black churches within the United States are even more homophobic than their counterparts in bigotry. Bigotry exists everywhere, not just within 'whites', as you say.
I agree with most of that statement, however religious institutions in every example one can list, were (and still are) proponents of slavery and other immoralities/anti-humanisms. The Catholic Church had antisemitism as being part of official church doctrine until 1964, supported the growth of fascism before and during the second world war (parties of Islam have now procured that mantle), and the parties of god in Israel and Palestine are now exclusively the barriers to a peace settlement (both sides claiming they have a divine right to the entirety of it). I could go on.
First. I don't live in the US. Secondly they are not my rule they are God's rules. An eternally big difference.
Basically, if it pisses off religious folks and republicans, you know it must be the right/moral thing to do.
Ugh I think it is thread closing time.
Especially when you hear the age old 'my god is the one true god and my faith is the one true faith'.
Especially when you hear the age old 'my god is the one true god and my faith is the one true faith'.
Oh they exist. The problem with many folks, especially on these forums, is that they fail to understands that folk will hate you for any simple reason. That's unquestionably the truth.
That doesn't negate my statement. And to add to the statement above, homosexuals I've found are far more close minded when it comes to being tolerant. That's my opinion on the matter however.
Religion dealt with the matters at hand, slavery being one of them, and even in the Christian Bible (which used slavery as an analogy to one's relationship to God) only reflected what was the status quo.
On the other hand, slavery in those times leading up to the African slave trade, was no where near as barbaric and racially stirred. Whites in American, religious or not, looked at African slaves as sub-human. Even African tribes that enslaved other tribes knew they people they were hurting where the same as them.
The Catholic church is still predominantly a European entity, so the point really still stands.
Last note, it was the black church that many slaves found homage, and the black church that supported the early Civil Rights movement. Religion is a tool, the people make of it what they will.
Part of me hopes so. He was notorious for clubbing folks over the head if you didn't agree with him, and insulting folks that believed something different as well.
Bigotry goes both ways, and he was the perfect example of that.
I'm sure they will be protesting an Apple store sometime soon. And posting their hate messages from their iPhones.
----------
By your command....
So with that logic you think things like tattoos and wearing a shirt made from two fabrics are sins too?
The role of a Christian religion in gay marriage is actually hillarious.
Women were still defined as property by the church until the women's right movement.
The bible defines marriage as "a man owning a woman as a piece of property."
The bible says you can rape a woman, but you must marry her or pay the father money for damaging HIS property.
The bible says you can have as many wives as you like, but your wife should be killed if she commits adultery.
No where does the bible define marriage between one man and one woman.
The standard vows read at a wedding? Barely a hundred years old, written in modern times.
The truth is, government and law has shaped and defined what marriage is, not the church. 100 years ago, a woman wasn't allowed to get divorced, vote, etc.
I'm fine with churches not allowing gays to wed in their buildings, but that doesn't mean they can't wed elsewhere.
Yet the church has no problems hiding child molesters and committing crimes against humanity daily.
Women were still defined as property by the church until the women's right movement.
The bible defines marriage as "a man owning a woman as a piece of property."
The bible says you can rape a woman, but you must marry her or pay the father money for damaging HIS property.
The bible says you can have as many wives as you like, but your wife should be killed if she commits adultery.
No where does the bible define marriage between one man and one woman.
The standard vows read at a wedding? Barely a hundred years old, written in modern times.
The truth is, government and law has shaped and defined what marriage is, not the church. 100 years ago, a woman wasn't allowed to get divorced, vote, etc.
I'm fine with churches not allowing gays to wed in their buildings, but that doesn't mean they can't wed elsewhere.
Yet the church has no problems hiding child molesters and committing crimes against humanity daily.
In my honest opinion, I believe this should and shouldn't pass. I believe it should pass because we are all equal and everyone should be able to marry who they want, it's their lives. I also believe this shouldn't go through because I'm a Christian myself and it's a sin to marry the same sex. But, my current position is "I don't care if this bill gets passed or not. (Basically neutral)." That is my "two cents".
Well said... and no one would choose to be gay. Unless they enjoy fearing losing everyone they love, being bashed, called names, afraid, suffer self esteem issues, etc. most of their lives until they finally don't giv ea **** what other people think in adulthood.
Wait are you saying homosexuals should be tolerant of those who would view them as second class citizens? Or that they should tolerate oppression from the majority because thats what the majority believes? Black people didnt tolerate it why should anyone else? You should clarify that statement because you left it wide open for interpretation.
On another topic, the whole nature vs nurture arguments for being gay are kinda pointless as far as people being able to choose the person they want to marry.
Last edited:
Will or can the dog give consent? Will a tree give consent? Will any inanimate object give consent? Well obviously no. Only human adults can
In my honest opinion, I believe this should and shouldn't pass. I believe it should pass because we are all equal and everyone should be able to marry who they want, it's their lives. I also believe this shouldn't go through because I'm a Christian myself and it's a sin to marry the same sex. But, my current position is "I don't care if this bill gets passed or not. (Basically neutral)." That is my "two cents".
Yay, same (kinda). I'd only vote no because the gay rights organizations try to force me and others to vote yes.
Ooh an invitation. By my command you are to respect other people's belief of god and religion as much as your own. Including the belief of those that don't believe in any god or religion.
Once you do that I think Apple's action will make a bit more sense.
- Status