Apple and Google oppose ban on gay marriage

Wonder why they bother voting.

Dale 27:

Your logic does not hold. Sickle-cell disease is inherited (genetic). You can inherit the trait from your mother or father. You will only have the disease if you inherit it from both. 

The disease causes serious health issues, so you think that the trait would die out, but it confers a type of immunity to malaria, so there is an advantage to it.

Perhaps there is a genetic trait that is linked to homosexuality that helps us and only expresses it'sself if you receive it from both parents.

Either way, you can't legislate what people do to their own bodies. Look at what happened when we tried to ban alcohol consumption in the U.S. Rampant crime, black market sales and people drank anyway. 

Blocking gays from marrying isn't going to stop them. It will only take away rights and that is NOT what the constitution is for. It is to GRANT rights.

When you run an article like this on a tech web site first of all it's not content that applies to the site. Second, by listing this article you've only shown one side of the view. To be fair (that is if you are fair; equal media opportunity) you should now find an article that shows proposition 8 in a favorable light.

A company is now qualified to have an opinion on social issues. Fascinating.
Now, just to make sure the debate is complete, could someone please ask a dog's opinion ?
What next ? Is Apple going to run for governor after Schwarzy ?

Apple and Google may think about their workers, but what about those who think that California is on the right track on this matter? Would the INQ be so brave that they could "boo" on Apple & Google ?! Opposing the opposite...huh?

Although the attitude presented in this article is not new, it is disappointing. We have many laws which restrict behaviors which are harmful to oneself. Examples include laws which restrict our "right" to use harmful drugs like heroin or drive at whatever speed we wish.
Although the advocates of homosexual rights would have us believe there is nothing harmful about homosexual behavior and that sexual orientation is genetically determined, there is evidence to the contrary. This includes studies of twins demonstrating that there is not a marked increase the likelihood that the second twin will be homosexual if the first is, as would be expected if homosexuality were genetically determined. It also includes psychological evidence. One thing that can significantly increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior is a young man growing up without a clear feeling of acceptance and of being valued by his father. As with girls, boys need to feel approved of by their father. When men grow up without the approval of their father, the likelihood is increased they will seek that approval from another man. Although it is certainly not a guarantee, this increases the chances of them seeking this disapproval in homosexual relationships. Coping strategies, wherein one seeks to fill a legitimate need but in the wrong place, are inevitably harmful to the person engaging in them.
The ideas of evolution contradict any notion of genetic homosexuality. A trait which does not improve the strength of the species or increase the likelihood of reproduction are supposed to be removed by evolution and natural selection. It is not scientifically reasonable to suggest homosexuality is genetic.

S. Brin: "we see this [same-sex "marriage"] fundamentally as an issue of equality"

Well, I have news for ya Sergey dude: if you see "this" as an issue of equality you are wrong! "This" (to the extent to which there is a "this") is first and foremost an issue of basic English language--sheer syntax. Of course, what's English language when it comes to following the opinion of the intellectual "elite," and when it comes to doing the "right"/"humane" thing, right? English language be damned!

Note however, my dear Sergey friend, that you may be lending a helping hand into setting a very dangerous precedent, whereby standard and consecrated English language terms acquire meanings at the whim of the pseudo-intellectual "elite."

I don't understand the problem the "extremists" have...

The bible talks about love, light and life. So why use the same book to denie it to others?

Every soul has the right to be loved like they want to be loved. It's a personal choice that's....well....personal!

@"Propaganda instead of the truth"

You send out Propaganda while acusing others of doing so... :s

Cause your confusing a mental disorder (DIS) with being attracted/loving somebody. (Same sex or not).

When it comes to DIS you could say it's a lack of understanding of yourself.... completely different subject.

Would anyone want to be responsible, for example that man gets married to a woman.....has two kids...

While his whole life has been a lie, and he can't even "get it up" when he's around his wife?

Love, Light, Life & Truth!

ps: the bible used to say you can't have a relationship with children. In later translations it changed to men..... ponder that for a while! 


to think of theists being allowed to marry and have children. Dale is right: there aught to be laws.

In public I can often see these theists' brats tiny little minds being twisted and tortured into mimicking their parents' useless, pathetic lives. Understanding naught, they can but constantly worry what everyone else is getting up to and how dare they without Dale's leave.

Problem is Mr James West: there is no rational article that would put the proposition in a favourable light. Government (nor anyone) shouldn't be telling people who they can and cannot marry. Just like the inter-racial marriage laws of the past, this is bigotry and completely ridiculous.

I understand the argument. And if your church wants to keep things to a a man and a woman ... fine. I won't join your church.. But this is MY state too. My family has been here since before this was part of the US and I deserve to be treated as an equal under the law. I deserve to build a life with the partner I choose just like anybody else. This isn't about what the church thinks or sanctions. This is about what is right for the laws of our country. We ALL deserve equality. And after 10 years together, I desderve to marry the man I love and have built a life with. That is what is healty for our society. That is what creates stability.

Aqualung:

Sergey was born in Russia and probably learned Russian as a primary language. 

Let's see you move to a new country, learn a new language. THEN we can talk about " intellectual elite"

Seems clear the whole concept of marriage between ANY persons is backwards and from the middle ages, and is a religious thing that the state should not support, if alone because of the separation of state and religion.
So I propose the state gets out of the marriage game altogether and does away with all related laws and benefits, if need be some can be replaced by defining 'a union between 2 people' (which incidentally due to anti discrimination can't be defined based on race/gender), and/or parenthood where that applies.

Figured I'd help Dale out a bit.

"We have many laws which restrict behaviors which are harmful to oneself. Examples include laws which restrict our "right" to use harmful drugs like heroin or drive at whatever speed we wish."

Actually we have laws which prohibit drugs like heroin. If you were looking for the harmful drug we have laws to merely restrict that kills tens of thousands of people per year that would be alcohol. Driving at high speed is not self-harmful and so doesn't fit this argument. Unless you were trying to find examples of laws where indirectly harmful behavior is prohibited and the laws are heavily abused for the sake of profit rather than reducing harm, in which case it fits perfectly. If it didn't, speeds would be set at the recognized safest level, the 85th percentile.


"Although the advocates of homosexual rights would have us believe there is nothing harmful about homosexual behavior and that sexual orientation is genetically determined, there is evidence to the contrary."

There's always evidence to the contrary on virtually any issue. The question is if there is significant evidence to the contrary. In which case no.

"This includes studies of twins demonstrating that there is not a marked increase the likelihood that the second twin will be homosexual if the first is, as would be expected if homosexuality were genetically determined."

LeVay's 1991 study, the first of its kind, showed a correlation of 50% for identical twins, far above the population norm. Later studies suggest it may be much lower, like 20%, but still far above the random chance you'd expect without a genetic factor.

In 2005 a group in Vienna managed to isolate a genetic switch in fruit flies that controls their sexual orientation.


"One thing that can significantly increase the likelihood of homosexual behavior is a young man growing up without a clear feeling of acceptance and of being valued by his father."

If this were the case we'd see a nearly 100% correlation among identical twins since most receive nearly identical treatment from parents.


"The ideas of evolution contradict any notion of genetic homosexuality. A trait which does not improve the strength of the species or increase the likelihood of reproduction are supposed to be removed by evolution and natural selection."

There are numerous examples of genes that do not benefit or even reduce the reproductive advantage for an individual but are beneficial to the larger population still being expressed. Sickle cell anemia for just one example. 


"It is not scientifically reasonable to suggest homosexuality is genetic."

Or it wouldn't be, except for the fact that homosexual behavior has been documented to exist in virtually all mammal species to date. I suggest you look up the book Biological Exuberance if you're interested in the subject.


And Eric, please shut up and actually read the US Constitution. Particularly Amendment 10 - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

A finite list of granted rights would be horrendously easy to abuse, and the founding fathers knew this. The default is to allow, which is called freedom. Having a document "grant rights" would deny all others. The Constitution is designed to define and restrict the power of the federal government, not empower the people.

if all american being homoseks so there no child being born...
and american will be banish in the time
and world being peace forever :)

It is good to see that Apple and Google are standing up for equality.

@Dale

Why on earth would someone CHOOSE to be gay? You get almost no rights. You have morons raving on about how evil it is. Being gay is not a choice. If it is then being straight is a choice too. And that is clearly not the case. Straight people don't have to fight a sexual attraction towards the same sex but they do with the opposite sex. Why is that? Because it isn't a choice.

Sadly, not all Christians believe in their own religion. Otherwise, "Love thy neighbour" and "God created all creatures great and small" would have meaning and there would be protests in the streets from churches.

Oh that's right Christ forgives all sins except for being gay.


"This includes studies of twins demonstrating that there is not a marked increase the likelihood that the second twin will be homosexual if the first is, as would be expected if homosexuality were genetically determined."

This is the exact opposite of the truth. How can you get things so wrong? The studies in fact show that the twin is roughly 55% likely to be homosexual (as opposed to the expected random 3-5% if it were independent of genetic contribution).

Also, your claim that people turn gay and turn to other men for sexual favors because their fathers didn't love them is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

The simple fact is, religious fundamentalists deny any genetic component of homosexuality, only because the alternative is that their hate would then be directed against people over something which they had no choice.

This is similar to how the same people often don't believe in evolution; it's not that they looked at the evidence, thought about it, and decided, "no, I don't think I believe this." Instead, it is because they don't like the final implication of what it might mean. In both cases, if the evidence doesn't support their "beliefs", then it is the evidence that is wrong, not their beliefs.

Also, if you believe in the "defense of marriage", I think you should first make divorce illegal. Then at least you would be consistent, instead of a hypocrite.

Unfortunately, many gay rights activists don't just want rights for gays, they want to take away everyone else's right to believe that marriage between a man and a woman is what was meant to be. People have been sued for hate speech for stating the doctrines of their religion in church. Our acceptance was not enough; now if we don't celebrate something we consider harmful to the family and society (compromising the definition of marriage), then that makes us guilty of hate crimes. They are violating people's rights to religious freedom and speech. A top educational politician said gay marriage wouldn't be required to be taught in school. Actually, for 96% of Californian schools, that is not correct. And since when do only things that are required to be taught actually get taught? Whether or not it would be required is moot; look at Massachusetts: it happened. Parent's rights are being violated, as seen in Massachusetts when parents were not allowed to request that their child not be exposed to the teaching that gay marriage was OK.

Same-sex marriage is not just ridiculous, but completely perverse. I say completely because I guess the marriage only serves to complete, or finalize, the perversion.
But you don't have to be religious to be married or to value marriage! And I do agree with the general consensus, homosexuality is a pretty severe birth defect. Hard row to hoe, what. Oh well, there have been others dealt equally severe blows: growing up to find you are barren for instance. Or becoming old enough that when you do "get ready" to have some kids, find that you had become barren in the meantime (ooh the irony). Or worse, you're not barren enough & your offspring suffers from their own birth defects due to your own advanced age or substance addictions (Downs syndrome, etc).
I guess homosexuality & other perversion just forms part of a larger spectrum (ha ha, Rainbow) of human defectiveness, that really deserves if nothing else some pity & understanding. Acceptance is not necessarily required, but pity is sufficient.
There is some comfort for the defective in the scientific hypothesis of Devo (we are not men, we are devo!), which claims that in the absence of natural selection, people will naturally de-evolve, and we will see this occur at a rapidly accelerated rate in relation to normal evolutionary process. To wit, greater and greater proportion of disabled & defective people, environmental sensitivity, weird allergies such as peanut intolerance, extreme eating disorders, homosexuality, greater readership of the inquirer & other rags, and so on and so on.

Its really funny how churches scream and cry about their rights to do this and that, but if it oppose anything their "god" says its blasphemy and the person should burn. From what I remember there is a separation of church and state, and if the government lets men and women get married and not men and men or women and women they are favoring religion when we are supposed to be a secular nation.

It will happen in every state eventually, whether you like it or not.

Really not interested in gay marriage as it doesn't affect me directly, but I am concerned that if religious groups start dictating what people are allowed to do; how long before the rights of free thinking people vanish?

Lads and Lasses, 

Trying to get these two topics separated is impossible, as long as religious people hold the majority voting power in democratic countries, the religions will continue to get their way. 

Simple as that, you want what you believe to be right, put into law, start a religion :)

I agree that gays should have the same rights as everyone else, so that they should have the right to marry: that is, for one man and one woman to join together in marriage. That is the same right everyone else has. But that they have the right to change the meaning of the term "marry" so as to mean a union of two people of the same sex, that right they do not have, nor does any one else have that right. They can call their same sex union by some other name, but they cannot call it "marriage", for that would be to do violence to the English language. I would suggest that they coin another term for their same sex union, after all "marriage" is a borrowed term anyway, borrowed from heterosexual culture, and do they really want to have anything to do with that culture by borrowing its terminology?

I would suggest that they coin the term "abomination" for their same sex union. Never mind the pejorative connotation that that term has had in the past, it can have a new meaning now. After all, this is nothing more than what the gay community wanted to do with the term "marriage" by giving it a new meaning, so there should not be a problem. People will just get used to the new meaning of the term and eventually foget its old meaning.