What about bestiality zoophiles? Where are their icons?
Apple's next-generation mobile operating system, iOS 6, will include oh-so-cute 'n' cuddly gay and lesbian emoji couples for your texting and emailing enjoyment. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The two hand-holding couples are nestled among their heterosexual brothers and sisters – although, for reasons we at The …
Even carrying an iPad, iPhone, iPod will mark you out as one of the Devils Disciples.
Amusingly, the running joke around the office between the Android and iThingie cults has been that owning an iThingie makes you gay. This is just more fodder for the war, I think.
That said, I have never understood the aversion. 2 guys being gay = 2 more women on the market for the rest of us!!! WE NEED MOAR GAYS!!!!
Bestiality is shagging animals, zoophilia is loving animals. So "bestiality zoophiles", though strangely constructed and partly redundant, would presumably refer to people who shag animals withing the context of a loving relationship. The animals would also be adults, and consenting (at least in the non-legally-loaded sense of the word), so there you go.
But given the large number of possible human/animal combinations, I think it's probably simpler if they just plop two icons side-by-side and call that good enough.
... emoji originate from Japan? At least that would account for the Japanese(?) characters and stereotypical westerners with their big round eyes.
And who says they are gay anyway? They might me friends.
Nothing wrong with it though - no doubt the religious wankers er, zealots of all description, not to mention the Daily Mail will be on the case. Ironically emailing from their Apple devices.
They should be taught how to wield weapons and how to perform exorcisms, and how to come up with thousands of different ways to not explicitly state they hate the president because of the colour of his skin.
Not sure if Richard Cartledge is taking the piss or not, if you are then kudos. If not then, well hazard a guess.
They are just implementing the Unicode standard, which contains U+1F46C ('two men holding hands') and U+1F46D ('two women holding hands')…
The standard also contains U+1F46F ('woman with bunny ears'). I would write it here, but El Reg's forum seems woefully unable to accept it: "The post contains some characters we can’t support".
It's known as the Lucky Poo in Japan, you culturally insensitive clod.
A couple get together, then have a kid. It doesn't work out so they try the love that dare not speak its name. That doesn't work either so they get back together minus the child. A couple of Swedish devil women start dancing around, possess the woman and make her wave her arms around. Then someone tries to pull her head off, and then chop it off with a massive pair of scissors. She also gets her nails ripped out, becomes an angel, looks shocked and then finally seriously dismayed. The kid reappears a few years down the line, suffering from serious depression, and then has a play with the dressing up box.
Have to say I can't wait until part 2.
... how in the hell could the fact that the two guys living in the house on the other side of my Wife's rose garden are married possibly have any affect on my Wife & I's heterosexual marriage? Are the idiots really so unsure of their own marriage? Perhaps they should look within, instead of removing the rights of other tax-paying Californians.
 They had had their wedding planned for several years, and managed to hold it before Prop 8 ::spit:: was passed. They are legally married.
 It probably only passed because most of the ignorant voting public thought that "Yes" was in favo(u)r of gay marriage ... I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell someone that "Yes" was anti-gay, a "No" vote would have continued gay marriage. They usually look furtive & scurry away.
Reminds me of an email i got back when proposition 8 was on the cards in California:
Why Gay marriage is wrong:
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. Also apparently those homosexual animals have picked up some unnatural behavier
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
> how in the hell could the fact that the two guys living in the house on the other side of my Wife's rose garden are married possibly have any affect on my Wife & I's heterosexual marriage?
It doesn't. The question is, "why do the two guys living in the house on the other side of your wife's rose garden want to apply a word denoting hetrosexual unions to themselves?"
Although spoken in jest, the point has been made above. I have deep affection for my dogs, they live with me and have done for longer than most marriages last, there is mutual affection and support. Why can this not be a marriage? It isn't a marriage because it doesn't fall under the definition of the word "marriage". I have two dogs - I'm not polygamous.
I suspect that the reason christians get upset is that the language is pretty well defined and has established usage. To include homosexual unions in the term when it is specifically understood to exclude homosexual, non-permanent hetrosexual, non-sexual and non-human relationships was always going to be seen as agressively anti-christian and I suspect was deliberate. To go through the legislative process and force a redefinition of the word by law seems like political activism overriding the will of the majority (at least in the US) which doesn't go down well. It isn't an anti-gay thing. Just because hetrosexual people are living togther in a committed relationship does not make them married. You often see the phrase "long-term partner" which is an apt description.
Why not pick a different word or term and dispense with all the hostility? "Civil partnership" (I'm not aware of any mainstream religions which bless homosexual relationships, so it would be civil) seems as good as any and "partner" is already in common usage.
One word: Horseshit.
Have you never actually listened to the anti-gay
sheeple minor sub-set of humanity incapable of thinking for themselves being "guided" by their shamans ... uh ... genetically human, but hard-of-thinking people, here in the US? I mean, seriously?
A marriage is a (hopefully) permanent union between two adults who love each other and plan to spend the rest of their lives together. Period.
"A marriage is a (hopefully) permanent union between two adults who love each other and plan to spend the rest of their lives together. Period."
And Horseshit back to you
Up until now a marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. It previously been a union between a man and a woman with the intention of bearing children (something which in parts of Europe was tested out before the wedding).
Marriages had been meant to be for life, but again that changed over time.
I am not against two men or two women getting married. But lets be absolutely clear, the definition of marriage is being changed again to accommodate this change in accepted perception of what a marriage should entail.
"A marriage is a (hopefully) permanent union between two adults who love each other and plan to spend the rest of their lives together. Period."
One word: Horseshit.
Lots of adults who love each other and plan to spend the rest of their lives together are *not* married and do not plan to get married. Whatever their sex is. Period.
In the Venn diagram, marriage is a subset of a (hopefully) permanent union between two adults who love each other and plan to spend the rest of their lives together.
The fact that marriage is a subset of how humans decide to live their lives doesn't alter my premise.
Grok where I'm coming from?
If you look back through human history you'll see that different cultures have had different ideas of what marriage is. The only description I can come up with that covers all of them is 'a social contract between two or more people'.
One man, one woman might be the Christian definition but it's by no means the only one.
"...is that the language is pretty well defined and has established usage."
Your rather inflexible viewpoint and the fact that I am annoyed I have to accept a 'second-rate' legal agreement instead of a proper marriage to my male partner aside, I downvoted you because of that one statement. Languages are a naturally evolving thing and the usage, definition, pronounciation etc. of words does change over time.
Unlike, it seems, your point of view.
Your point about language evolving is quite true. Consider the original (and still true) meaning of 'gay' as being jolly or happy, it could be said that all successful marriages are gay. Therefore, my wife and I enjoy a gay marriage.
Throw that at them there religious fundamentalists!
"To go through the legislative process and force a redefinition of the word by law seems like political activism overriding the will of the majority (at least in the US) which doesn't go down well."
How very strange, considering that the majority in the US favors gay marriage.
Still, I get your point. It was terrible--just terrible!--when marriage got redefined in 1000 AD to be between one man and one woman instead of between one man and many woman. It's shocking and appalling, I say, when people discard tradition like that. Redefining marriage to be one man and one woman! As though thousands of years of tradition wasn't good enough!
And then those activist judges really got to work. Why, they overrode the will of the majority and said that marriage could be extended to encompass a union of a black person and a white person. What were they thinking, trouncing all over tradition and the will of the majority that way?
I say, go back to what marriage REALLY means. Return to the roots of marriage, before everyone started mucking it up with all this politically correct nonsense. Marriage is between one man and a bunch of women who he either buys from their fathers or he rapes and then marries after paying a fine to the local judge. That kind of marriage was good enough for the earliest civilizations, and it should be good enough for us.
 Warning: Some parts of this post may contain sarcasm and should not be taken literally. Which bits are sarcastic will be left as an exercise to the reader.
"I have deep affection for my dogs, they live with me and have done for longer than most marriages last, there is mutual affection and support. Why can this not be a marriage? It isn't a marriage because it doesn't fall under the definition of the word "marriage". I have two dogs - I'm not polygamous."
Because one of your dogs is not able to enter into a mutual consensual agreement where you will devote the rest of your life to them above all others, including your other dog. I genuinely hope but doubt that helps you.
"I suspect that the reason christians get upset is that the language is pretty well defined and has established usage."
Usage that has changed over time. The original definition of marriage (even assuming that marriage is defined exclusively by the Bible) allowed for polygamy, mistresses, marrying slave girls, and generally treated women as property.
The definition of marriage has been changed over time to "one man, one woman", but it sure as hell wasn't like that back in the OT. The Mormons only changed their definition of marriage last century because the courts threatened them with action over the polygamy thing.
So if it's changed to what it is now, what's the problem with it changing some more?
TL;DR - Bullshit.
Coward, you are right of course, that the "marriage" ploy is agressive anti-religious and political avtivism. Look back in time or just around the globe and you'll see, that the enemies of religion (and thereon based moral) are not content with a status equal to their foes. They have to ridicule them, destroy them, kill them, because a God-Believer always has a better logical position in moral arguments - will always make them have a bad conscience, which can be subdued with constant diversion and adventure-seeking only for so long.
I have watched the homosexual crusade since the early 80-ies. They have lied about everything and they think its funny. By far most of them abhor marriage - it is the opposite of what they want, i.e. no responsibility, no fidelity, promiscuity, etc.. If I were perverse, I would think the same; its logical from their point of view. After all, if what you do is not the "real thing", you will always want to look somewhere else.
Where I live, they go preaching into kindergarden. Letters criticizing homosexuality and its missionaries are not printed in most newspapers anymore. The state, communities and business are financing their crusade, fearing their PR-machine. Of course, they will go down like communism, as they have before, when people were able to see the friuts of their doings. Until then however, too many will suffer unnecessarily.
I'm sorry there now I'm just going to have to stop you now.
Sure, I'm all for you homosexuals having equal rights etc... You deserve to be treated fairly.
But marriage means something in my book that does not include 2 people of the same sex living together. By all means help yourselves to the same rights if you will but marriage in my books it will NEVER EVER BE.
I was born at a time when marriage meant something different. I am sorry now but don't change that word. It actually means something special to me at least.
I know I know, the world changes. Words, definitions, morals change. What is acceptable today was not yesteryear and vice versa. Sometimes for good, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. I'm not saying this is a direct analogy but rather as an example of how I think the world has changed: when I grew up, you got a bad grades you got punished by the teacher and then your parents. Now, the teacher gets it.
I am not asking to deny gay/lesbians/bi their rights. Just don't come and equate my marriage to yours. It's not the same and never will be in my measure. Just go call it something else. You guys are bright, creative inventive whatever. Just go and come up with your own word for it.
Food for thought: This is the perfect example of why I have always said that freedom and rights isn't free. They have to be fought for. These guys have fought for their rights and now are changing our lexicon - perfect example. Rights, fine. My only question again is why let them redefine a heterosexual word? Should we let them? I should tell you I was once denied entry to a gay/lesbian bar going there to meet a gay friend because I brought a girl - so you can see why I am not all that enamoured by their movement, some of them take it TOOO far. How far will we allow this to go eh?
Re: "... how I think the world has changed: when I grew up ..."
Not sure where you grew up, but please take a moment to recall it was a mere 45 years ago that interracial marriage was illegal in numerous states in the U.S., and interracial married couples were being arrested.
Re: "I am not asking to deny gay/lesbians/bi their rights. Just don't come and equate my marriage to yours. It's not the same and never will be in my measure. Just go call it something else. You guys are bright, creative inventive whatever. Just go and come up with your own word for it."
Take any argument against gay marriage and replace "gay couple" with "interracial couple" and think about what you sound like.
45 years is not that long ago.
You do know marriage existed long before the christian church don't you? The ancient Greeks and the Romans and some areas of China all allowed same-sex marriages, probably other places too but it's difficult to find historical records from that far back so if anyone is wrong on the subject it is the christian church who have hijacked it and twisted it to their particular set of beliefs. Beliefs which they think gives them the right to discriminate and in the past even maim, torture and kill people who don't think the same way as them. But they are only doing what God has told them to do and God loves you so its for your own good.
How many of the so-called "christians" have read the bible for content?
Jesus himself (supposedly, according to whoever actually wrote "the gospel according to Luke, 17:34 and :35") said "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.", implying that at least half of all gay folks are A-OK with Jesus ... And if you read the rest of that passage for content, pretty much the rest of humanity is half rotten ... according to Luke's interpretation of what Jesus had to say.
"I was born at a time when marriage meant something different. "
Was that the time when black people had to sit at the back of the bus, women stayed at home and cleaned, and gay people were sent to prison?
If religious authorities decide not to allow gay people to marry in their facilities under their oaths, that is their own business. But a secular gay marriage is on the cards, and a human rights issue. It doesn't matter what you think, because *you aren't the one being directly affected by it*.
The UK government *is* implementing gay and trans-gender marriage, in a secular sense. That's happening. If you disagree on the implementation, then feel free to have your say here:
Except fortunately for every loving gay couple in the UK, you left it a day late to reply.
Of course: You are welcome to have
Sometimes a rose garden is just a rose garden.
This one was planted as a joke, but a loving joke ... She loves roses, and likes Loretta Lynn's version of the song "Rose garden". While she was off helping her sister with new-born triplets, the Foreman & the Hands & I put in a rose garden between the herb garden just off the kitchen, and the fence we share with the gay guys. When she left, it was about a fifth of an acre of lawn, visible from our third floor bedroom (second floor to you brits).
She flew into SFO late afternoon and I drove her home, in time to arrive after dark. Remembering her "What the FUCK!" waking me up first thing in the morning still makes me smile :-)
I couldn't care less about gay or non-.gay Emoj, what I really want is that Skype on iPhone does a faithful rendering of its animations.
If you don't know what I mean, try entering "(mooning)" (with brackets, without the quotes. Works on anything but iOS5 (it shows the essential part, but doesn't animate).
I mean, let's focus on critical stuff here..
As a gay man who has, admittedly just come out of, a 16 year relationship ("ooo, longer than your brother was married" observed my mother) I sort of don't understand the whole thing.
I am a gay vegetarian, and I have as much desire to the right of "marriage" as I do to eat my nutloaf in an abattoir. Give me legal rights (without withdrawing some from heterosexuals), who cares what it's called as long as it's equal to what's there already, it's easy.
Why sign up to something which essentially hates you!?*
* The church hates you, even if those worshipping beside you don't. It's in the bookz!!2!!111!
Not saying I agree with it, but from the sidelines it seems to me that the label is most of the issue. That and maybe some unease about adoption (the idea that a straight couple might be waiting for an adoption while a gay couple gets to adopt seems to stick in people's heads) . Again, not saying I agree, just sayin ...
Don't get me wrong, there are definitely bigoted fringe out there (like those Westboro bastards) that think any legal rights will be the end of the world, but I don't think it's accurate to portray everyone who disagrees with gay "marriage" that way.
Why is it that posters use their actual accounts to make sly digs but when they say what they actually want too they hide behind Anonymous Coward posts.
Why not defend what you believe, cowards. You afraid of being wrong with a name attached?, embarrassed by your outdated and immoral, resentful and hateful beliefs?
I was also born in a time and a culture when 'marriage' meant a union of one man and one woman. For the rest of my life "marriage" will mean that to me.
However if other people choose to make it mean something different to them then that's their business and none of mine. Their doing that doesn't affect the quality of my marriage one bit.
Having reviewed the new emoji characters, I can only laugh that anyone thought there was anything gay going on. Some people are apparently OBSESSED with gayness. We know why. But let's let them figure it out for themselves...
Sorry to disappoint, but it is entirely normal across the majority of the human cultural world for two girls OR two boys OR even two adults of the same sex, to hold hands. Holding hands ≠ sex. It never has. It's also normal for two girls or two guys to affectionately kiss without implying sex. If you think otherwise, I think you need to get out into the world and get some perspective. Not every human behavior can be interpreted as sexual. Even Freud knew that.
So get over your homophobia and homophilia and just enjoy the fact the lots of people of all sorts of varieties, enjoy being with one another and even holding hands. It's not scary. It's not satanic. It's not gay.
Hopefully the next set of emoji actually WILL have gay characters, imitating real life. Imagine that.
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
I know how much some of you enjoy this. I'm just the messenger.
The good news is that members of the same sex can hold hands.
"But it shall be an abomination unto the LORD thy God, if they both are not prepared to go all the way." The Bible says so. Check it out.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019