Having spent several go-rounds with the woefully incomprehensible CS reps at Amazon, I have to say this makes a hell of a lot more sense than any other possibility.

Since we are talking about Christianity here, it should be noted that Christianity is based on the New Testament. That's where Christ, the root word of Christianity, taught that such behavior was wrong. I even hinted at that when I pointed out the "...cast the first stone" quote. You are confusing Islam and Judaism with Christianity.

Which branch of Christianity, specifically? Several of them take the Old Testament as part of their teachings, and many of the self-described Christians who preach against homosexuality most heavily are quoting Leviticus when they do so. Even aside from that, the New Testament has plenty of hate for homosexuals itself.

Citation needed. In other words, show me where Santorum has said that homosexuals should be thrown in jail for nothing more than being homosexuals.

Santorum argued against repealing anti-sodomy laws on the radio show "Sons Of Liberty". He said he thought the law should remain in effect. These laws made sodomy a criminal offense, which would often end in jail time if successfully prosecuted. Ergo, Santorum thinks homosexuals should be jailed.

But, again, the point is that original poster said that Santorum was against civil rights based on his views that homosexuality is wrong. I've shows a quote where MLK said that homosexuality was a "problem" and it needed to be fixed. So, if Santorum is against civil rights, then so is MLK. Do you still stand by that point?

I'm not affiliated with the original poster. I am saying that Santorum is against civil rights because he wants to make homosexuality illegal. I've already clearly explained that simply holding anti-homosexual views does not make you anti-civil rights. Only trying to enforce those views through law qualifies for that. As far as I can tell, MLK does not meet that bar, while Santorum does.

If you can find me where in Christian doctrine where it says that gays should be stoned or executed in some other horrific fashion, or that a prominent politician, like Santorum, is suggesting this, we can talk. Until then, you are either lying or extremely ignorant.

I assume you're not playing dumb to the point that you think the bible doesn't call for homosexuals to be put to death. I agree that it doesn't specify any particularly gruesome method, but I'm curious what method of execution you think existed 2000 years ago that wasn't fairly gruesome.

And yes, Santorum doesn't advocate killing homosexuals. He just advocates locking them away. It's a difference of degrees, but not of intent. His religion says that even though what they did has no effect on him or anyone other than the two people involved, they should be harshly disciplined by the legal system. That's Sharia in a nutshell, my friend. Segregation wasn't ended by putting a new coat of paint on the black schools.

It is obvious that MLK viewed homosexuality as a choice, not a genetic trait. It is also obvious that he viewed it as "problem". So again, I ask you, was Martin Luther King Jr against Civil Rights?

It depends... did he advocate laws penalizing homosexuality? Your quote just indicates a personal belief. Holding personal views that a lifestyle is wrong might make you a bigot in one area, but unless you're actively discriminating against those people or worse, advocating for laws that discriminate against them, you're not really a factor in the progress or decline of civil liberties.

Being against what some would perceive as a "right" does not makes someone against all rights.

This is obtuse to the extreme. Prior to the "civil rights movement", plenty of people were in favor of freedom of speech, the right to vote, own property, etc. for white males, but simultaneously wanted to treat black people and women like property. By your logic, those people were "pro civil rights".

The government is basically already in the state you described. You can get married in a church, but you enter a marriage contract in the eyes of a state only once you've signed a marriage license and some other forms at the courthouse. The state function is limited to the contractual side of things, but also performs brief ceremonies if you want one (2-3 minutes of a judge talking to you before you enter the contract). All the recent state battles over gay marriage have been over whether they're allowed to participate in this contract. None of them have been about forcing churches to hold gay ceremonies. The government IS already in the contract business, nothing more.

And comparing Christianity to the Taliban is just stupid.

It's pretty apt in this case, actually. Sure, not all Christians are like the Taliban, but in Santorum's case, when he's actively promoting the idea that federal law needs to be subservient to Christian religious code, and when he is advocating instituting harsh legal penalties for people who have done nothing wrong except offend his religiously-based sensibilities, I don't see much of a difference.

If you made a product, and 1 million people used it, but only 500,000 paid you for it, I think you'd be angry, too.

Possibly, but the question is whether you would have any right to be. First Sale is a long-standing precedent, and plenty of people have made a profit on video games, books, music, and movies even though a healthy market for used goods exists.

Because that's how investments and taxes are structured in US law. That fact doesn't magically transport company profits directly to the shareholders.

On semi-skilled labor, not without some serious protectionism in our trade agreements. On skilled labor, absolutely. We have a serious cultural advantage in our approach to knowledge engineering fields (CS is my personal area of experience). From everything I've seen, Asia just can't compete in any real sense.

The real estate prices of the "crammed on top of each other" housing that "nobody sane wants" seem to disagree with you. And I know several people 30s or older who do have roommates. I even know some who willingly take on roommates to help pay the mortgage on a house in the middle of the "crammed on top of each other" area of the city, where they really want to live and own property but couldn't afford on their own.

You have a weird conflation between roommates and hassle. Surely there are other people around the same age who want relative privacy, sleep, quiet, etc. and would not be partying at 3am if you roomed with them. The idea that everyone over 22 is entitled to their own private home is a relatively recent development, and not one that's necessarily beneficial.

Question is, though, do you have the authority during your regular days to take steps to prevent being paged after hours? I'm guessing you do. Foxconn employees do not.

Uh... they most certainly do not go to Apple stockholders. Apple doesn't pay dividends. They go into Apple's ridiculously oversized war chest, and toward R&D that ends up generating more exploitative profit centers.

Any money that stockholders make comes from selling their stock, which means it comes from the next sucker to buy it, NOT the money that Apple is pulling in from sales.