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

[Tough Guy]

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....

Nope. You were completely wrong.
Google is your friend.

Man: 1. an adult human male.

 

[DavidLeblond]

There is a lot of talk about the definition of marriage here. And, sorry if this has been brought up before (I'm not reading through 63 pages) but being that this is an Apple forum, has anyone thought to ask Siri?

 

[Symtex]

indeed it is.

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

I will tell you this once. 99.999% of all atheist were part of an organized religion in their life as we all took part in a little something call indoctrination.

 

[Eraserhead]

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

What exactly is wrong with affirmation?

 

[bunnicula]

Why are you placing conditions and limitations on marriage all of a sudden? I thought that was taboo?

Umm... because it's illegal in the US for anyone but human adults to enter legal contracts?

If you wanna be "spiritually married" to your pet goat, I'll not judge, bruh.

 

[NY Guitarist]

Define marriage. Not who it involves, but what the word marriage means.

 

[mozumder]

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.

Or you could just redefine marriage?

When you redefine what "Man" is, you also affect other aspects besides marriage.

This issue is about marriage.

Not sure why you need to redefine another term?

 

[Macboy Pro]

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?

Are you bringing religion into it? I wasn't. My arguments have nothing to do with religion and if you think attacking religion is the only path for your argument, then you are discussing this with the wrong person.

Any your last question has nothing to do with the discussion. Its a bait question, to which you have talking points. It is irrelevant to me.

 

[unobtainium]

Who in the hell cares and what the hell does this have to do with making computers and mobile devices???

This is the kind of crap that makes me mad. Someone using their high position as a business person to push a personal agenda. Just do your job Cook and leave your personal life at home. I don't need it in my face.

No one is obligated to hide their lives from your sensitive eyes. Presidents don't hide their sexuality. Most CEOs don't hide their sexuality. In fact, I know of very few public figures--other than closeted gays, or people doing something wrong like adultery--who "hide" their sexuality. So if you don't want to see it, it's really more of a you problem than a Tim Cook problem. Get it?

 

[osofast240sx]

Define marriage. Not who it involves, but what the word marriage means.

When a man and a woman make a covenant between themselves and God.

 

[Macboy Pro]

Or you could just redefine marriage?

But wait. When a womans average salary is 20% less than a man, no one ever though they need to change her name to a man to fix the issue.

 

[mattster16]

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.

What about someone who was born intersex? Since you seem to know all...how does 'marriage' apply to them?

1 in 1,666 people are born neither genetically a male or a female (XX OR XY).
1 in 1,000 people are born with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY).

How do you classify them when it comes to marriage laws?

 

[LordVic]

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.

you're damn right its a big group. if you belong to the human species, you deserve basic rights. end of story for me. A criminal deserves the right to live, the right to being treated fairly and justifiably. Fair and justifiable punishment to make them accountable for their actions, but still basic rights to living. Everyone. and everyone is nearly 7 billion human beings.

LOL.
I'm dense because I believe that all human beings are created equally as relative beings that are unfortunately no born to equality, based upon inequalities imposed by human beings. Then yes, i'm sorry for being dense and not being a power hungry megolomaniac who puts my own above all others. I'm so sorry.


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

what this doesnt account for is that there are also millions who don't want marriage. who don't procreate or don't want to further the species either. we're not a hunter / gathering species anymore. weve ballooned our population to the point where single families, or entire cities of families are going to suddenly alter the course of human populations. Some argue that as is, we have overpopulated ourselves to extreme ammounts that humanity would not be hurt by a slower birthrate.

There are even studies, ranging from historical, to animal, where in reaction to overpopulations, their species adapts to provide less drives to procreation in forms of increased rates of homosexuality and coupling. The aversion to these reactionary changes seems to be nearly based in religious practices, which, even by human variance have proven to be extremely relativistic, where even those of the same religious belief and background have varying opinions.

But you know, I'm the dense one. \

but then agian, i'm not the one telling everyone i'm the "Tough Guy"

 

[Eraserhead]

When a man and a woman make a covenant between themselves and God.

What about Buddhists or Hindus? They don't worship a god and worship many gods respectively.

 

[Tough Guy]

Umm... because it's illegal in the US for anyone but human adults to enter legal contracts?

If you wanna be "spiritually married" to your pet goat, I'll not judge, bruh.

Those who want "marriage equality" want to change the law, so how is this relevant?

There are either restrictions on marriage or there aren't.

 

[NY Guitarist]

When a man and a woman make a covenant between themselves and God.

Can atheists be married? Would God care?

Also what is the nature of the covenant?

 

[Altis]

I would be far more surprised if Ive came out as straight. In any case, not exactly shocking news.

I hope this doesn't mean that any criticism of Apple or Cook are somehow homophobic.

Now, let's get Yosemite and iOS 8 in proper order!

 

[unobtainium]

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:
Image

This is great, but you're arguing against people who are unlikely to understand the concept of historical change over time. They probably think the world is only 4000 years old and things have always been the way they are now, in their recent lifetime.

 

[Macboy Pro]

Animals can't consent, women and men can, so that's the big difference. With regards to polygamy we need to sort out some issues with it, but it should be a solvable problem.

The reasons the homosexual agenda uses to claim it is normal, can be used to claim polygamy and polyandry (two men, one woman). You can even claim it for sister/brother, mother/son, and so on. That was my point.

 

[bsolar]

There's a slight math problem there, bud. Massive numbers of single males or females unable to find mates has DISASTROUS consequences for society. You can't possibly be so naive to not comprehend that.

Well, technically they would be able to find a mate: once you allow polygamy even a married man/woman is "available", whether in monogamy a married man/woman is not available anymore (excluding adultery).

So they would be able to find a mate just fine, even though maybe not exclusively devoted to them.

 

[mattster16]

Nope. You were completely wrong.

Google is your friend.

Man: 1. an adult human male.

You yourself said words can mean different things. So this one definition you posted is not THE definition.

I was trying to get you to understand that basing your argument on semantics is going to get you nowhere when it comes to the law.

Thanks for the personal insult though - very mature of you.

 

[Lictor]

I will tell you this once. 99.999% of all atheist were part of an organized religion in their life as we all took part in a little something call indoctrination.

At least in the USA... In most civilized countries, you're free to be an atheist your whole life without suffering from indoctrination, without having God on your bills... You can even be elected president despite being openly an atheist, something that will probably never happen in the USA...

 

[unobtainium]

Those you want "marriage equality" want to change the law, so how is this relevant?

There are either restrictions on marriage or there aren't.

The difference between consent and lack of consent is pretty fundamental. It would involve not only a change in marriage law, but a fundamental shift in legal understanding, to where it no longer mattered whether someone gave consent or not. In that system, rape would be legal, as would theft, murder, and probably everything else. Consent is the fundamental concept here. Animals and children, by our definition, can't consent (and it's very obvious why - there's really no need to make this more complicated than it is).

 

[Macboy Pro]

When the day comes that a human and a goat can communicate their mutual love for each other, then we can have a serious discussion about revising the definition of marriage to include goats.

ok,

2 men, 1 woman
1 man, 3 women
1 mother, 1 son
1 father, 1 daughter
1 sister, 1 brother

I believe they all communicate.

Are you also suggesting that if two people can't communicate, they can't get married? Just curious.

 

[briankeith513]

Of course he's not gay...



Do you think that a woman who has sex with a man and a woman (as part of a threesome) is gay?



Or do you just think she's enjoying that threesome? I've no doubt there are men who have tried stuff like that within the confines of a MMW threesome and they're not gay... just sexually experimental. If their natural leaning is to have sex with women and they don't wish to enter into romantic relationships with men, they're not actually gay.



You cannot "catch the gay" from kissing someone of the same sex. If so, nearly every woman you know would be a lesbian, I assure you.

What I think is that any person who engages in sexual activity with another person of the same sex, is a homo(meaning same)sexual. That is all.