Tim Cook to Speak at LOVELOUD Festival This Saturday

[yg17]

3% of the population is gay (if that). I think many, many straight people have a biological aversion to watching people of the same sex make out. Even people in favor of same sex relationships get grossed out. Doesn’t make them a bigot.

I guess you’d like to force the bigot to bake the cake, though.

I don't want to see a gay couple make out any more than I want to see a straight couple make out.

What if it's an elderly hetero couple making out? Or a morbidly obese man and woman making out? I mean, those are pretty icky too, and I definitely don't want to see that. Shall we have a requirement that only good looking, hetero couples under 35 are allowed to make out on TV or in public?

 

[294307]

Pray tell, precisely how is a same-sex couple kissing on television different from a heterosexual couple kissing on television?

Do you feel as if you’d immediately need to explain to a 5-year-old the intricacies of gay sex or something? Because you don’t.

You disagree with me and you've made your view clear. I'm so glad you've done that. It's called freedom of expression. We are free to disagree with each other.

I don't think they should have same-sex kissing on television programmes designed for kids – it's not the time and place to show different forms of relationships in my opinion. You obviously don't think that's a problem and I genuinely understand your point of view, but I just don't agree with it.

That's not to say I don't agree with same-sex couples adopting or seeing same-sex couples holding hands on the streets. I'm gay, of course I support that. And yet, others might disagree with same-sex couples adopting. I hope you see the point I'm trying to make here... there is no need to have hurt feelings when people have different points of view.

 

[widgeteer]

You disagree with me and you've made your view clear. I'm so glad you've done that. It's called freedom of expression. We are free to disagree with each other.

I don't think they should have same-sex kissing on television programmes designed for kids – it's not the time and place to show different forms of relationships in my opinion. You obviously don't think that's a problem and I genuinely understand your point of view, but I just don't agree with it.

That's not to say I don't agree with same-sex couples adopting or seeing same-sex couples holding hands on the streets. I'm gay, of course I support that. And yet, others might disagree with same-sex couples adopting. I hope you see the point I'm trying to make here... there is no need to have hurt feelings when people have different points of view.

I don’t see where anyone is expressing hurt feelings in this conversation.

 

[DoctorTech]

"Personally, I do not care. I do kind of laugh a little and feel bad for the gays who say to themselves "why are they grouping us in with these transgender weirdos? What did we do to deserve this?"

OK, I've put on my flame retardant safety equipment before posting this.

I want to expand on a VERY valid point you just made. I frequently roll my eyes when I read about the LGBTQ... community being "inclusive". That is the most discriminatory, segregated "community" on earth.

A few years ago my wife and I were walking on a public beach in Fort Lauderdale, FL and we unknowingly walked through the "LGBTQ... section" of the beach. It wasn't officially marked with any signage but all of a sudden I noticed a lot of 20 something young men with ripped abs, golden tans, and no visible body hair (I thought we may have stumbled onto the set of "300 Part II"). I didn't think anything of it at first until I noticed a lot of them were either sharing a blanket on the beach or playing with nerf type footballs in the water. I was much more focused on the ocean than people so I didn't notice at first all the touching and caressing as some of them were putting suntan lotion on each other. I found out later this group within the community are referred to as "Twinks". No big deal, they had every bit as much right to be on a public beach as we did - we kept walking.

Then we walked past the "Bear" neighborhood of the LGBTQ... community (overweight, hairy, middle aged gay men). Then we walked past the lesbian neighborhood. What really struck me was how segregated the community was. There was absolutely no interaction between these very distinct groups. Within each group, the blankets or beach chairs were close together and there was a lot of interaction but then there was a small strip of bare sand as you left one "neighborhood" end entered the next.

I mentioned this to a relative of mine who is a mental health counselor and she filled me in on just how segregated the LGBTQ... community really is. She told me there are "Bear bars" for older, hairy gay men. Transgender, Lesbians and Twinks are not welcome there just as Bears are not welcome in "Twink" bars.

I believe in free association and I really don't care who wants to sit with who at the beach or who wants to hang out a bar with each other. To each their own. However, I can't get past the hypocrisy of such a segregated community lecturing everyone else about the need to be "inclusive".

Before anyone blasts me for homophobia or compares me to Hitler, let me re-iterate - I don't care who associates with who in bars or on beaches. I don't care what consenting adults do in private. Just don't lecture me about the need to be "inclusive". Finally, there are only 3 people on earth capable of hurting my feelings - and none of them are on this forum.

 

[widgeteer]

OK, I've put on my flame retardant safety equipment before posting this.

I want to expand on a VERY valid point you just made. I frequently roll my eyes when I read about the LGBTQ... community being "inclusive". That is the most discriminatory, segregated "community" on earth.

A few years ago my wife and I were walking on a public beach in Fort Lauderdale, FL and we unknowingly walked through the "LGBTQ... section" of the beach. It wasn't officially marked with any signage but all of a sudden I noticed a lot of 20 something young men with ripped abs, golden tans, and no visible body hair (I thought we may have stumbled onto the set of "300 Part II"). I didn't think anything of it at first until I noticed a lot of them were either sharing a blanket on the beach or playing with nerf type footballs in the water. I was much more focused on the ocean than people so I didn't notice at first all the touching and caressing as some of them were putting suntan lotion on each other. I found out later this group within the community are referred to as "Twinks". No big deal, they had every bit as much right to be on a public beach as we did - we kept walking.

Then we walked past the "Bear" neighborhood of the LGBTQ... community (overweight, hairy, middle aged gay men). Then we walked past the lesbian neighborhood. What really struck me was how segregated the community was. There was absolutely no interaction between these very distinct groups. Within each group, the blankets or beach chairs were close together and there was a lot of interaction but then there was a small strip of bare sand as you left one "neighborhood" end entered the next.

I mentioned this to a relative of mine who is a mental health counselor and she filled me in on just how segregated the LGBTQ... community really is. She told me there are "Bear bars" for older, hairy gay men. Transgender, Lesbians and Twinks are not welcome there just as Bears are not welcome in "Twink" bars.

I believe in free association and I really don't care who wants to sit with who at the beach or who wants to hang out a bar with each other. To each their own. However, I can't get past the hypocrisy of such a segregated community lecturing everyone else about the need to be "inclusive".

Before anyone blasts me for homophobia or compares me to Hitler, let me re-iterate - I don't care who associates with who in bars or on beaches. I don't care what consenting adults do in private. Just don't lecture me about the need to be "inclusive". Finally, there are only 3 people on earth capable of hurting my feelings - and none of them are on this forum.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry you had a poor experience with some humans and you've decided who they eff is what defines the reasoning behind that experience, but it's not true.

And guys? Whenever you begin or end a rant about how terrible a group is by insisting "I"m not "-ist/phobic" against that group!", the qualifier isn't a get-out-of-bigotry-free card.

 

[294307]

I don’t see where anyone is expressing hurt feelings in this conversation.

Because these conversations can quickly turn into one, and I was directing that more generally, not towards the person I responded to.

 

[widgeteer]

Because these conversations can quickly turn into one.

Well, between telling people they're gross for simply existing and insisting children should be shielded from them in case of affection being displayed, I dunno why that would be...

 

[294307]

Well, between telling people they're gross for simply existing and insisting children should be shielded from them in case of affection being displayed, I dunno why that would be...

I didn't say anything like that, widgeteer. If you don't like what I said, why don't you just tell me that instead of making facts up about things I didn't say.

 

[widgeteer]

I didn't say anything like that, widgeteer. If you don't like what I said, why don't you just tell me that instead of making facts up about things I didn't say.

I was being accurate, not literal. Well, actually, one poster did specifically state he finds it "gross", so I guess I was being both.

Anyway, the biggest issue I would have with what you personally said is the idea that these things should just be a difference of opinion. People's right to pursue happiness should not be abridged due to someone finding their life "gross". So if someone doesn't believe lgbt folks shouldn't adopt kids...I don't care. They shouldn't have a say. I'd also add that freedom of expression can also involve people giving you an unflattering critique of your opinions, and that should be okay too. Assigning disagreement to "hurt feelings" is being dismissive. It's your right to do that if you so choose, but it's also my right to call it as I see it.

 

[294307]

I was being accurate, not literal. Well, actually, one poster did specifically state he finds it "gross", so I guess I was being both.

Anyway, the biggest issue I would have with what you personally said is the idea that these things should just be a difference of opinion. People's right to pursue happiness should not be abridged due to someone finding their life "gross". So if someone doesn't believe lgbt folks shouldn't adopt kids...I don't care. They shouldn't have a say. I'd also add that freedom of expression can also involve people giving you an unflattering critique of your opinions, and that should be okay too. Assigning disagreement to "hurt feelings" is being dismissive. It's your right to do that if you so choose, but it's also my right to call it as I see it.

Your comments are interesting, but here's the problem: you can still pursue happiness even if someone disagrees with you. No one is stopping me from marrying my boyfriend. It's legal to marry the same sex in the UK.

The problem here is you are confusing the right to have an opinion with the right not to be abridged from the pursuit of happiness. These are two entirely different problems. What I fear you are saying is we should have selective free speech – so, someone that says they don't believe LGBT folks should adopt kids ought not to have a say. That's not free speech, is it? That's denying people the right to express opinions you don't agree with. That's the problem with society today. People are becoming less tolerant to opinions they don't like, and that causes division.

 

[blacktape242]

is that all he does now?

 

[widgeteer]

Your comments are interesting, but here's the problem: you can still pursue happiness even if someone disagrees with you. No one is stopping me from marrying my boyfriend. It's legal to marry the same sex in the UK.

The problem here is you are confusing the right to have an opinion with the right not to be abridged from the pursuit of happiness. These are two entirely different problems. What I fear you are saying is we should have selective free speech – so, someone that says they don't believe LGBT folks should adopt kids ought not to have a say. That's not free speech, is it? That's denying people the right to express opinions you don't agree with. That's the problem with society today. People are becoming less tolerant to opinions they don't like, and that causes division.

When I say that group shouldn't have a say, I'm not referring to expressing their opinion. They should have no say in how our laws are exercised.

You're making pretty wild leaps. I haven't suggested any of what you're inferring. People are free to hate whomever they want and say it out loud to their hearts' content.

 

[jjhny]

I wish Tim would release a new, gay/trans/gender fluid Mac Pro with more than 12 processors and is internally upgradeable. I don't care how it identifies itself, I'll use whatever pronouns it wants.

 

[DoctorTech]

You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry you had a poor experience with some humans and you've decided who they eff is what defines the reasoning behind that experience, but it's not true.

And guys? Whenever you begin or end a rant about how terrible a group is by insisting "I"m not "-ist/phobic" against that group!", the qualifier isn't a get-out-of-bigotry-free card.

As I said in my closing. There are exactly 3 people on this earth who can hurt my feelings. You are not one of them. I don't give a rats backside who "effs" who (or what for that matter). I never said it was a "poor experience" (maybe a little projection on your part). I was just commenting on the blatant segregation that I observed so I guess that makes me a homophobe in your book. I'm sooooo brokenhearted.

 

[widgeteer]

As I said in my closing. There are exactly 3 people on this earth who can hurt my feelings. You are not one of them. I don't give a rats backside who "effs" who (or what for that matter). I never said it was a "poor experience" (maybe a little projection on your part). I was just commenting on the blatant segregation that I observed so I guess that makes me a homophobe in your book. I'm sooooo brokenhearted.

I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings cause I'm with you: as much as you don't care what I think about your feelings, I can promise you I care even less than that about 'em.

You used an anecdotal experience to make a declarative statement, and in the process also butchered what it means when LGBT people say they want inclusion in our society. I'll give you a hint: it's not about being able to go to "straight bars." They've been doing that their whole lives because those bars are called "bars". Their bars get a special designation, however. Which is just one tiny lil' clue as to how our society ghettoizes non-cis folks.

See how this works yet?

 

[Glockworkorange]

I don't want to see a gay couple make out any more than I want to see a straight couple make out.

What if it's an elderly hetero couple making out? Or a morbidly obese man and woman making out? I mean, those are pretty icky too, and I definitely don't want to see that. Shall we have a requirement that only good looking, hetero couples under 35 are allowed to make out on TV or in public?

I'm not sure I understand the point of your question at the end.

I think some people are just hardwired to kind of be grossed out by two people of the same sex kissing.
[doublepost=1532657619][/doublepost]

Yeah! Like when people get grossed out by interracial couples! No one wants to see that crap! And it doesn't rmake them racist either, cause a lot of them love the NBA!
[doublepost=1532604606][/doublepost]

You don't seem fsmiliar with how our country actually works. First sign is that you're under the impression that the levers of power I'm referring to are all political.

Oh, and allow me to really blow your mind: there are plenty of groups that voted against their own interest because of ingrained societal training. Cause our society is owned by white cis men.

Now bring up Obama or Oprah to drive home the point that you REALLY don't understand what either of us is talking about.

Ah, the "cis white men" and their "heteronormative" culture and patriarchy keeping everyone down.

Sure, Snowflake. Sure.

 

[widgeteer]

I'm not sure I understand the point of your question at the end.

I think some people are just hardwired to kind of be grossed out by two people of the same sex kissing.
[doublepost=1532657619][/doublepost]
Ah, the "cis white men" and their "heteronormative" culture and patriarchy keeping everyone down.

Sure, Snowflake. Sure.

I’m not the snowflake whining about seeing other human beings show affection towards each other. I’m man enough and secure for it to have zero effect, stud.

 

[Glockworkorange]

I’m not the snowflake whining about seeing other human beings show affection towards each other. I’m man enough and secure for it to have zero effect, stud.

Not at all whining about it. Just pointing it out.

Not sure pointing out that a lot of people are grossed out over the sight of two dudes kissing makes me a snowflake or any less of a man than you.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

I’m not the snowflake whining about seeing other human beings show affection towards each other. I’m man enough and secure for it to have zero effect, stud.

Seeing two dudes kissing is triggering. Safe spaces are required

 

[widgeteer]

Seeing two dudes kissing is triggering. Safe spaces are required

Heteropanic is a helluva drug.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Heteropanic is a helluva drug.

Goofy concepts like “heteropanic” is further evidence gay and sexual identity politics is far, far removed from the mainstream and not even worth paying attention to, except maybe to mock. Or pity.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

Goofy concepts like “heteropanic” is further evidence gay and sexual identity politics is far, far removed from the mainstream and not even worth paying attention to, except maybe to mock. Or pity.

Actually the sexual "panic" concept was created by heterosexuals; it's been used as a defense of people who killed LGBT people. They would claim that a temporary insanity brought on by unwanted advances from a homosexual (or the discovery that someone is trans) drove them to murder.

 

[widgeteer]

Goofy concepts like “heteropanic” is further evidence gay and sexual identity politics is far, far removed from the mainstream and not even worth paying attention to, except maybe to mock. Or pity.

Uh huh. With each post, you just completely blow theories like “homophobia” right the hell out of the water, friend.

 

[psac]

"Tim Cook joining us in Utah for LOVELOUD sends a clear message to LGBTQ youth that they have unlimited potential to achieve their dreams," said Reynolds.

Is there a huge movement I'm unaware of in the west keeping LGBTQ youth back form achieving their goals?

Actually, yes.

If anyone is still reading this far in, if you're really curious what the LOVELOUD festival is about, I highly recommend the HBO Documentary, "Believer." It's about Dan Reynolds, the lead singer of Imagine Dragons, who was brought up strictly Mormon, and is a straight ally of LGBTQ rights (like me), trying to reconcile the two, and trying to stage the first LOVELOUD festival last year. Part of that was going against the Mormon church, which is still spending a lot of money to fight against gay rights issue wherever possible, and was the biggest supporter of Proposition 8 in California back before the supreme court ruling. (Side note, in addition to being anti-gay, they're also super-strict about no heterosexual sex and cohabitation out of wedlock. Way stricter than the Catholic church for instance.)

Additionally, the suicide rate among teens in Utah seems to unusually high, which many people attribute to these teachings.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/health/...-talking-with-grieving-families-to-design-it/

>>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints mandates celibacy for its gay members. A policy unveiled in November 2015 declares same-sex LDS couples “apostates” and bars their children from Mormon rituals until they are 18 or older.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Actually, yes.

If anyone is still reading this far in, if you're really curious what the LOVELOUD festival is about, I highly recommend the HBO Documentary, "Believer." It's about Dan Reynolds, the lead singer of Imagine Dragons, who was brought up strictly Mormon, and is a straight ally of LGBTQ rights (like me), trying to reconcile the two, and trying to stage the first LOVELOUD festival last year. Part of that was going against the Mormon church, which is still spending a lot of money to fight against gay rights issue wherever possible, and was the biggest supporter of Proposition 8 in California back before the supreme court ruling. (Side note, in addition to being anti-gay, they're also super-strict about no heterosexual sex and cohabitation out of wedlock. Way stricter than the Catholic church for instance.)

Additionally, the suicide rate among teens in Utah seems to unusually high, which many people attribute to these teachings.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/health/...-talking-with-grieving-families-to-design-it/

>>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints mandates celibacy for its gay members. A policy unveiled in November 2015 declares same-sex LDS couples “apostates” and bars their children from Mormon rituals until they are 18 or older.

This is astounding. This is like a Catholic pop star organizing a giant concert for abortion rights in an effort to change the Church's mind or to shame them. SMH.