Apple CEO Tim Cook Publicly Comes Out as Gay in Letter Declaring Support for Equality

[Mums]

But you felt perfectly free to label others.
Here's a list of just some of the labels you applied to *other* people:
gay
cult
human
men
women

Wrong. I called attention to the label "gay" without using it. Human, men, women, etc., are generic pronouns and are only labels inasmuch as they are words, and all words can be considered labels. Your attempt at semantics seemed rational upon first reading, but failed the logic test upon further analysis. Try again tbrinkma.

 

[iPad Air]

You're wasting your words on these people. They are committed to ignoring what you say and will never, ever give you a fair hearing.

Its worth a try I guess. I know what your saying though.

 

[iCore24]

I wonder if this will affect Apple in anyway? But I think this makes Apple stand out even more now!

Also I would like to announce I like females. I will be writing a article on Bloomberg soon...



 

[tennisproha]

Are there really people who didn't know, anyway get back to work and fix up IOS 8.

I didn't know lol. really? have we always known?! this is news to me. I thought he had a wife lol.

 

[iPad Air]

That's fine by me. It's a step in the right direction.

I appreciate your response.

 

[brianvictor7]

Basically, you are saying God failed. Flopped. Messed up. Made a boo-boo. Pulled a boner. Good goofed. OK, then. Your God is fallible, so you don't really subscribe to the Judaic notion of an infallible God. Maybe you're actually a closet pagan? Maybe it's time to come out and worship Zeus freely?

FYI, "Deus" is just a corruption of "Zeus"; so you have history on your side.

God made sexuality in a way that has a proper use. We, as free-will beings, can choose to abuse it. That doesn't make God fallible. Our choices, on the other hand, show us to be very much so.

 

[melendezest]

Leviticus 11:10-12 also says:

10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Shellfish are an abomination. And not just any abomination, it's called one FOUR TIMES! Like, WOW! God hates seafood!

So I guess all those against being gay, due to Leviticus, are also taking the charge to Red Lobster, and all those sinful fisherman. Hop to it if you're not, you don't want to displease the big 'G' upstairs now.

Alex

Well Alex, I'll ignore the sarcasm, but I believe that in your haste you missed the point entirely:

Romans 14:14 onwards: "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself.

But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.

If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.

Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil.

For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval."

 

[joejoejoe]

Normal is where how majority behave. Sex is betweenness and women. Marriage is betweenan and woman. If we cold tolerate homosexual, are we gonna tolerate sex between human and animal? How about human and objects?

People are born gay. That's as natural as it gets, my friend.

Bringing in the argument about man and animals and man and objects is old, lame, and tired. We're talking about people, and the way they're born. If you believe in God, God created them this way. If you believe in nature, nature created them that way.

I encourage you to meet some gay people. It's very easy to right something off as unnatural, wrong, against nature and God when you have no experience with it and it's not a part of your life, so I can understand you feeling this way if your world has been so closed off to the people around you. All you have to base your judgments on them are stereotypes, which is something that every minority in this world has to battle with.

 

[3282868]

Stupid false dichotomy endlessly repeated, which ultimately adds nothing to the discussion of sexual morality anyway.

You could theoretically be born gay. You could theoretically choose to be gay. You could also theoretically be made gay by external forces and circumstances.

It doesn't say anything about the morality of homosexual sex. People are born all sorts of ways with all sorts of desires. A thing isn't automatically right just because you were born to like it. A thing isn't wrong just because you chose to like it, either.

The problem with your post is the misuse of "choice", there isn't a choice in this matter, any more than your "choice" to be heterosexual. Moving on from that which you refuse to accept, your point of contention is the "act", so now we're back to "love the sinner, hate the sin" b.s. Well, since this is about sexuality, sex is very much not a choice. Do you suppose everyone in unwed relationships, or women or men who are infertile, should not engage in sex? Should homosexuals be unhappy and not engage in loving, sexual relationships because YOU do not agree with their "choice"? You're mincing words, not making sense.

 

[iLunar]

Please do not put things in my mouth. I do not hate gays. I would treat any homosexual that I greet with respect and kindness, but that would be the extent of our relationship.

That's very kind and decent of you. Very very kind. You deserve a medal. And maybe some of Tim Cook's billions of dollars. And salvation.

I know you also don't hate blacks. You would treat any black that you greet with respect and kindness, but that would the extent of your relationship. I suppose that means you wouldn't hire someone who is black?

I know you also don't hate women. You would treat any woman that you greet with respect and kindness, but that would be the extent of your relationship. I suppose that means you wouldn't hire a woman?

 

[Gasu E.]

It doesn't say anything about the morality of homosexual sex. People are born all sorts of ways with all sorts of desires. A thing isn't automatically right just because you were born to like it. A thing isn't wrong just because you chose to like it, either.

Nothing say anything about the morality of homosexual sex, except maybe two lines in the various bibles. The bibles says a whole lot more about philandering and wife beating, but you never hear the same level of vitriol, do you? And how about that Sabbath? I really would like to hear all those preachers rail against people who don't go to Church on Satur-- oops--Sunday.

 

[scrmtrey]

Next year blue-pink color, gold will be more pink gold and bo more classy elegant black or space gray.

 

[robbyx]

Why should I listen to what you have to say? I don't think gays are horrible, evil people. But you think religious people are "worthless bigots".

Who sounds more reasonable? Me, or you?

No, you just think it's cool to demean them subtly, hiding behind religion. You can act all holier than thou, the poor gay people, they are sinners, we love the sinner, not the sin, etc. At least I'm honest about my feelings and don't create all sorts of mental gymnastics to keep myself from admitting the truth. You're a hater. Own it.

 

[iSee]

Please do not put things in my mouth. I do not hate gays. I would treat any homosexual that I greet with respect and kindness, but that would be the extent of our relationship.

That's better than nothing.

But if you are Christian and take it seriously, you're going to have to do better than that. Jesus taught us we have to love each other.

 

[0098386]

I believe homosexuality is wrong.

Are you crazy?

Is there anything else you think is wrong; people of different races, religions, how are you with disable people, or people with incredible talents?

 

[bpeeps]

As soon as I heard this news, I knew MacRumors would be an absolute mess today.

 

[robbyx]

Well Alex, I'll ignore the sarcasm, but I believe that in your haste you missed the point entirely:

Romans 14:14 onwards: "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself.

But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.

If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died.

Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil.

For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval."

You can post stupid Bible verses until you've posted the whole stupid book. And you can try to explain away all the stupid contradictory stuff the stupid book claims. And you can even do it in a scholarly tone. But it doesn't change anything.

 

[glxyjones]

That's better than nothing.

But if you are Christian and take it seriously, you're going to have to do better than that. Jesus taught us we have to love each other.

Exactly, Jesus was the ultimate liberal socialist. Look up red letter christians.

 

[osofast240sx]

Nothing say anything about the morality of homosexual sex, except maybe two lines in the various bibles. The bibles says a whole lot more about philandering and wife beating, but you never hear the same level of vitriol, do you? And how about that Sabbath? I really would like to hear all those preachers rail against people who don't go to Church on Satur-- oops--Sunday.

You mean the fourth comandment. That's another can of worms. But look at any calendar 7 day is on saterday

 

[0000757]

I've never been able to find an answer, but maybe you can help me.

Where did the 'cis' come from? Is it some obscure greek or latin prefix I've never heard of, or what?

Cis and trans are both Latin prefixes meaning "on this side of" and "across or opposite of".

 

[Gasu E.]

Please do not put things in my mouth. I do not hate gays. I would treat any homosexual that I greet with respect and kindness, but that would be the extent of our relationship.

OK, your choice, and peace be unto you. But it's your loss, as you would be writing some very fine and interesting people out of your life. And would you do the same for philanderers and wife-beaters? Drunkards and people who speak ill of their parents? People who work on Sunday?

 

[Symtex]

Its worth a try I guess. I know what your saying though.

I found that statement ironic. You came here posting with homosexuality is wrong with the only argument that its against your religious beliefs. That's the extend of your argument.

I will give you a fair share to explain your point of view but know in advance that my disagreement with your point of view doesn't mean I didn't give you a fair share. To be honest, you seems to be a moderate christian which I would take over any fundamentalist one. It doesn't change the fact that your whole argument is "Because a book written thousands of years ago said so". The reality there is no argument that would justify in any shape or form discrimination against homosexuality. Religious beliefs or not aside.

So feel free to express your opinion on the subject and I will be more than happy to exchange with you my point of view knowingly that we will probably have to disagree with each other.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

The problem with your post is the misuse of "choice", there isn't a choice in this matter, any more than your "choice" to be heterosexual. Moving on from that which you refuse to accept, your point of contention is the "act", so now we're back to "love the sinner, hate the sin" b.s. Well, since this is about sexuality, sex is very much not a choice. Do you suppose everyone in unwed relationships, or women or men who are infertile, should not engage in sex? Should homosexuals be unhappy and not engage in loving, sexual relationships because YOU do not agree with their "choice"? You're mincing words, not making sense.

I put every possible option for the origin of homosexuality on the table. There's a spectrum of options beyond the "choice/born that way" dichotomy and science has yet to establish which are valid.

My point, though, was simply that it's irrelevant to the question of sexual morality, which should be argued without appeal to what mechanism someone arrives at their sexuality with.

 

[peterdevries]

Making guns illegal, ...
1. is unrealistic
2. Would give the advantage to those who obtain them illegaly

They are illegal in the Netherlands and it works perfectly. 99% of the population has and never will be confronted by guns. There is less general violence and the prisons are more empty compared to the US.

 

[brianvictor7]

You don't see anything hateful about comparing two gay people in a loving, committed relationship to prostitution and VD? You're blind.

Two gay people in a loving, committed relationship is a contradiction in terms. If they are in it, it is not loving. It isn't what was intended for human sexuality. But you are right to say that in and of itself it has far fewer immediate and visible consequences than prostitution, but both fall short of the mark of what is right.