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

[Tough Guy]

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).

Do we require an animal's consent before it's sent to the slaughterhouse? Must a dog give it's consent before being spayed or neutered?

Marriage between man, woman and animal would require absolutely no shift in legal understanding. It would require only another shift in the definition of marriage.

I'd assume most people would want to ensure that the animal isn't being abused and existing animal cruelty laws could be left unchanged. But if LeRoy (with his jar of peanut butter) and his dog want to get married, who are you to say no?

 

[pooleman]

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

That actually is true.

 

[Macboy Pro]

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.

I guess I worded that a little loosely. The point I was making was that in definitions of marriage throughout history and today, they all include a man and a woman. It is just recently in some areas that they are including same sex.

No need to get smart about something to prove a point.

 

[unobtainium]

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?

What you perceive as people "not revealing their sexuality" is actually just people behaving normally -- that is, frequently making comments about their wife, their husband, their family, their life. You don't notice it because it's "normal" to you. You don't perceive it as "throwing something in your face" because you don't even notice it.

In reality hardly anybody actually "hides" their sexuality, except those who are ashamed of it. What you're basically saying is that gays should be ashamed and keep it in the bedroom. But again, that's a you problem, not a them problem.

 

[LordVic]

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

Than, like this article, you didn't have to click and read it.

its Tim Cooks right to defend equality, stand up for what he believes in.

It's your right to move along and not read it.

arguing that it shouldn't be said is arguing that homosexuals shouldn't feel comfortable with talking about who they are.

But you keep wanting to complain about having to hear about it. Yet you're the one whose kept pressing refresh and replying to people.

his coming out of the closet (so to speak) doesn't have to have any impact on your life. Yet you're the one whose reading it and making arguments

 

[tbrinkma]

Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Just call one man and one man something else and give them 100% rights guaranteed. (if that was the real agenda)

We've already shown that marriage isn't only defined as one man and one woman, so I'll just move on to the rest of your post...

Yea, I guess its sad. Pretty soon it will be a marriage will be:

1 man, 1 woman, 2 goats

Goats can't consent.

or
2 women and one man

That's already *been* the definition of marriage in many cultures, for many thousands of years, and even within the history of the United States.

I personally don't have any problem with this concept, so long as all those involved consent, but I can understand how it might make some of the standard assumptions about inheritance, etc. a bit messy.

or
2 men, 1 woman

Again, assuming consent, what's wrong with this arrangement?

or
maybe we can let parents marry children,

Again, we run into a consent issue. Children can't consent. Then there's also the issue of inbreeding (which I'll discuss below).

or sisters and brothers marry.

This one is actually a fairly recent ban from a historical perspective, and only came about when people realized what too much inbreeding was doing to the children of those couples. All the arguments against this arrangement assume that the people involved in a marriage have a goal (to some degree) of breeding. The government's interest in preventing the inevitable harm caused to the products of such breeding are the reason why it is banned. It really has nothing to do with

When does it end?

As you can see, the main issue with the majority of these arrangements is *consent*. When the individuals involved can consent to the arrangement, it takes a much more pressing concern (such as the results of continued inbreeding) to give the government the right to step in and say, 'No'.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

Good for him, his personal life is his own - very happy he had the courage to come out

 

[Meister]

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.

What if the family members are of the same sex or sterile? Why isn't that legal? Why isn't polygamy legal?

 

[Symtex]

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.

I am not offended one bit. You have the right to have your own beliefs. I do reserve the right to critique them in the same fashion you have the right to criticize me. It should be an open dialogue. I am sure, that deep down, we share a lot of common values. The only difference is that I think the "god" part is not needed.

 

[Lictor]

so when a man is defined as

A word is not defined. A word is used. And that's the use that dictate its meaning. The use can shift completely over time. Other centuries of use, a word can mean the opposite of what it meant in the beginning or something completely different. Language is not an absolute or does not carry any truth it's just something that is always evolving...

For instance, if you had checked into a real dictionary, you would have found the following definitions :
"Man : A human regardless of sex or age; a person."
"Man : The human race; mankind: man's quest for peace."

And if you had made the effort to look at etymology, you would have discovered that historically, men did not mean people with a penis :

"Traditionally, many writers have used man and words derived from it to designate any or all of the human race regardless of sex. In fact, this is the oldest use of the word. In Old English the principal sense of man was "a human," and the words wer and wyf (or wæpman and wifman) were used to refer to "a male human" and "a female human" respectively."

(All from the American Heritage Dictionary)

That's why using a dictionary to claim the "truth" is stupid. A dictionary doesn't give the truth or a definition set in stone. It just gives the current usage. For instance, when the law in a country is modified to allow same sex marriage, the definition of marriage is changed in the dictionaries in the following years, because dictionaries just describe what the words mean at a given time...

 

[Macboy Pro]

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

My agenda is that Marriage is by definition a man and a woman. PERIOD. So, don't put words in my mouth. It doesn't help your agenda (whatever it may be)

 

[unobtainium]

But if LeRoy (with his jar of peanut butter) and his dog want to get married, who are you to say no?

How would we know whether or not his dog wants to get married?

Also, a dog can't consent because a dog isn't a legal entity. That's why we can slaughter animals; they have no legal protection, and they have no legal rights (other than a few meager animal cruelty laws). But that also means they're not legal entities with the right to consent. It makes excluding them from marriage pretty simple, on both moral and legal grounds. Morally because they can't communicate their consent, and legally because they're not legal entities.

 

[tbrinkma]

I agree with you. I'm not saying bisexuality is a choice. I'm saying that if you are inherently bisexual, you then have a choice as to whether you spend your life with a man or a woman.

Of course, in that scenario, you also have the choice of spending your life with both, or even *neither*.

 

[glxyjones]

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

You don't have to read any of the articles. If you want to remain ignorant to someone's sexual orientation or whether Justin and Jessica are having a baby (they are btw, OMG! jk) the onus is on YOU to ignore it and move on with your life. People should not have to remain silent based on what YOU want.

 

[Appl3FTW]

So yea Timmy is gay

Discussed about this at work since I'm an apple guy. I don't think its a big deal at all. Glad that he's out and got that out of his chest. This doesn't affect the way I look at apple in any way shape or form to be honest. The guy is a genius and business mastermind. As long as he keeps me happy with apple product releases I don't care who he sleeps with, it's his choice.

Jus sayin

 

[Meister]

My agenda is that Marriage is by definition a man and a woman. PERIOD. So, don't put words in my mouth. It doesn't help your agenda (whatever it may be)

Besides the term marriage, don't you think that people should have a right to choose their life partner(s)?

 

[unobtainium]

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

But why should everyone be concerned about what you do, or don't want to hear about? I mean I don't really care...does anybody else?

 

[johnnyturbouk]

That's called being Bi-Sexual. FYI

or tri-sexual. as you missed out transgender and those that don't fit the typical categories

 

[LordVic]

What if the family members are of the same sex or sterile? Why isn't that legal? Why isn't polygamy legal?

I don't know why polygamy isn't legal. Ask the legal experts. (I said it a few posts ago that I don't believe Polygamy should necessarily be illegal. from a relative humanistic standpoint, I cannot be prejudiced against those who wish to consensually practice it)

i'm not entirely sure what you're asking about the first two though

 

[miamialley]

Good for him. This also helps identify forum members who are idiots.

 

[MacModMachine]

Last I checked it was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So the strict answer to your question, "do you know how many ... languages your "bible" has been translated from would be from" would be three. As for how many times, I don't know but I certainly hope it keeps going up because that means more people can understand it.

Now, if you're concerned about the message being degraded, well that is why we have God fearing scholars who diligently strive to handle the text correctly. Have there been errors made in translations? Certainly there have been throughout history. Some Christian groups have even disputed which books belonged in the Scripture. One would reason, however, that God has the ability in his Providence to preserve his message through time for those willing to look for it. You can go today the oldest texts we have available to make your own translation and be reasonably sure they are exact copies of the original script (the jews were zealously exact in copying scriptures ... quite an interesting topic to read about sometime).

no one will ever understand the bible , its a book of pure lies and made up scriptures.

half of the original translation scripts (aramaic and hebrew) are no longer "available" , how convenient to the corporate money making church's that convince people to give them their money.

its amazing how some are so gullible they will believe in anything they read because someone says its true.

let me know when you get a life threatening illness and let me know how god helps you out , wait....its his plan because god has a plan for everyone.

what a pipe dream.

 

[LordVic]

Good for him. This also helps identify forum members who are idiots.

My ignore list has gotten a field day

 

[chrmjenkins]

I guess I worded that a little loosely. The point I was making was that in definitions of marriage throughout history and today, they all include a man and a woman. It is just recently in some areas that they are including same sex.

No need to get smart about something to prove a point.

Actually, you claimed EVERYONE defined marriage as between a man and a woman, then failed to provide evidence when I asked for proof of certain groups of peoples.

You still haven't said why it shouldn't change, in any sphere of lexicon.

 

[Meister]

i'm not entirely sure what you're asking about the first two though

What would speak against two brothers marrying.? Or father and son? Or two sisters? Or a sterile man and his sister? Where would you draw the line?

 

[Newtons Apple]

Discussed about this at work since I'm an apple guy. I don't think its a big deal at all. Glad that he's out and got that out of his chest. This doesn't affect the way I look at apple in any way shape or form to be honest. The guy is a genius and business mastermind. As long as he keeps me happy with apple product releases I don't care who he sleeps with, it's his choice.

Jus sayin

I agree with you 100% except he is the CEO of Apple and many will not approve. His number one job is the responsibility to the stock holders and i do not find his comments to be helpful to AAPL today. Time will tell in the next week or so.