Sidebar Sidebar
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

Status
Not open for further replies.
tbrinkma said:
Of course, in that scenario, you also have the choice of spending your life with both, or even *neither*.
Click to expand...

Agreed. SwiftLives made a very valid point earlier, that even in the scenario I layed out, a bisexual person wouldn't really be choosing to spend their life with a man or woman, if presented with a suitable partner of each sex, they would likely be more attracted (even if just slightly) to one over the other. The same can be said for a completely hetero or homosexual person when choosing their life partner over another.
 
LordVic said:
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
Click to expand...

You are understating the reach and the saturation of the homosexual lobby has already had on the general public. to talk about a quality but it's not equal. My kid can't talk about our faith school but we have to hear about the homosexuality in the school. I'm done with it. One belief is fine to talk about and one needs to be shut down.

You don't want to equality. You don't want true tolerance. You want equality for what you believe it. You want tolerance for what you think should be tolerated. But you don't want equality intolerance for everyone. And that's wrong.
 
Lictor said:
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...
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out what I was not willing to take the time to explain! :)
 
chrmjenkins said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sometimes simple works and it is a simple issue. People want to make it complex because that is the only way they can even try to talk about it. Its black and white. You can have "same sex unions" (or whatever) and marriages. They can both be 100% equal. It the agenda was to be equal, this debate would be over. NOPE, that is not the agenda, and that was my original point. The agenda is to get affirmation that two men who are in a union is the same as a man and a woman who are married. Mentally, they emotional and physical attraction may be the same, their love may be the same,etc. But it is still NOT the same. Just like a man compared two a woman is not the same. The man is different, the woman is different. Both deserve equal rights, equal opportunity, and equal treatment from all. But they are "MAN" and "WOMAN" NOT the same.
 
pooleman said:
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.
Click to expand...

You dismissed it out of hand, without bothering to read it, and you don't think that calls for an eye-roll? :rolleyes:
 
The easiest solution would be to just ban marriage for everyone. It's an obsolete concept anyway - the majority of children are born outside of marriage anyway and most marriage only last a couple of years...
Who you spend your life with should be a private matter, I don't see why it should be sanctioned by the State - same sex, different sex, polygamy polyandry, open couple, whatever, it should be private...
 
bsolar said:
There is most likely no point anyway. This is the issue with the Bible: there is no way to take it without interpretation and without deciding which parts you deem more important than others, and you cannot simply ignore the issue since some parts clearly contradict others.

There some churches which consider some parts either historical accounts or obsoleted by other parts, and end up with a completely different interpretation of the Bible than other Churches which happen to read it another way.

Whose interpretation is right?
Click to expand...

That is an often used argument.

I got around it by not relying on hearsay: church or tv preachers, parents, friends, etc.

I did my homework. I read the Bible, the whole thing, with an open mind.

I've analyzed it and held up it's concepts against other doctrines. I find everything in it sound and logical. It has been proven true to me (its moral concepts, that is). And I do not find contradiction in it. But God can and does change His mind.

Many have read it and dismissed it, as well. It does me no harm they do so.

Do what you will, my friend.
 
Eraserhead said:
What exactly is wrong with affirmation?
Click to expand...

Affirmation is good. Encouragement is good. But no one has the right to force things upon others so that they can get affirmation.

It would be a big step if the deception was removed and the homosexual movement would just come out and say that is their agenda. Instead they hide behind falsehoods.
 
Tough Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...

In your example with a man with several wives, it might be that he didn't marry them at the same time, thus for some of these women they effectively married a man who was already married, which means that he was in fact still "available" to marry them in a way not possible with monogamy (excluding adultery or divorce).
 
Meister said:
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?
Click to expand...

its a good question. (I hope you're asking in seriousness for understanding and not trying to make some slippery slope point)

And i dont know if I'm qualified to really provide an answer.

But it's not a bad one.

For example. What if Two brothers live together for their lives. They're not sexually active (obviously no sexual attractiveness between them), but choose to live together in all other forms of the idea of marriage.

Should they not also be entitled to the same benefits in society as a married couple?

I think the point is, when you're asking such questions, ask of them with empathy. Don't just assume what you believe to be truth is in fact the truth, but ask how does this affect them. How does it affect you. how does it affect eachother, the world, society.

There are always multiple stakeholderse to every situation. And multiple different ethical thoeries in which to base your decision on. Without an objective truth to define what is right or wrong, it is up to reasonable human beings to try and find a reasonable ballance in morality. To define that line, to be as encompassing of all as possible.

and to be honest. If brother wants to **** brother behind closed doors. Who am I to judge. I'm not participating in it. they're not forcing me to participate. so be it?

----------
Meister said:
Blocking people because they disagree with you isn't the smartest thing to do imo.
My ignore list is empty and always will stay empty.
Click to expand...

its more of a mental ignore list.

There are certain people my brain gives more credence to than others. (I technically have zero people on my ignore list)
 
MacModMachine said:
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.
Click to expand...

You must not believe in a lot of things about history then. Half of the "original" scripture, pardon the metaphor, of evolution is no longer there, but people still believe in it (actually, I am a theistic evolutionist, so perhaps that doesn't say as much as I'd like it to? :D )
 
Good on him considering some of society's attitudes towards gay people I think that's brave for him to do this.

It's also a huge shame as it really shouldn't be any more remarkable than him having grey hair or wearing glasses. Each to their own as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're consenting and not harming anyone then people should be able to be with whomever makes them happy.
 
Macboy Pro said:
Sometimes simple works and it is a simple issue. People want to make it complex because that is the only way they can even try to talk about it. Its black and white. You can have "same sex unions" (or whatever) and marriages. They can both be 100% equal. It the agenda was to be equal, this debate would be over. NOPE, that is not the agenda, and that was my original point. The agenda is to get affirmation that two men who are in a union is the same as a man and a woman who are married. Mentally, they emotional and physical attraction may be the same, their love may be the same,etc. But it is still NOT the same. Just like a man compared two a woman is not the same. The man is different, the woman is different. Both deserve equal rights, equal opportunity, and equal treatment from all. But they are "MAN" and "WOMAN" NOT the same.
Click to expand...

This isn't the discussion about morally the same.

This is the discussion about what's legally the same.
 
That's his business. I personally don't care if you're gay, atheist, pray to fire or whatever. It's your life and it's your choice. Who the hell am I to judge him?!. If it makes him feel better, good for him.
 
chrmjenkins said:
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.
Click to expand...

And I said I worded that loosely and fixed it. Read on...

It shouldn't change just like we should not start calling every person a MAN regardless of sex organs just so and woman and man can "feel" they are equal.
 
I don't know what's dumber? This thread in this section of the forum or me posting in this dumb thread???

What does the man's sexual preference have anything to do with the iPhone?
 
Tough Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Those fighting against marriage equality changed the laws first. Often in direct response to court rulings telling them that, no, the law *didn't* prohibit same-sex marriage.

The marriage equality folks just want the laws changed *back*, and then to have their *preexisting* rights recognized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back