Apple Shares 'Pride' Video Featuring Preparation for San Francisco Pride Parade

[bigpoppamac31]

Uh huh....I'd ask you to cite a source for this nonsense, but I have a feeling all I'd get are a bunch of bible verses.

Yes I would. The Bible is the ultimate source cause it's the very Word of God. What better source then the very words of our Creator? Plus as I referenced in my initial post there is no such thing as a "gay gene".

 

[lannister80]

People talking about equality... but gays get their own parade. Do companies put forth the same effort to recognize straight people by having their own parade to celebrate their sexual preference?

Every minute of every day is the "straight (white) people parade".

 

[distemp]

I disagree with any public parade designed to support an agenda and I believe that these parades are very intolerant towards views different then their own. This would also apply to a white pride parade, a catholic (or any other religion) parade, a straight pride parade, etc.

They really aren't. The only thing "intolerant" about gay people with regard to certain religion people is that the only thing gay people could do to appease said religious people would be to stop existing and that won't happen.

 

[ZombiePete]

Uh huh....I'd ask you to cite a source for this nonsense, but I have a feeling all I'd get are a bunch of bible verses.

The only science book you need is Genesis, my friend.

 

[bigpoppamac31]

The only science book you need is Genesis, my friend.

Amen to that!

 

[distemp]

People talking about equality... but gays get their own parade. Do companies put forth the same effort to recognize straight people by having their own parade to celebrate their sexual preference?

"Gays" planned their own parade. Feel free to plan your own. There, problem solved.

 

[aristobrat]

As I made a link to in my initial post no one is "born gay". There is no gay gene. Being gay is a choice just like choosing to commit any other type of sin.

That implies that everyone has absolute control over who they are physically attracted to, which in turn implies that you have the ability to make the choice to be sexually aroused by/attracted to males.

So for the sake of argument, if someone put a gun at your head and told you to make the choice to become aroused by some gay porn and they'd let you go (otherwise, they'd shoot you), you'd be able to make that simple choice in your head and follow through with the expected result?

 

[thekeyring]

Well the new Yosemite seems pretty colourful. May not be a bad idea to bring it back more permanently to match.

----------



I'm not here to "convert" people. I can't do that nor is that my job. Being a Christian I'm just the messenger. I can only present the Gospel and hope and pray that some will come to Jesus.

As for your first part. God "hard wired" everyone to be straight. It is through the sin of Adam and Eve that mankind has become crooked and sins in a myriad of ways not just homosexuality. But it's through the saving grace of Jesus that anyone can come to saving grace in Jesus. I on behalf of God can only extend the invitation. The rest is between you and Him.

You are, quite literally, preaching to the converted.

However, I find it hard to believe that sexuality matters as much as the fuss we give it, given that Jesus didn't mention it at all.

Surly it's better to present the Gospel in a friendly, loving way, so people feel they can ask questions, learn, and over time build a relationship with God, rather than saying "being gay is a sin, end of," and thinking "I've done my bit. Well done me. It's up to God now"?

 

[yg17]

Yes I would. The Bible is the ultimate source cause it's the very Word of God. What better source then the very words of our Creator?

And this is where we'll get into the cyclical argument:

Prove to me god exists.
The bible says so!
Prove to me the bible is accurate.
It's the word of god!
Prove to me god exists.
The bible says so!
....and on and on and on and on

You have no scientific proof to back up what you are saying about homosexuality. None, whatsoever. Just an outdated 2,000 year old book of fairy tales written by man.

 

[lannister80]

Then explain to me, Mr. Brainwashingourchildren, why do we exist? Why does matter exist? How can something, come from nothing? Surely someone had to have created this entire universe, as it couldn't come from a point of nothing.

"Why" is a human-centric concept. Without humans to create it, there is no "why".

Also, no one says "something came from nothing". We just *don't know*. But we research and try to find the actual answers instead of making **** up.

It's funny, you say that we "brainwash" our children in mythological creatures, but yet atheists brainwash their children into believing that there is nothing out there that could have created this vast universe and something came from nothing.

Nonsense. It's the default position. My parents didn't tell me *anything* about religion one way or another, just about scientific theory/fact (how the planets formed, etc, not WHY they formed). Lack of belief in magic sky men is as natural to me as breathing, so brainwashing required.

Like I said, if you don't like Christianity, let it be. I'm not the one who shoves Chrostianity down peoples' throats, but I do teach people who want to accept it.

Psh, tell that to the legislators that you no doubt vote for.

 

[distemp]

Can people bring their religious crap elsewhere? This post has nothing to do with religion except for the religious people whining in it.

 

[JAQ]

the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which successfully added lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals to the U.S.'s existing nondiscrimination law

No, it did not.

ENDA has been introduced unsuccessfully over and over since the 1990s, and finally passed the Senate last year. However it is still being blocked by the Republican party in the House of Representatives, preventing the president from signing it into law.

It is still entirely legal in 3/5 of US states (including mine) to fire someone, or deny them housing, or refuse to serve them in your restaurant, (etc) because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

Please correct this misinformed article. It is factually incorrect, and contributes to the naïve belief that LGBT people are already protected as equal citizens in the US. We are not.

 

[cgc]

Can people bring their religious crap elsewhere? This post has nothing to do with religion except for the religious people whining in it.

Actually, a march supporter brought it up and said if it were a pro Jesus rally it's be filled with hatred.

 

[TC03]

Then explain to me, Mr. Brainwashingourchildren, why do we exist? Why does matter exist? How can something, come from nothing? Surely someone had to have created this entire universe, as it couldn't come from a point of nothing.

It's funny, you say that we "brainwash" our children in mythological creatures, but yet atheists brainwash their children into believing that there is nothing out there that could have created this vast universe and something came from nothing.

Like I said, if you don't like Christianity, let it be. I'm not the one who shoves Chrostianity down peoples' throats, but I do teach people who want to accept it.

So please, realize that this forum has many Christians, including myself, who would rather not be criticized based on their religion by one person's opinion.

Being religious equals having an opinion. Having an opinion means you can get critized for it. As long as it's done respectfully, that's not a problem.

 

[lannister80]

It's not just the gay pride parade I have an issue with but it's any public parade designed to support a specific group or specific viewpoint.

How about Memorial Day parades?

 

[phillipduran]

Yes it does. I could get fired from my workplace at private a Christian college for being gay.

Private.

You could get fired for wearing the wrong color shirt.

Private.

I'll say it again, Private. You should respect what people want to do privately shouldn't you?

 

[ZombiePete]

You have no scientific proof to back up what you are saying about homosexuality. None, whatsoever. Just an outdated 2,000 year old book of fairy tales written by man.

A 2,000 year old book where most of the rules and laws of the God within are discarded because at the very end a johnny-come-lately named Paul usurps the religion and establishes rules that were canonized centuries later.

Except for the "science-y" parts like creation and Noah's ark.

 

[distemp]

How about Memorial Day parades?

THAT'S always the argument that gets them.

"PC crap in this country is overrated! No one has freedom of speech! Who cares who gets offended?!"

*someone says something bad about the troops*

"HOW DARE YOU YOU CANT SAY THAT HERPDERPDERPDERP!"

 

[yg17]

Private.

You could get fired for wearing the wrong color shirt.

Private.

I'll say it again, Private. You should respect what people want to do privately shouldn't you?

I would argue that what he does with another consenting adult in the privacy of his bedroom should be of no concern to his employer.

 

[lannister80]

No one is "born gay" and there's not such thing as a "gay gene" as noted here --> http://christiannews.net/2014/06/23...homosexuality-impossible-to-determine-by-dna/

ROFL, for ****'s sake man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

The relationship between biology and sexual orientation is a subject of research. A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated; various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, but scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation.[1][2] Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are more popular,[1] and biological factors may involve a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[3] These factors, which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation, include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

So yes, it's clearly possible. (Your "by just looking at DNA" strawman notwithstanding).

 

[cgc]

No, it did not.

ENDA has been introduced unsuccessfully over and over since the 1990s, and finally passed the Senate last year. However it is still being blocked by the Republican party in the House of Representatives, preventing the president from signing it into law.

It is still entirely legal in 3/5 of US states (including mine) to fire someone, or deny them housing, or refuse to serve them in your restaurant, (etc) because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

Please correct this misinformed article. It is factually incorrect, and contributes to the naïve belief that LGBT people are already protected as equal citizens in the US. We are not.

I'm not a proponent for or against ENDA...I oppose discrimination of all kinds but it seems the Republicans are concerned ENDA will negatively affect small businesses (didn't have time to read it in it's entirety as I have to get to work. Here's an article as to why the Republicans opposed ENDA:

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote Monday on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill to “prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity” that’s been proposed in one form or another for nearly 40 years. It will be a symbolic vote at many different levels. First, the bill stands little chance of passage in the GOP-controlled House; the point of giving it prolonged attention now is more to inflict political damage on Republicans for resisting a popular measure than to get a bill on President Obama’s desk. Second, it seeks to ratify (and take political credit for) a social change that has already occurred through nearly all the country, including even very conservative locales. Most larger employers are now on record with policies against discriminating against gay employees, and even smaller employers without formal policies mostly hew to the same path in practice, for many good reasons that include not wanting to lose the talents of employees from any demographic.

ENDA is a less salient bill than it looks in a second way as well; statistics from the many states and municipalities that have passed similar bills (“mini-ENDAs”) indicate that they do not serve in practice as a basis for litigation as often as one might expect. This may arise from the simple circumstance that most employees with other options prefer to move on rather than sue when an employment relationship turns unsatisfactory, all the more so if suing might require rehashing details of their personal life in a grueling, protracted, and public process. The forbidden group categories that tend more to drive HR managers crazy are things like age, disability, and criminal record consideration, where the law regularly tries to forbid behavior that in fact is perfectly rational for employers to engage in.

On a level of sheer entertainment, the bill has certainly furnished more than one way for some conservatives and Republicans to make themselves appear ridiculous. Some GOP supporters in Congress, for example, seem to be tempted by ENDA as an “easy,” crowd-pleasing vote to show they’re not always on the anti-gay side. But consider the implication: lawmakers who take this path come across as willing to sacrifice the freedom of private actors—as libertarians recognize, every expansion of laws against private discrimination shrinks the freedom of association of the governed—even as they go to the mat to preserve disparate treatment by the government itself in the recognition of family relationships. Sorry, but that’s upside-down. A classical liberal stance can reasonably ask the government itself to behave neutrally among different citizens with their differing values and aspirations, but should not attempt to enforce neutrality on private citizens themselves.

One may also smile to see some implacable Culture War conservatives suddenly emerge as “Libertarians for a Day” when it comes to adding gays to the list of protected categories. Race aside, few among them have previously crusaded against the earlier inclusion of categories like age, marital status, pregnancy, or, say, religious affiliation.

And yet at some point we do need to stop adding new groups to the parade—either that, or see freedom of association turn into a presumption of something else. At what point do we say no to future demands that protected-group status be accorded to employees based on political and controversial systems of belief, physical appearance (the “looksism” issue), family responsibilities, résumé gaps because of unemployment or other reasons, or use of lawful products or engagement in lawful activities in off hours—to name just a few of the areas that in fact have been the subject of real-world agitation in recent years? If we say yes to all, we introduce a new presumption—familiar from the prevailing labor law in parts of Europe—that no employer should be free to terminate or take other “adverse action” against an employee without being prepared to show good cause to a judge. That is exactly the goal of some thinkers on the Left, but it should appall believers in a free economy.

 

[capathy21]

What you don't understand is that everyday is a straight pride parade. It's socially accepted for husbands and wives to be able to kiss each other in public, rub each other's backs, show affection for one another. Straight couples make up the majority of people portrayed in movies, TV, in the media, on advertisements selling us things. Every day we celebrate straight pride, because it's out in the open, it is what our society was constructed upon, and nobody judges it. This is shoved in our face every single moment of the day, from everything around us.

So when you say you are tired of hearing about a gay pride parade on the internet that you didn't go to, witness, and that didn't affect you on any level, it comes off as childish, ignorant, and uneducated. This is what we face everyday, a straight culture being shoved into our faces, with no real representation of our sexual identities. We can't see a summer blockbuster action flick with a gay couple lead. We don't see advertisements outside of city hall geared towards gay couples. A busy couple can't enjoy a meal at a restaurant without everyone staring at them and judging them. We can't get married or have sex legally in several states. We can't be out and open and talk to our coworkers freely about who we are dating for fear of discrimination in the workplace. So unless the gay pride parade is marching across your front lawn puking rainbows and Andrew Christian underwear, deal with it. It ain't affecting you at all.

For one weekend a year, gays get a safe public place to display their love and affection towards their boyfriends, husbands, wives, etc with minimal discrimination from other people. I can walk outside and hold my boyfriends hand without fear of being judged from other people or called a fa****. It runs as simple as this. While pride may be running around in your underwear drunk to some, to me it means I have a safe place where I don't have to hide a part of me.

So should pride parades and activist groups end? No. Because we will never be your equal. Whike the gay rights movement will parallel the civil rights movement and become more widely accepted over the next 20 years, there will always be homophobia, just like racism still exists. There will always be a need for a celebration of who we are.

I hope this helps answer your question since it seemed like a sincere one.

This is phenomenal.....Thank's for sharing.

 

[TechGod]

As I made a link to in my initial post no one is "born gay". There is no gay gene. Being gay is a choice just like choosing to commit any other type of sin.

This is why I despise religion. NO IT IS NOT A CHOICE!

 

[bigpoppamac31]

That implies that everyone has absolute control over who they are physically attracted to, which in turn implies that you have the ability to make the choice to be sexually aroused by/attracted to males.

So for the sake of argument, if someone put a gun at your head and told you to make the choice to become aroused by some gay porn and they'd let you go (otherwise, they'd shoot you), you'd be able to make that simple choice in your head and follow through with the expected result?

Honestly I would not make that choice. I would not choose to be attracted to males just because someone had a gun to my head. The same would be true if I lived in a Muslim country and they tried to force me to be Islamic (which does happen to many Christians). They would have to kill me cause I would not deny my faith in Jesus.

I would not choose to sin in a homosexual manner but that does not mean i don't sin in many other ways. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I don't sin. The Christian is not made perfect until he or she is in Heaven. I don't claim to be better then anyone else. I just claim to be saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.

 

[TechGod]

Yes God does provide for His faithful. But in this day in age in North America (I'm Canadian) it's pretty hard to get by without a phone or even to an extent a computer. Email is a great way to communicate plus many jobs now strictly require "online only" applications.

Also if I may say. Being a Christian if I was the CEO of a company I would have no issue hiring those who profess LGBT as long as they have the skills, dedication and enthusiasm for the job. They are no less of a person then I am. We're all sinners in need of the grace of Jesus. That's the beauty of true Christianity. Salvation is by grace not by works. You can't earn your place in Heaven. It's a free gift of God through Jesus (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Sorry. I believe something called Innocent till proven guilty. I'm not buying your ****.