It is a good point, although your lack of capitalisation reduces the impact of your statement. Nevertheless there are (offshoots of the official) Mormons who do still practise polygamy. Until those bizarre cultists start allowing polyandry as well, they are beyond the pale.

I'm heavily tempted to shut this thread down. There are three types of people posting:

1. Those who like Apple think it is a civil rights issue
2. Those who think homosexualists are the most disgusting thing ever, and Apple is a company to be shunned
3. The darkone camp (I do like a good pun) who don't mind same-sex marriages, but think that it is none of Apple's business to be promoting it.

Convince me that you have a new take on it, or be funny, or both if you can; any repeaters of boring old lines are wasting their breath.

Marriage across religions, cultures and societies has meant a legally sanctioned relationship between men and women. The US/European culture has largely changed that to mean between one man and one woman. That is marriage.

This definition has been traditional for a long time. Changing the language to make it mean something else isn't necessary.

It will make societies' ability to limit things like polygamy difficult if not impossible. I predict that the society coming because of gay support for the governmental re-definition of marriage rather than accepting the legal protections of civil unions will be a society they didn't foresee and will not like.

Apple has long supported same sex partner benefits in their corporate structure and no doubt has done the analysis to believe that it benefits them. That is their right.

I would wager that many of their employees and shareholders and customers would not like to see the wealth they have invested in Apple be used in such a manner as their oppostion to prop 8, even while they are quite agreeable to Apple's company policies.

I have never been prouder of a company in my life. This is a controversial act on behalf of such a large and respected company. It takes a great deal of courage to stand up for this issue. I am staunchly opposed to Proposal 8 and will forever have greater respect for Apple. They have chosen to stand up for fundamental rights of All Americans.

Thank you Apple!

Begging the question, I'm afraid: saying something doesn't make it so. The US/European culture is changing marriage to allow same-sex unions. It's not a case of changing the language - it's the law that is being changed; in California, as I understand it with Proposition 8, it is being changed to forbid it.

Why should the ability to limit polygamy be desirable? it's not part of this particular case, but as long as polygamy is possible in both directions (polygyny and polyandry), I personally don't see it as an issue. And why is a re-definition of marriage something that society will not like? And "I would wager" - how much would you wager? do you know?

You keep on saying these airy-fairy things, based as far as I can tell on your own prejudices, but without anything substantial to back them up.

Rom 1:27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
1Co 6:10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

LuarieF,

Most of the court cases have been precisely about changing the legal definition of marriage. The traditional definition has evolved over centuries and millenia. There is a reason for it. If you think that this is something new, a new experiment or a new kind of culture or a new tradition of liberalism and human/civil rights, you are mistaken. It has been tried before, and it hasn't survived.

The problem with polygamy is that it often devolves into an individual or at most a very few individuals controlling others in a disproportionate power structure. If you see nothing wrong with that, or do not understand why the societies that most of us recognize as modern have done their very best to limit the practice of polygamy, that is your own lack of insight and/or knowledge.

Labeling my opinions as airy-fairy, and prejudiced is neither discussion nor debate, it is just labeling, and highlights either your own hypocrisy or your lack of insight in realizing that you exhibit your own prejudices in your statements.

As for substantiation, this kind of forum and discussion does not lend itself well to rigorous substantiation, and your accusation is kind of meaningless. If you really want to have substantial, thoroughly reasoned and documented discussions concerning these issues, I suggest you have come to the wrong place and need to seek another venue. If you seek to limit others' expressions of their opinion by the false pretense that this kind of forum demands a rigor that it cannot support, then you have done exactly what you set out to do. Congratulations, aren't you smugly and self-righteously satisfied now?

LaurieF asks:
And "I would wager" - how much would you wager? do you know?

Answer:
Do you know, Laurie? It is just an opinion. I thought that was pretty clear.

Pretty much, you just throw things out there to discount what others say when you don't like what they say, don't you?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
LaurieF,
Most of the court cases have been precisely about changing the legal definition of marriage. The traditional definition has evolved over centuries and millenia. There is a reason for it. If you think that this is something new, a new experiment or a new kind of culture or a new tradition of liberalism and human/civil rights, you are mistaken. It has been tried before, and it hasn't survived.

The problem with polygamy is that it often devolves into an individual or at most a very few individuals controlling others in a disproportionate power structure.

Absolutely correct. Go back and read what I wrote: polygyny without polyandry is a power position (and vice versa, but it's very rare); mutual polygamy is not.

It's not to my taste, but I'm not one for dictating what others freely get up to in their own homes. And the freely is most important.

Just as a few of us were making converts to Apple within our 5,000 plus employee Christian based enterprise, Apple pulls something as stupid as this. Way to go, Apple! You can write off a few thousand more Macs that you would have sold. I was about to become an Apple stockholder, but I am glad I waited. I'd be wanting to unload it now, as I imagine many will in protest.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

"it often devolves into an individual or at most a very few individuals controlling others in a disproportionate power structure" Are you talking about polygamy or your church?

Allowing two people of the same sex to enter into a marriage contract does not diminish the state's ability to limit polygamy.

How would anti-polygamy laws be weakened? They are still on the books and still as enforceable as ever. In the USA there is a law in every state that prohibits a man or a woman from being married to more than one living person at a time. How does gay marriage STOP this from being enforceable?

I suspect that your conflating the striking down of anti-sodomy laws with anti-polygamy laws. You're in good company too. US supreme court justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent for Lawrence v. Texas that overturning Texas' anti-sodomy law would call into question state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1

But you'll notice that his is a minority opinion of the court. You'll also notice that since 2003, no anti-polygamy laws have been overturned as a result and Reynolds v. United States remains a valid precedent since 1878. Not that the polygamists haven't tried. As recently as last year the US supreme court declined to hear a polygamy case.

But it appears that Lawrence v. Texas did give the US state of Massachusetts the wherewithal for its constitutional right in that state to gay marriage. So if you want to limit the rights of homosexuals to marry, you should worry about Lawrence v. Texas.

But if you think gay marriage per se will enable polygamy, incest etc., the facts are not with you. What you are trying to do then is rationalize your bigotry against homosexual rights. You're trying to convince someone that you are right because, while not everyone can agree to treat gays fairly, we can all agree that polygamy is wrong.

Well I don't believe your argument is sound based on the facts as I read them.

Quote

MediaPhil wrote:
Just as a few of us were making converts to Apple within our 5,000 plus employee Christian based enterprise, Apple pulls something as stupid as this. Way to go, Apple! You can write off a few thousand more Macs that you would have sold. I was about to become an Apple stockholder, but I am glad I waited. I'd be wanting to unload it now, as I imagine many will in protest.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

So your Christian based organization won't buy from a company that's standing up for civil rights? That's not very Christian. Also, not buying the best solution or making a good investment, now whose stupid, stupid, stupid?

Thinking that Apple will disappear because it made a stance on this issue? More stupid, stupid, stupid.

Oh damn, I violated Laurie's rules and I've resorted to name calling. Blame me when the thread get's closed... I'm just stupid, stupid, stupid!

Media Phil:

I assume your "Christian" based enterprise will buy the cheapest Dell crap they can find. And run Vista on it. It would be a great lesson for them.

Hopefully they'll experience pain similar to that which they're imposing on America's gay population through their continued scape-goating and lies.

I can't wait until churches are taxed the same as any other business or political organization. Then freedom will return to America.

Quote

ctopher wrote:

Quote

MediaPhil wrote:
Just as a few of us were making converts to Apple within our 5,000 plus employee Christian based enterprise, Apple pulls something as stupid as this. Way to go, Apple! You can write off a few thousand more Macs that you would have sold. I was about to become an Apple stockholder, but I am glad I waited. I'd be wanting to unload it now, as I imagine many will in protest.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

So your Christian based organization won't buy from a company that's standing up for civil rights? That's not very Christian. Also, not buying the best solution or making a good investment, now whose stupid, stupid, stupid?

Thinking that Apple will disappear because it made a stance on this issue? More stupid, stupid, stupid.

Oh damn, I violated Laurie's rules and I've resorted to name calling. Blame me when the thread get's closed... I'm just stupid, stupid, stupid!

It's not a matter of civil rights at all. It's politics. It's support of a political agenda. For some of us it has moral implications. I can spend my money where I want. I don't invest in arms manufacturers or liquor companies, although they may very well be good investments. I wouldn't like what they do with my money. And I don't like what Apple has done with my money. And we all have a right to tell them so, or to agree. Good companies succeed by listening to their customers.

I don't think Apple will disappear, nor do I wish them to. I still love their products. It saddens me to think that corporate Apple could deliberately alienate many of their customers. They have made it a harder sell for me and many others.

I don't imagine Apple will gain many customers through their support of this issue. But they may lose some potential customers as well as some long time fans. Is that good business? Will that make the shareholders happy? Is that smart?

Here's my take on this subject. As a shareholder, I would not have minded seeing Apple remain on the sidelines of such a charged issue as this. Having read many posts on the issue, here and elsewhere, I have concluded that Apple chose to participate as they did largely in support of their employees, some of whom no doubt would be adversely affected by passage of this legislation.

After some thought, I applaud their decision to publicly oppose Proposition 8. The amount of their donation is really not significant relative to their top and bottom lines, and I view it largely as a show of public support. That amount may in fact be significant in the eye the recipient, but it is not an amount that will have any real impact on their bottom line.

They may very well lose some customers over this, but I view that contingent to be a minority, albeit a very vocal one. The reality for Apple is that they have been growing their business(es) substantially over the last several quarters, and I'm sure they view their employees as a key to this success. While they certainly prefer not to lose customers, I suspect that they weighed the possibilities and decided that it was more important to make a public stand in support of their employees.

I view this as an admirable thing for them to do, and I think it's part of what makes Apple a highly successful company.

Quote

This definition has been traditional for a long time. Changing the language to make it mean something else isn't necessary.

Practice of the belief in God has also been traditional in the US/Europe. Now the world is largely secular in practice. Changing the language is necessary, except to those who think they have the right to dictate how others should live.

Quote

It will make societies' ability to limit things like polygamy difficult if not impossible.

How? They are two entirely separate issues.

Quote

I predict that the society coming because of gay support for the governmental re-definition of marriage rather than accepting the legal protections of civil unions will be a society they didn't foresee and will not like.

Until there is some amount of proof or even data suggesting a trend of this happening, you cannot limit the rights of others.

Guess what? Gay marriage is already legal in CA, and it's been legal for longer elsewhere. Is there any sign that it's tearing apart the fabric of society? This idea of passing a law to prevent something that only your gloom and doom vision of the future thinks is going to happen, but so far is completely unsubstantiated, is just plain wrong.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
<Biblical passages deleted>

Not everyone believes in your God or the Bible. Please argue the point with logic rather than unprovable beliefs.

That's it - despite my (supposedly) best efforts at introducing a sense of reason into the arguments here, nothing changed.

Locked.