Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Publicly Comes Out as Gay in Letter Declaring Support for Equality
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Homophobe is what YOU want to call people. It does not make them one. Again, religious people are NOT making Tim Cook have a miserable life. That was the statement. It was a false statement. You make my point that religious people have the right to disagree with homosexuality just as others have the right to agree with it. Its the flat out lies that drives me crazy.
Where exactly are these referrals all over the Bible?
I think it's kind of a big deal if cities like Mumbai, Shanghai, Tokyo, Singapore, London, New York, LA, Rio, Lagos etc all become uninhabitable. They are all costal by the way.
The real humor is that someone who adamantly protests others trying to define his sexuality is blatantly defining sexuality for others.
Mirror. Buy one. I'm not defining anyone's sexuality. That's what you're doing by trying to claim it's a choice. As if you choose to be heterosexual. Or I chose to be white. Doesn't work like that.
Even more context: The story's a twisted parable about hospitality. Lot let the men rape his daughters so they wouldn't rape other men. Not because the people of the time believed something was intrinsically bad about homosexual acts (rape is not about homosexuality by the way, it's about power... ask the high school footballers who raped that boy).
It was because women were regarded as property, as less than a man... ergo, raping a man was less acceptable than raping women, and oh by coincidence the perversely obsessed god who said it to be so held the exact same values of the people of the time who claim to have been divinely inspired as opposed to just writing up some utterly self-serving arcane rules and calling them divine to rationalize their bigotry in a way that was entirely consistent with the allegory and metaphor of other works of fiction throughout the Bronze Age.
Love that he's trying. "Racist", "Middle Class"? There are hundreds of posts in this thread that show their bigotry, none that demonstrate his claims. I sincerely worry about his psychological well being, unstable to state the least.
I didn't say that you couldn't call yourself whatever you want, but people asserting that gay people (in general) choose to be gay is pretty ridiculous. I did not CHOOSE to be heterosexual. I just AM.
I cannot help but think (based on the sheer volume of gay people that I have known in my life and that I interact with on a regular basis) that this is true of the majority of homosexual individuals as well.
To imply that they all just chose it is implying that they could "unchoose it" if they wanted to be better Christians. I call BS on that.
Somehow your quote of that passage seemed a little short to encompass 9 verses. Here is the complete text:
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
So, we see that the men get fined and women get stoned. Why? Because if the man is dead he cannot support his wife. Back in those days economic choices for women were somewhat limited: the hard reality of ANE life. But this passage is hardly barbaric towards women. Notice that the man cannot divorce the girl if she was a virgin but says nothing about her divorcing him if she wished or if she even had to live with the jerk. So far as I can tell, she was free to stay with daddy while her jerk of a husband had to pay what amounted to allimony.
Now, we may complain that no such cloth test is available for the men, but that is the equipment people are born with. And if he had been proven to have fornicated or adultered, he of course would be put to death per OT law.
Please do Christians the courtesy of correctly handling their Scriptures.
He certainly didn't make an *informed* choice. He thought there were only TWO options. Even ignoring the whole spectrum of possibilities between the extremes, there's 4 easily identifiable possibilities:
1) men
2) women
3) both
4) neither
Maybe he was conditioned to believe that he only had options 1 & 4?
Again, you're making HUGE assumptions.
When did I ever state that I was Hetero?
When did I ever say that it was a choice for EVERYONE?
Don't bring race into this. That's a smokescreen, and why you're on my prejudiced list.
I'll wait for the answers to the first two questions.
do you know how many times and languages your "bible" has been translated from ?
of course you choose who you are attracted to...
And society helps you with that choice by teaching you when you were a child what is attractive and what is not.
I'm not really sure how being ticklish is the same thing as who you find attractive? You can choose to find a stranger attractive.... but I truly doubt that you would laugh or giggle if that same stranger walked up to you and started tickling you.
Thank you. Once again, we are in agreement.
I feel like this discussion is chock full of red herrings and straw men at this point.
Just another way for bigots to bash people who they find offensive.
/smh
I can agree with the first part, the rest is a bit off from what I was saying.
I've got a lot of friends in the LGBT community and without putting myself out there too much have known lots of people that have been born that way, and many that choose, not simply to be "gay" but have moved from one of the LGBT monikers to another.
Thanks for actually wanting to have a conversation by the way.
Saying that I didn't choose to be white isn't "bringing race into it." That's a bogus charge made by someone who's argument is floundering. And in point of fact? You brought race into it when you accused ME and others of being racists with no provocation and no justification.
You choose who you are attracted to, but you don't choose a biologically-driven sexual orientation.
It's pretty much chosen for you. If you have an orientation that skews toward finding both males and females sexually and romantically desirable, well, that's just who you are.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
I think the problem is there are three possible states of biological attraction that can occur in nature. They are heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual in that order.
Any study on homosexuals is going to be messed up by bisexuals throwing the data off, but clearly the majority of gay people could never be attracted to people of the opposite sex, in the same way I (as a straight man) could never be attracted to another man. I could no more 'choose' who I am attracted to than I could choose to stop my heart from beating.
The fact that scientists can change the sexual preference of mice by manipulating their genes shows it is at the very least an epigenetic effect.
**** Timmy. No one cares. Keep running the company but I don't care about your sexuality at all.
It used to be much easier to add someone to the ignore list. I don't understand why they removed the function from the menu that appears when you click on a username in a thread. It used to be much easier and faster...
Funny how this always come back to marriage. Marriage by definition is NOT two Men or two Women. Have equal rights does not require the redefinition of marriage. That is the problem. They should give couples the same rights but they do not have to call it what it is NOT. This is why same sex unions was the push (until most agreed). Then that wasn't enough because the movement still felt it was different. IT IS DIFFERENT!!!!! Good grief. Give it a name and give them the same rights and lets move on.... But no, that is not the agenda like I mentioned before.
It comes from the Creator of this universe. The reason there is bad in this world, is not because of God, but us.
- Status