Yes by imposing Obamacare on everyone they've in essence protected us from tyrannical abuse.
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
Yes by imposing Obamacare on everyone they've in essence protected us from tyrannical abuse.
So 'whites only' churches should be allowed? And they should be supported by the government with a tax exempt status?
Or force the majority to live with the desires of the minority. Which to me seems like the minority rules. Isn't that backward?
Everybody has the same rights. Every female has the right to marry a male and vice versa. If you want to shack up with someone of the same sex, fine. But why do you have to call it marriage and why does the government need to recognize it? Should the government recognize polygamy too?
One instance where I can be proud to support Apple 
I don't care who is or isn't gay, heterosexual, bi, none of the above etc.
What's important is, based on our constitution, people should be free of rules based solely on religion (separation of church and state) and the government shouldn't discriminate based on gender. Having the law apply differently if you decide to be legally and financially bound to a man vs. a woman is discrimination based solely on the gender of the individual and it doesn't make sense in the context of our constitution.
The whole institution of marriage shouldn't be legally recognized, in my opinion, simply because it comes with so much extra cultural baggage (such as the implication that a sexual relationship must be involved). Marriage should be a strictly religious ceremony and then the discussion of who can or can't get married according to what is right with god can be taken to where it belongs: the church.
I should be able to legally attach myself to one other consenting adult no matter who they are or what we do together in bed as long as both people take on the responsibilities of that union and it facilitates running a single household. This is all the government should be concerned about.
I don't care who is or isn't gay, heterosexual, bi, none of the above etc.
What's important is, based on our constitution, people should be free of rules based solely on religion (separation of church and state) and the government shouldn't discriminate based on gender. Having the law apply differently if you decide to be legally and financially bound to a man vs. a woman is discrimination based solely on the gender of the individual and it doesn't make sense in the context of our constitution.
The whole institution of marriage shouldn't be legally recognized, in my opinion, simply because it comes with so much extra cultural baggage (such as the implication that a sexual relationship must be involved). Marriage should be a strictly religious ceremony and then the discussion of who can or can't get married according to what is right with god can be taken to where it belongs: the church.
I should be able to legally attach myself to one other consenting adult no matter who they are or what we do together in bed as long as both people take on the responsibilities of that union and it facilitates running a single household. This is all the government should be concerned about.
I think it's not about marriage itself, but about a quest for rights equality and ending discrimination - whether it's the right to marry under civil law, inheritance rights, social security, health benefits, employment, etc.
And this struggle against discrimination concerns all of us: it's bad enough that society (perhaps naturally) tends to discriminate some of its members based on differences and misconceptions: gender, color, race, religion (or the lack of belief in moronic stories), sexual preferences, etc. Corporations, as corporate citizens, as well as all public institutions - including churches - must have the duty and play a role in correcting this.
And for those who think justice and humanism isn't reason enough to get involved, just think about it: you can be next when the tables turn. They always do, sooner or later: remember how some republican establishment actors cried scared about how they've become the oppressed minority? There you go...
cheers!
Last edited:
From a standpoint of freedom of choice I do agree that gay marriage should be legal.
However, I don't agree with publicly traded companies trying to sway politics outside of their purview and making stances that can hurt their sales thus their investors. If this was about software piracy or changes in technology patent regulation it would make sense to take a stance as the outcome can effect business.
However, I don't agree with publicly traded companies trying to sway politics outside of their purview and making stances that can hurt their sales thus their investors. If this was about software piracy or changes in technology patent regulation it would make sense to take a stance as the outcome can effect business.
Because when gays finally are allowed to marry, they'll all be rushing to get married in the institutions that have been discriminating against them for decades.
Please.
Well that's kind of my point isn't it? That's why it seems like a fair compromise. Homosexuals aren't going to be rushing to marry in conservative churches (a lot of folks don't realize that there are dozens of very, very large mainstream denominations that support gay marriage; they just aren't as vocal as the ones that don't), and likewise why should "traditional marriage" Christians be concerned about what the government is doing so long as the government allows them to define marriage in their own way? Churches ALREADY have the right to restrict marriage, even heterosexual marriage, for just about any reason.
I'm a Pastor, I have the right to refuse to marry someone if I feel it isn't right (like someone who has been divorced repeatedly and seems to be heading down the same path). If I retain that right, and if I happened to be a person who didn't support gay marriage, then why the heck would it matter to me if a person could get married at the courthouse anyway? I already understand marriage to be an important institution within the church, so what's the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple getting married in a court house?
Why should your (unbelievably misguided) belief's be allowed to harm others though?
Also, can you please find me a single quote on Jesus being against gay marriage?
We have a Constitution. If the People or Congress or the President violates it then we have redress in the courts. This is how the our form of democracy works.
We've had gay marriage in Canada for several years, and society hasn't collapsed.
Churches are allowed to choose who they want to marry (some denominations are OK with it, others aren't), but places like City Hall will do it no problem.
As a gay man myself I don't disagree. I'm not expecting that I will ever get married but respect the right of others to do so and for all of us to live without fear of prejudice due to our sexuality, race or indeed creed.
I agree that they are not equal. How about allowing one man to marry a woman and another man? Or a woman to marry 4 men. Or a man to marry 2 women? In each scenario you are still allowing 2 human beings to marry each other. I don't agree with saying that's the same as marrying a dog but I do think it is comparable to saying that any two consenting adults should be able to marry each other.
Sorry, but I don't believe in moral relativism. Homosexuality is an innate, unchosen characteristic of a person - and therefore should not lead to discrimination. Those that discriminate need to be called on it.
To follow a religious belief is to make a conscious choice, and that's a choice you can change at any moment. Rights granted to those due to their innate characteristic should always trump those granted to those who just subscribe to a philosophy.
As long as Apple doesn't shove it in my face I'll keep using their products. But if they do I'll have no problem dumping them like I've done with Amazon and JCPenney. I'd love to do it with Google and Microsoft but its damn near impossible.
Ok, don't screw things by allowing everything that people think is a personal right. Just think about this:
1) What will happen when Transexuals want to be able to change the birth certificate information because they have the "right" to be another gender now?
2) What will happen when "Shemales" want to be accepted as Women with penis because they have the "right" to be respected as a Woman from now on?
3) What will happen with people that want to legally marry their dogs and let them be part of a family bond with financial benefits because they have the "Right" to do so?
Being Gay or not (lifestyle, born, acquired or whatever) should be respected by society and we need to learn not to judge another human being for their life decisions.
BUT..
We can't give any one what they want just because they think they have the right as human beings. Once you start saying yes to any "X" petition you need to prepared to say "YES" for all the others. And that's a fact.
What do we really need?
We need a law that defend anyone by being wrongfully bullied by personal judgment.
That's what we need. Not Gay Marriage? Get it?
-----
aaaaaand let the bashing begin!
Many governments have recognized polygamy in the past. I'm waiting for arguments 20 years from now when gay marriage is just simply a given and people want to marry their pets. What then?????
- Status