Satire: A Teachable Moment – On Apple, California Prop. 8, Gay “Marriage”, and Abortion

Describe The Above Interaction

Describe The Above Interaction

Many are flummoxed at how an individual can connect the dots between the four items; however, yours truly, navigates the stormy waters with the ease of an experienced captain.

It went down over on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW). It’s my third online home behind Pocket Change and RedState/Malkin/Hot Air. This is the post by Robert Palmer (not the musician): Apple opposes Calif. Prop 8, donates $100k to ‘No’ campaign.

Proposition 8 is the ballot referendum on how to constitutionally define marriage in California. It is pro-traditional families and opposed to the notion of gay marriage. Apple opposes Prop. 8, because it’s the hip thing to do. 

Naturally, everyone knew the comments would get out of hand, and I am partly responsible. Nevertheless, despite my technical errors in sentence structure (it’s a blog comment people, come on), I took a few to task not for their commentary.

Fred said 5:20PM on 10-24-2008

Good for Apple. As far as I’m concerned anyone offended by Apple’s stance on this A. must not know very much about Apple’s demographics and B. is a closed-minded a-hole. 

Companies weigh-in politically all the time BTW.

The same fella later added:

Fred said 6:15PM on 10-24-2008

My response got “poofed” into the ether somewhere so I’ll try to make it short and sweet. Anytime someone stands up for the basic human rights of another that’s ALWAYS a good thing. It doesn’t matter if people don’t like the decision, it was the right thing to do.

From a fiscal standpoint this is in fact the best way to garner business from the gay and lesbian crowd who has TONS of money to spend. I’m not saying that’s the reason for it, but it certainly is a happy side-effect. Cletis and Joe Bob can keep their PCs as far as I’m concerned.

Now, I have no doubt that you picked up on some logical hyperbole here. But as a seasoned expert in combating liberal ideology I can quickly point out the flawed logic and, rather than seek to undermine him, elevate a conservative principal in a way that he can no longer deny based upon his stated belief.

The issue: 

Anytime someone stands up for the basic human rights of another that’s ALWAYS a good thing. It doesn’t matter if people don’t like the decision, it was the right thing to do.

Now for my grand entrance — storming the enemy lines:

Fozzy Bear said 7:32PM on 10-24-2008

@Fred… you said: “Anytime someone stands up for the basic human rights of another that’s ALWAYS a good thing. It doesn’t matter if people don’t like the decision, it was the right thing to do.”

So I also assume that since you’re all for gay marriage as a basic human right… then you’re more so vehemently opposed to abortion because it destroys a human life, which is the ultimate denial of human rights?

If so, I have no issues with your statement. Otherwise, you’re against life but for liberty… but you can’t defend a right to liberty without first protecting life… so that would put you in a bit of a moral paradox.


I think it is important to note that after typing that response, I leashed up Charlie, scooped up my wife, and walked to Starbucks (yet another liberal stronghold I am unafraid to inhabit), and plopped down a little cash on two Salted Caramel Signature Hot Chocolates. I consider it a modest reward for my own efforts and the spoils that come with being my bride. 

Upon returning, I find the following two remarks from Mr. Fred and now a Mr. Tim:

Tim said 7:54PM on 10-24-2008

@FozzyBear: What you’re ignoring is that not all of us acknowledge these fetuses as human life. There is no contradiction in believing that performing these medical operations for the benefit of the mother is right and believing in gay rights. I myself am an atheist, so Bible-based arguments are of no consequence to me.

Fred said 7:58PM on 10-24-2008

Fozzy: I don’t think it’s fair to tie the 2 issues together in that way. I assume that you are anti-gay marriage based on your religious leaning and I ask you when did Jesus suspend the greatest commandment?

Whoa, wait a minute. What I’m ignoring? Folks, don’t believe for one second that I ignored this. You don’t become a decorated and revered combatant of liberal ideology by “ignoring” your adversary’s methodology.

Quite the contrary, here was my reply to both of them:

Fozzy Bear said 8:42PM on 10-24-2008


It’s not biblically based… it’s Declaration of Independence based (which, no doubt, had 5 references to God)… but I digress.

Yes, I understand you don’t regard a fetus as human life… despite the very medical definition listing it an unborn human baby typically from eight weeks on from conception. 

Even embryos are medically defined the same way except that it is the first eight weeks of human gestation… You’re argument is a blatant disregard for science and common sense.

Further, there is no medical condition that *requires* killing an unborn human baby to save a mothers life when a live-birth is just as arduous as task on both mother and unborn human life. The only condition that requires it is reckless disregard for basic human rights.

Which brings me back to the Declaration of Independence. There is a reason the enumerated ‘inalienable’ rights are listed in the series of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” You cannot secure liberty without first securing life and you cannot secure happiness without securing liberty. The imperative on responsible society is to defend these rights even to the most defenseless and innocent of life.

However, you hit the nail on the head… you are an atheist so you cannot possibly fathom inalienable rights granted by a Creator, that is why the Declaration means little to your concept of rights or your understanding of how to secure them.


It is entirely fair to tie the two together based upon even a cursory understanding of how rights are ascribed to people, who their guarantor is, and governments role in oppressing or respecting those rights.

For the record, I am opposed to gay marriage. Marriage means a union between man and woman. If it’s happy, then I guess you have gay marriage… otherwise, by the very definition you cannot have marriage between to people of the same gender.

I will say, I don’t think our Constitution, nor federal, state, or local laws have the authority to restrict the liberty of the people in this matter if they choose to form a civil union — I just think it’s quite silly to redefine marriage to fit an situation that is not, by definition, marriage. Marriage is a union between man and woman. A union can be between any two parties who so desire to become such — such as gay couples. I also would never deny them the legal privileges such as taxation, hospital visitation, or to an estate.

I apply the principles universally in a legal sense despite I personally may hold a different value on the matter.

Oh, and Jesus never suspended the greatest commandment… which was to love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. What was the one you meant? It seemed to me that, logically speaking, you were referring to “greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

Either way, I couldn’t agree more. 

Typos aside, there you have it. Some may disagree however I believe this represents the best way to defend the faith, our rights, and preserve the ideals of our government. You cannot legislate morality. You can only lead by example and pray for the apostate.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: