There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality. It's not harmful, so it's silly to think it should be eliminated.
----------
By all means, prove otherwise. My bad I forgot, you can't.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Speaks Out Against Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' Law
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality. It's not harmful, so it's silly to think it should be eliminated.
----------
By all means, prove otherwise. My bad I forgot, you can't.
Why would you insist upon keeping biological rejects around?
The difference between left and right is merely that - not an abnormality, and which grew out of biblical texts and the soldiers' fear of crossing swords with a left-handed person, because it foiled their practiced art.
Not being in tune with Nature's two gender procreation system is abnormal - whether one likes it or not.
----------
If you cannot see the falseness of your statement, then there is no point in discussing it further.
Last edited:
If a person is born with an actual defect that limits their ability to live a happy life, we should invest in the research to help eliminate this defect so others do not suffer the same discomfort. But what thy hell would we try and do this to eliminate homosexuality if gay people actually like being gay and become leaders such as Tim Cook? Homosexuality doesn't define Tim Cook but it sure as hell doesn't make him inferior. The planet has had gay people on it since forever, why would you try and fix a problem that doesn't exist? Procreation will only stop when only one sex exists. A penis does not need to enter a vagina for the human race to survive.
Your definition of abnormal is way off. An rhino having sex with a donkey would be pretty abnormal. (Ha made you think of a rhino humping a donkey). A man having sex with a man is not abnormal. It's just beyond your tiny mind to understand.
Is it hard for you to understand that there is a difference between a wedding cake for a couple who doesn't harm anyone, and a hateful inscription? This is like the t-shirt showing a murdered cop earlier, anyone can and should refuse to make that t-shirt because it is in itself hateful. A gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.
One, people are indeed born gay. Usually takes a few years until they realise, but they are born gay.
Second, if I went to a vegan restaurant and were refused vegan food because I like to eat a steak or some sausages at other times, I would be a bit annoyed obviously. However, there is no past history of strong discrimination and outright persecution against meat eaters, so the only effect on me would be that I'd call the restaurant owner a ********** idiot and go and eat somewhere else. And that's a big difference. What the gay couple encountered were the remains of much worse discrimination in previous times.
That is hilarious, actually. I'm an American living in Sweden, and I can safely say that the USA is probably the ONLY country in the "Western" world where a law like this would actually pass.
The stupid thing about it is that it allows for and empowers discrimination any basically any grounds. Christians could be refused at Islamic establishments just as easily as vice versa. The KKK could deny entry or service on purely racial grounds again, based on their 'religious beliefs.'
It is the most backwards movement and slap in the face at equality and freedom I've seen. What happened to the seperation of Church and State? No religious issue has any place in state legislation, or in society outside of privately owned religious organisation property. Commercial and publically zoned land should be banned from taking religion, race, sexual orientation, or anything else into consideration about a human being's/citizen's right to be there or conduct legal activities on said land.
Like I said, you really have no idea how it was collated and written down, your knowledge of history for this region and period is very lacking. Christianity wasn't present in Mecca and Medina when Islam was born. Judaism was and the Jewish community was regarded as special and learned. Christians and Jews are ahl al-Kitab, people of the book, and are equal to Muslims, so there is no threat or challenge from these groups. Likewise the prophets are recognised too, as prophets.
Our knowledge of how the Koran and Hadith were collated and recorded is based on historical fact. Mohammed lived, there is no doubt of this. Whether the Koran is the word of god, well I can't answer that. Remember Muhammed lived from 570 to 632 CE. Our historical record is far more accurate because of this.
All you need to do is read a little, learn a little history!
I study evolution as a career, and I can tell you that the view you have of "biological rejects" is inaccurate, and you're idea of "Nature's two gender procreation system" is uninformed. Variation is VITAL to the evolution of a species, it is not something that is a reject. Without it, a group could not evolve. Yes, this variation includes individuals who are attracted to members of the same sex. As for the two gender procreation, that ignores what is important is the number of offspring that survive to find a mate. That is affected by homosexuals, particularly when the species lives in groups. On top of all of this, same sex mating is found in a number of species (and a large number don't even use the two gender procreation system!). So, please don't bring biology up as a reason for trying to suppress homosexuality, it makes no sense.
Unrelated to that, I don't see how refusing to serve someone based on their sexual orientation is different than on their ethnicity or gender. If the supreme court said that you can't reject a customer because their skin is black, how is something like this law even considered as legal or enforceable?
The First Church of Baby Sacrificers also has a "Religious Freedom" bill in the works. They MUST kidnap and murder babies or go to hell! All beliefs about supernatural matters are valid, and all actions driven by supernatural beliefs MUST be legal!
You right to swing your fist ends where someone's face begins.
As we continue to become a more interdependent and connected society, we increasingly see situations where the line between these two becomes difficult to find.
Where else? What other Western nation would possibly pass such a backward law?
Ja Di ksw stated the response to this perfectly, but I wanted to illustrate it in more direct terms. There's a false notion that it's only natural for life to exist in a form that can directly reproduce; that anything else is unnatural. It's false because there are many forms of life where this is untrue. Ants and bees are a wonderful example, where drones are hatched and develop incapable of reproduction.
What evolutionary purpose could there be for a homosexual male or female? Finding a mate can take up quite a bit of energy and involve a fair amount of risk, depending on the culture, and having and raising a child represents a large resource burden. A homosexual individual represents someone with the might of an adult who could contribute their energy entirely to aiding their group, rather than directing some of it toward reproduction. While they might not pass on their own genetics directly, they would be increasing the chances of success in those around them.
This fits in perfectly with what is known about kinship. It has been noted in nature that chimpanzees will sacrifice themselves for a sibling's offspring. Even though the offspring don't have their direct genetics, the lineage is close.
What it boils down to is that nature is a bit more complex than we give it credit for when it comes to reproduction. Homosexuality is natural and fits in perfectly with what we've observed about reproductive strategies in nature.
This is what I was thinking. Tim Cook should be above all this jibber jabber. He should be running the company by example (which he is doing in some cases) instead of injecting his opinion at every little political controversy on the 24 hour news cycle. Chest thumping is so unbecoming. I lose respect for him every time he does it.
The other option is just accepting that he has the right to voice his opinion just like you did.
I didn't say Christianity was present or a threat, mearly that the authors knew about it. You can't say Mohammed existed without doubt, he could easily be an invented Character used as a literary tool to promote the views of the authors, how would you tell the difference? I have a strong suspicion this is the case with Jesus as there are no unbiased third party accounts of his existence and the people who were there at the time never mention any of the amazing supernatural events that supposedly happened. Mohammed may have been a historical figure, but he certainly never spoke to the angel Gabriel so the Koran represents nothing more magical than the opinions of the people who wrote it.
Last edited:
You cant go pick and choose which religions are allowed religious freedom.
People bent over backwards to accord Muslim women to be allowed to practice in wearing a Hajib. This was a widespread and discussed issue, a bunch of it written on Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/hijab/
People bent over backwards to accord Muslim women to be allowed to practice in wearing a Hajib. This was a widespread and discussed issue, a bunch of it written on Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/hijab/
Apple & politics
Most would agree with the separation of Church & State.
How about adding the separation of corporate governance & politics ?
There's already enough lobbying and revolving doors in Washington.
Is it really in Apple's best interest for it's CEO to comment on state politics ?
Political statements are always polarizing and hence will alienate a certain set of potential customers.
I'd prefer tech companies stick to tech and let lawmakers embarrass themselves without chiming in one way or the other.
Most would agree with the separation of Church & State.
How about adding the separation of corporate governance & politics ?
There's already enough lobbying and revolving doors in Washington.
Is it really in Apple's best interest for it's CEO to comment on state politics ?
Political statements are always polarizing and hence will alienate a certain set of potential customers.
I'd prefer tech companies stick to tech and let lawmakers embarrass themselves without chiming in one way or the other.
You see we do know, historically, without a doubt, that Mohammed existed. As I said, you need to look into how the Koran and Hadith were collated and written down, and also investigate Sira and it's sources. Unlike the Christian and Jewish texts, the Koran and Hadith were compiled only 1400 or so years ago. This is important, as there were already historians and in comparison to Judaism and Christianity, there is a wealth of textual documentation from various sources. Non Muslim written sources referencing Muhammed go back to 636CE, only 4 years after Muhammed's death. You must also understand things like chain of transmission, which are included in Hadith.
I'm approaching this from an historical perspective, not religious.
And you're only saying what you said because you disagree with him. What's your point?
Im always for the right to voice ones opinion, even if it's against what I agree with. That includes yours but good job on deflecting.