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

[yg17]

Oh man. Come on. We have the POTENTIAL to produce offspring. You know what I meant. You can't argue against it so you make absurd statements. Ugh.

So people who are infertile and have no potential to produce offspring should not be allowed to get married? How about an older woman past the age of being able to have kids? No marriage for her either?

 

[pooleman]

Do any of the 98 sources cited in that article meet your discerning criteria? Or did you just not bother to look at it because it's easier to dismiss it that way?

Didn't bother to read it. I'm at work and couldn't devote that much time to looking at my phone. Will look at it later. No need for an eye roll.

 

[Avatar74]

As I have said over and over. They should be equal and not discriminated upon in any fashion. They should not re-define what marriage is.

Why? What will happen if the state redefines its definition of marriage (as it has been redefined several times throughout history)?

We're not talking about churches, they can define it however they want.... they already do, and nobody's changing that. But why should the state not change it?

What is the compelling harm and against whom and how? (Be careful, several Attorneys General have been confronted with this question unable to provide a suitable answer to the apellate courts which heard their arguments.)

 

[tbrinkma]

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.

Strangely enough, until laws started being passed in the past two decades, in direct response to gays who wanted to get *married*, there was no legal definition of marriage which specified 'one man and one woman'.

But you seem to be a proponent of 'separate but equal' (take a look at the civil rights movement to see how *that* idea works in practice), so I guess I can't expect too much from you.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Lol, no thanks. It has nothing to do with the point.

Judge: Can you submit to the court evidence that this new legal precedent would be harmful to the public?

Lawyer: LOL, no thanks.

 

[pooleman]

You must hate weddings.

i actually do hate most wedding. But mainly because of the exorbitant cost.

 

[Macboy Pro]

i suspect that you deliberately excluded the other definitions of marriage that accompanied that one.

But even your definition doesn't exclude a man marrying two women or a woman marrying multiple women.

I left out the most recent changes to the definition in some jurisdictions, correct. That is the point of the conversation. EVERYONE calls a union of a man and woman married. A few jurisdictions have recently started re-defining it to be what it isn't.

 

[tbrinkma]

Redefining marriage is not a requirement for "equality"

It is when marriage was specifically redefined to exclude a group.

 

[zin]

I see the homosexual movement trying to force a new definition on the rest of society. Its the complete opposite of how it is portrayed.

How does a gay couple getting married affect you in any way? You even have the nerve to use the word "force".

Newsflash: Same-sex marriage is legal in some U.S. States already. Can you please tell everybody here what has changed in your life before some of your fellow citizens (of the same sex) got married, and after this occurred? What makes you think that your side should hold a monopoly on the "definition" of marriage? Perhaps you can also use this chance to explain how these people have forced a particular definition of marriage onto you.

 

[pooleman]

You are clearly trying to say that one chooses to be gay. This is not a fact. Calling it a fact doesn't make it a fact.

Others have posted a small subset of the evidence showing sexuality is an expression of genetics. All you've done is claim that it's a choice without providing any evidence at all.

I've also read the articles that show many people who have shown a propensity for homosexuality has suffered a traumatic event or events in their formative years.

 

[mattster16]

1) There was no comparison.

2) I'm atheist/agnostic.

Nice try, buddy. But major failure.

You claimed my medical definition of 'man' was a major fail, yet I was right and you were wrong. You throw that phrase around too liberally.

I was trying to point out how silly it is to argue a civil rights case using semantics....

 

[bandrews]

I have not made any references to religious preference. My point is that this is really NOT about equality. Its about wanting affirmation. The problem is that people are allowed to believe for any reason, including religious, that same sex coupling is morally wrong. Its allowed. Everyone has that right. We don't have the right to force beliefs on someone else. That is where the homosexual movement goes way wrong. What I see are folks who believe it is not right and it is not "marriage" defending that stance. I see the homosexual movement trying to force a new definition on the rest of society. Its the complete opposite of how it is portrayed.

You shot yourself in the foot with
"We don't have the right to force beliefs on someone else."
Allowing gay people to get married will not stop straight people getting married. You won't be forced to marry another man. Your life will be exactly the same as it was before.

 

[Macboy Pro]

Strangely enough, until laws started being passed in the past two decades, in direct response to gays who wanted to get *married*, there was no legal definition of marriage which specified 'one man and one woman'.

But you seem to be a proponent of 'separate but equal' (take a look at the civil rights movement to see how *that* idea works in practice), so I guess I can't expect too much from you.

Strangely my dictionary from the 60s states that same definition without the "one" in front of man and woman.

 

[pooleman]

So people who are infertile and have no potential to produce offspring should not be allowed to get married? How about an older woman past the age of being able to have kids? No marriage for her either?

Those who may happen to be sterile still posses the drive to perpetuate the species. I'm ok with your life choice. Don't worry about it. I also don't need any one telling me about it and telling me to be tolerant of it.

I tolerate it. I don't like it. I don't want it pushed on me.

 

[mattster16]

I've also read the articles that show many people who have shown a propensity for homosexuality has suffered a traumatic event or events in their formative years.

I've read articles that say climate change is a hoax and the earth is actually cooling. That doesn't make it true....

 

[chrmjenkins]

I left out the most recent changes to the definition in some jurisdictions, correct. That is the point of the conversation. EVERYONE calls a union of a man and woman married. A few jurisdictions have recently started re-defining it to be what it isn't.

Interesting. Can you please provide evidence that his is how the Sentinelese, Suriname, Yanomami, and Karafawyana peoples define marriage as well? Otherwise, please retract your claim.

 

[Tough Guy]

you're being assanine.

Equality doesn't preclude accountable for actions. Neither does my statement

If i murdered someone, I wouldn't wish to be given a gun upon release or granted early unjust parole.

What does that have to do with anything? Who cares what *you* would want?

You said you believed *everyone* should be afforded the same rights. Everyone is one damn big group.

I openly support Polygamy. If a group of people, who are consenting adults, come to a mutually beneficial contract in which they are all happy, productive members of society, and in no way affect, hurt or impact societies well being,

LOL.

What right do I have to tell them to stop? They aren't hurting me. They aren't hurting anyone. A house with 5 mothers, 2 fathers might very well be a happy home capable of bringing up children to be well adjusted.

There's a slight math problem there, bud. Massive numbers of single males or females unable to find mates has DISASTROUS consequences for society.

 

[tbrinkma]

AGAIN, marriage by definition is NOT two men or two women, or two women and one man, or two men and one woman. Marriage by definition is ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Hmm. I just did a search, and ended up with *this* definition:
mar·riage
ˈmerij/
noun
noun: marriage; plural noun: marriages

1.
the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

I know, I know, you're going to claim that that's the 'redefinition' you're fighting against.

So, let's take a look at a few more traditional definitions of marriage:

 

[mozumder]

As I have said over and over. They should be equal and not discriminated upon in any fashion. They should not re-define what marriage is.

Yah, but since marriage is a legal definition, it HAS to be redefined to include equal legal rights.

 

[Macboy Pro]

You shot yourself in the foot with
"We don't have the right to force beliefs on someone else."
Allowing gay people to get married will not stop straight people getting married. You won't be forced to marry another man. Your life will be exactly the same as it was before.

Nah, my foot is just fine. My point is the agenda is not equality. The agenda is affirmation.

 

[NY Guitarist]

Has Godwin's Law been invoked in this thread yet?

 

[LordVic]

Those who may happen to be sterile still posses the drive to perpetuate the species. I'm ok with your life choice. Don't worry about it.

Speak for yourself.

I can't procreate. I have zero desire for procreation. I never want children.

sO, i'm not allowed falling in love and marrying anyone of my choice?


Again:, PROCREATION HAS ZERO IMPACT ON ONES ABILITY TO LOVE AND MARRY

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

anecdotal it is than

indeed it is.

However, have you ever tried the method I described for proving God's existence?

 

[downpour]

Well, I was going to reply, but your last statement is so absurd, its obviously a complete waste of time. (and the word is homosexuality, not hosexuality)

Well I was typing my response on an iPhone so you can blame Tim Cook for that as well.

My final comment is no more absurd than making judgements about a person based purely on what some old guys decided to write down in a book of mythology, folk stories and ancient propaganda. Especially when you ignore the vast majority of it, when it is either inconvenient or unpalitable to you.

Out of interest do you remember the moment when you made a conscious decision to be attracted to people of the opposite sex?

 

[Macboy Pro]

Yah, but since marriage is a legal definition, it HAS to be redefined to include equal legal rights.

Then when men and women are treated unequally, we should address that by redefining what a "Man" is. We can say everyone is equal and call everyone a man. Females and Males are now MEN.

OMG, your argument is ludicrous.