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

[chrmjenkins]

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.

You're not bringing anything into it. You have no argument. You have stated that the definition of marriage should stay what it was, despite being shown it's changed countless times in the past several centuries.

You cannot provide any basis why changing the definition would be harmful or negative in any way.

You have no sufficiently supported any claims you have made and ignored or diverted when proven wrong.

You simply believe that the definition of a word shouldn't change because that would involve the definition changing. Please elaborate if your argument is more complex than that.

 

[Tough Guy]

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

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

Those replies weren't mine. They belonged to a raving lunatic.

 

[Ciclismo]

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?

"Normal is where how majority behave." So minorities have no rights?

"Sex is betweenness and women." Why? Because that is your definition of "normal"? Hate to burst your bubble, but many animals, both on land and sea, practice homosexual intercourse, so unless nature is unnatural, your logic is flawed.

"Marriage is betweenan and woman." Why? Because you say so? Why can't others be different? Do we all have to wear Reeboks and like Bic Macs instead of McRibs and Nikes?

"If we cold tolerate homosexual, are we gonna tolerate sex between human and animal? How about human and objects?" Interesting leap from "same gender relations within a species" to "interspecies relations". Having said that, although there are records of male monkeys having sex with one another, there are no records of monkeys having sex with tigers as far as I know. But there are records of heterosexual males having sexual relations with cars, but I digress...

p.s. the above post will probably get me banned, but it was nice while it lasted.

 

[bandrews]

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.

Seriously, go and meet some actual, real life gay people. Talk to them instead of forming your opinions of them from some right wing "research". Most of it has been completely debunked by actual scientists.

I'm sure you're a decent guy who has just read too much from one side of the argument. I was brought up in a very small, close knit farming community and went to a Cathedral school. All my best friends were straight and for years I had girlfriends but always knew I was gay. When I told my mates, not one of them had a bad word to say against me. In fact a few who had been quite homophobic apologised and said they'd never actually met a gay person before and realised that on the whole I was no different to them. We still all go on holiday together. I'm godfather to some of their kids. Not once have I ever been made to feel an outsider.

And that's all gay people want - to not feel like outsiders.

 

[i4m]

The idea of two men having sex in general should not be seen as gross. If so, then any two consenting adults having sex should be seen as gross.

...like people can directly control how they feel...

 

[Macboy Pro]

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

so when a man is defined as:

noun
1.
an adult human male.
synonyms: male, adult male, gentleman; More

I guess using the work "Man" is discriminatory now. It excludes woman

 

[mattster16]

You're not bringing anything into it. You have no argument. You have stated that the definition of marriage should stay what it was, despite being shown it's changed countless times in the past several centuries.

You cannot provide any basis why changing the definition would be harmful or negative in any way.

You have no sufficiently supported any claims you have made and ignored or diverted when proven wrong.

You simply believe that the definition of a word shouldn't change because that would involve the definition changing. Please elaborate if your argument is more complex than that.

Your last 2 sentences sum it up perfectly.

 

[Tough Guy]

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).

No offense, but you don't understand how polygamy works. The wives are absolutely not "available". That is simply nonsense.

It works the exact same way as marriage, only it involves groups of people. Usually 1 man and several women.

 

[brianvictor7]

Does this include the 'ancient' Mormons up until 1890?

Which year did god's allowances for marrying child brides end?

When did god get rid of his ban on interracial marriage?

1.Does this include the 'ancient' Mormons up until 1890?
Answer = Let me first say that every Mormon I've met has been among the kindest and courteous of people I have ever encountered. I am afraid, however, that I do not believe the Book of Mormon is Holy Scripture. That's a very long discussion of course.

2. Which year did god's allowances for marrying child brides end?
Answer = Which do you think it is better in a economic and social reality where women have few options? To marry a young girl off to a man who, to the best of your knowledge, will love her and care for her? Or should you continue to support her in your home knowing you have other mouths to feed? Can't always be an easy choice can it? Of course, in this day and age, is there an excuse for such things? I think that it is we who have such vast wealth who should be ensuring such dilemmas are not necessary.

3. When did God get rid of his ban on interracial marriage?
Answer = Presumably that is still in force for the Jews. I'm not a Jew or a Jewish scholar so I must refer you to them.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

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.

Fair enough.

If you are indeed an atheist, I do hope that I did treat you respectfully, as in my research, I have noted that this group is the least trusted demographic in the US, where I am. If I did not, please accept my apologies, and tell me where I offended you, so that I do not do it again.

 

[AppleFan360]

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?

That's just silly. Most CEO's (and most people for that matter) do not reveal their sexualty because its not part their job so what does it matter. I sure as hell wouldn't go to work and talk about who I screwed last night. It really is not anyone's business and completely unprofessional. Get that?

 

[yg17]

"Normal is where how majority behave." So minorities have no rights?

"Sex is betweenness and women." Why? Because that is your definition of "normal"? Hate to burst your bubble, but many animals, both on land and sea, practice homosexual intercourse, so unless nature is unnatural, your logic is flawed.

"Marriage is betweenan and woman." Why? Because you say so? Why can't others be different? Do we all have to wear Reeboks and like Bic Macs instead of McRibs and Nikes?

"If we cold tolerate homosexual, are we gonna tolerate sex between human and animal? How about human and objects?" Interesting leap from "same gender relations within a species" to "interspecies relations". Having said that, although there are records of male monkeys having sex with one another, there are no records of monkeys having sex with tigers as far as I know. But there are records of heterosexual males having sexual relations with cars, but I digress...

p.s. the above post will probably get me banned, but it was nice while it lasted.

If equating a loving, consensual same sex relationship with raping an animal doesn't get you banned here, I see no reason why your post would get you in any trouble

 

[brianvictor7]

There is an obvious flaw in your argument. That's the assumption that there is such a thing as "god". Since there isn't, your argument is void.

May I respectfully point out that you assume something that you have not proven either? But fear not, when we're both dead, we will either know which of us is right or we will know nothing at all.

 

[LordVic]

ok,

2 men, 1 woman (OK)
1 man, 3 women (OK)
1 mother, 1 son (Not OK)
1 father, 1 daughter (Not OK)
1 sister, 1 brother (Not OK)

I believe they all communicate.

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

the difference is when you involve family members. There are known genetic issues with intermarriage and interbreeding that are logical to prevent from a legal standpoint.

however, I'm not opposed to polygamy myself. so from a moralistic standpoint you wont here me complaining about that

 

[Macboy Pro]

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

Lawyer: LOL, no thanks.

you are going off on a tangent because you can't argue your point. I am not a lawyer and you have no idea what my opinion of homosexuality is. What you can gather is that I believe that the word marriage has a definition and it shouldn't be changed. What you can also gather is that I have stated that there should be an COMPLETELY EQUAL option for same sex unions.

I have argued this too many times to take the talking points bait.

 

[bandrews]

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.

Give your "straight agenda" a rest. Nobody is forcing you to shack up with another man.

 

[melendezest]

You want the 'why'? It's because back then women were *property* to be bought and sold, not people. Does that somehow make it 'better' that a woman who had been raped was to be put to death unless her rapist paid her father to marry her?

Please, provide the 'context' that somehow makes this particular bit of the bible 'good', or even defensible at all.

You sound like you don't want to hear an explanation at all and have already made up your mind about the issue.

However, if you are really interested in analyzing the why, below is a link with an interesting explanation:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html

Keep in mind for the sake of argument, that there are cultural conventions that were the norm then. Yet, in Ephesians we get this: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." So women as property? Not really. Husband and wife are "one flesh". There's more, but you have to do your homework if you really want to learn. Arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless.

Yet all this is still besides the point of the Bible. God is expounding on what He determines to be wrong or right behavior, and the consequences of each.

 

[DavidLeblond]

The definition of marriage that I like is:

"The union of individuals that creates kinship."

Wouldn't that take care of a brother marrying his sister? As they're already kin?

 

[laudern]

Well, Tim exercised his right to proclaim his embrace and support of the homosexual lifestyle.

I'll exercise my right to say that I find homosexuality immoral and gross.

God Bless America

********* church nuts. Go watch 7th Heaven.

I'm exercising my right to say that the vast majority of retards that go to church are hopeless sheep, begging for "guidance" to make sense of their pathetic lives.

God Bless America????? pffftttt. Doesn't America have one of, if not THE biggest gay movements in the world?

Immoral? Is it not immoral to project hate towards a fellow human being who has done nothing wrong towards you? Why do you care what he does in his bed? Should god turn a blind eye to what most priests do in their bed, and trust me it is worse than what Tim is doing...But let me guess, God still blesses the priests?

 

[unobtainium]

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.

If they can't communicate, then one partner can't provide consent. If you're going to say something dumb like "What about people who are deaf or can't speak?" uh...there are other ways to communicate. If one of the partners is brain-dead and literally can't communicate, then no, they can't get married -- again, for obvious reasons.

As for incest - there's usually a very problematic power dynamic with incest. For example, a man marrying his daughter (even after she's reached the age of majority) has probably not been...behaving appropriately as a father. I think there are very obvious reasons why society frowns on that. As for brother and sister - there's still the issue of offspring from said relationship. It's not fair to produce offspring who might have medical issues because of incest.

 

[Macboy Pro]

the difference is when you involve family members. There are known genetic issues with intermarriage and interbreeding that are logical to prevent from a legal standpoint.

Interfamily marriages are prevalent around the word and through history.

 

[pooleman]

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?

I have no idea.

 

[gugy]

Congrats to Tim.
Time to move on and embrace diversity. We cannot live in the past anymore.

 

[LordVic]

Interfamily marriages are prevalent around the word and through history.

it is very true and its an extremely questionable activity due to health and moral implications.

I might not agree myself with the acts, but if siblings marry... well... doesn't change that they are human beings with basic human rights

 

[pooleman]

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

That's great. Again, I don't want to hear about it. that's all I've been saying.