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 Confirms Sales of Apple Watch Pride Edition Band Will Support LGBTQ Groups
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh right, no. You're wrong lmao.
[doublepost=1498169056][/doublepost]
It doesn't work both ways because
STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE NOT DISCRIMINATED OR KILLED FOR BEING STRAIGHT
It is highly pretentious. Pride is a word you should treat carefully. You can take pride in your work but pride to be homosexual?
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Sadly it's a strong cycle.
LBTQGQS make parades and stuff like this - angry retards will act agressive against LBTGQW
LBTQDAS see that angry retards act agressive = LBATSA wants more attention and want to fight ( idk why... they could live their life in silence like EVERYBODY). I don't really care about their preferences and I don't want to know.
Parades and afirmation are not the solution against angry retards. It will make a strong cycle.
We keep saying: OMG it's 2017 why are we not like this yeeeet??
Because we are still so behind. We keep lying that we have evolved so much but we have a loooong way until we will think more clearly and rational.
That's it - I don't want to see anymore straight couples on TV, or holding hands in public or kissing each other goodbye at the airport (ewe gross). Why can't they live their life in silence like EVERYBODY! Why do they need to flaunt it in our faces?!?Sadly it's a strong cycle.
LBTQGQS make parades and stuff like this - angry retards will act agressive against LBTGQW
LBTQDAS see that angry retards act agressive = LBATSA wants more attention and want to fight ( idk why... they could live their life in silence like EVERYBODY). I don't really care about their preferences and I don't want to know.
Parades and afirmation are not the solution against angry retards. It will make a strong cycle.
We keep saying: OMG it's 2017 why are we not like this yeeeet??
Because we are still so behind. We keep lying that we have evolved so much but we have a loooong way until we will think more clearly and rational.
It makes sense as a response to oppressors telling people that they should be ashamed of themselves because of their sexual orientation.
People take pride in many things they don't personally earn.
You may think it's pretentious to be proud of a citizenship you just happen to have been born into, but many will disagree.
Interesting thread to read through. Polarising subject, for some reason, so I expected it to go pretty much how it went. There was some chatter on social media (and maybe even newspapers?) here in Finland a few years ago about a dude who either wanted to, or actually went ahead and "organized" a type of straight pride "parade". It went as you would expect it to. I can't remember the details, or if he actually went ahead with it, but it was just a bizarre situation all around.
But the one thing that really got to me in this thread is Bob. Can he, please for the sake of all that's good and holy, get his damn potatoes? The guy must be starving.
But the one thing that really got to me in this thread is Bob. Can he, please for the sake of all that's good and holy, get his damn potatoes? The guy must be starving.
I wear my pride band and I am not in the community. My daughter is though. I am really happy that she has a community to give her strength and support, especially because she is going to be spending her whole life dealing with people like the white heterosexual snowflakes in this thread. They aren’t content with being at the center of everything for the entirety of the last few millennia or so and ignoring everyone else’s issues. Homophones really are so weak and pitifully insecure. They don’t believe in themselves so they have to persecute and demean others to make themselves feel important in comparison.
As an advocate for the oppressed people of the world, would you volunteer to distribute the rainbow watch straps in Saudi Arabia?
Sexist is based upon gender, not sexuality, first off.
Second, The fact that you made this comment, truly shows you have NO idea what LGBT pride or equality is even about. You think it's about waving flags and chanting how proud we are to be gay? Or have you ever stopped to think it's perhaps about the quality of life based on society views and discrimination towards us?
Next time someone fires you from your job, arrest you, denies your marriage, tells you you can't adopt a child, throws **** or cat calls you when you show any sign of affection in public to your partner of same sex, all for being "straight", then you can have some say so. Until, Take a sit pal.
[doublepost=1498180702][/doublepost]
Seriously? "Rewarded" What exactly are we trying to be "rewarded" for? Maybe we do want to be special and rewarded. You know, the same kinda specialness and rewarding that heterosexual people wake up to everyday with no worries of loosing their job, their children, getting beaten in some alley way, shot, or cat called walking down the street, financial benefits, all because their straight. How would a heterosexual feel if they could loose all of those "Rewards" for being straight? I tell you, it'd be a f**king different tune they would be whistling.
Listen. It's not their fault they want to be as special and have special parties and parades and celebrations and pride months. They think it's all fun and games and we are just out having fun. They don't understand the purpose and underlying struggles. Gay people are the minorities unfortunately. Below anyone else. If they want celebrations, let them share the problems and struggles. I bet they would love it!
Sorry, 'pride' means to not be stepped on, or pushed aside. So 'gay pride' is a fair use of the word.
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone tried to slam a gay man with the 'Next you will demand the ability to divorce' and he said 'Why should you have all the fun'. I think it made them think...
All gays are asking for is the same level of 'legal protection' that so-called straights get. The act of marriage is a legal construct, it is the joining of two people's lives. Since, at the root, it's a legal construct, a legal function, there should be no reason that a gay couple should not have the opportunity for those same legal protections and agreements.
Religion thinks they OWN marriage, but they own the pomp and circumstance, NOT the legal act of joining of lives. Sorry...
Some madrasas have thought to have their own 'marriages', totally outside of the legal construct provided by the government, and they themselves will end up being in the same boat, as their 'unions' will not be legally enforceable.
I'm not going to get into the debate that's going on but I like these watch bands a lot. They remind me of the old school Apple rainbow logo. Very cool!
When folks roll out "but marriage is the sacred union of a man and a woman, for the purposes of procreation" trope, I always end up thinking... Okay, let's take that at its word:
First off, divorce is out, period. After all, "What God has joined together let no man put asunder", so no divorce and no second/third/fourth/etc. marriages, except in the case of the death of a spouse (oh, and now might be a good time to point out, those church-going sanctity-of-marriage-protecting conservatives elected a president who is on his third marriage - also funny how the president who keeps saying "America is the greatest country" can't find anyone worthy of being his wife in the US and so has imported two of his three from foreign countries).
If they say, "the church owns and defines marriage, not the state", fine, this completely breaks the separation of church and state: clearly we need to immediately go through every single one of our federal/state/county/city laws and regulations (and tax laws) and replace "marriage"/"married" with "civil union", and "husband"/"wife" with "partner" - now there's no special privileges for marriages, and gay and straight couples alike are equally able to apply for a civil union contract. Oh, and everyone who was previously "married" will need to go file new "civil union" licenses if they want those benefits now exclusively available to those in civil unions.
Alternatively, since the remaining key point (if they then try to say "oops, sorry, it's actually not about religion"), falls to "it's for the purposes of procreation", then let us revise our laws to say: yes, marriage is for the purpose of procreation, so anyone unable to produce a child will not be allowed to marry, and if the marriage does not produce a viable child within, say, two years, the state will automatically dissolve the marriage and the couple will lose every benefit given to married couples.
But those who insist that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and thus gays should not be allowed to marry, don't seem ready to "put their money where their mouth is", and agree to changes like the above. They want to hide behind saying that religion and procreation dictate the situation, but they don't want there to be any side effects for them.
Last edited:
But women don't make me hard. Should I force myself with viagra or something?
The best part of these bands is how many people take issue with them. I wear mine loud and proud.
Last edited:
But women don't make me hard. Should I force myself with viagra or something?
The best part of these bands is how many people take issue with them. I wear mine loud and proud.
View attachment 705378
And hell is hot.
Your silly little fairytale doesn't apply to me and has no sway over my life.
Besides, I'm from LA, I like heat.
Good to know that gay people have your personal approval to hold hands in public. They shouldn't need anybody's approval. Unfortunately, there have been many many cases over the years of gay people literally getting beaten up for daring to show such affection to each other in public. If we could get everyone to agree not to beat up gay people for being themselves, it would go a long ways towards alleviating their fears and their need to march in parades. And please explain how gay people have "stirred up trouble" on this specific issue. This whole "well, both sides are at fault" is false equivalency BS. Sometimes there really is a right side and a wrong side.
Your first sentence (given the disclaimer in the last sentence) seems to be implying that such outfits are only worn in public by gay people. Do you just assume that anyone wearing a g-string or cheek-less jeans in public is necessarily gay?