Stop assuming all religious people are the same.
Europeans may have believed the sun orbited the Earth, but the rest of the world knew better.
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 Publicly Comes Out as Gay in Letter Declaring Support for Equality
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Stop assuming all religious people are the same.
Europeans may have believed the sun orbited the Earth, but the rest of the world knew better.
His sexual orientation should not be an issue. His lousy performance as CEO should be the only issue.
Any objective person understands the reason for the article. Consistent with the current state of discourse in this country, any objective criticism of his performance can now be labelled as intolerance or bigotry. Wonder where that strategy was perfected.
Any objective person understands the reason for the article. Consistent with the current state of discourse in this country, any objective criticism of his performance can now be labelled as intolerance or bigotry. Wonder where that strategy was perfected.
With so many saying they're done with Apple now that Cook came out, I'd like Arn to come out so these haters will leave this site.
I wish they go away ,remember their nickname
No, Welcome to 2014 Android and Apple. Apples timing was perfect. Can't argue with profit and success...
Dunno 'bout the poster you are questioning. But for me it was when I decided what I liked sexually.
really...I am stunned that you feel the need to say whether you don't support his homosexuality or not.
Did you support Jobs heterosexuality? Did you even care?
Agree, no person who is gay should feel the need of "coming out" - do what you want with whom you want it. I couldn't care less.
Maybe straights should "come out" now ...
I wish atheists wouldn't use you as a representation of every other religious person....
But sadly thats not the case.
My two (long-winded) cents:
I don't believe that the CEO of any company should be discussing any issue that relates to sex. Sex is something private and intimate, not for mass consumption (although the porn industry has something to say about that), and definitely unrelated to a company's products.
I take issue with the transformation of the issue of sexual preference into a mechanism for propaganda. Unfortunately, the "gay community" has done just that, transforming it into a civil rights issue akin to the 60's movement.
It isn't. But I understand why they did it. Abuse. Lack of compassion. Violence. Hate. The law. The similarities between the 2 movements lie in the behavior of the "oppressor".
The difference between the 2 movements lies in the fact that one is related to behavior, the other related to status (state of being?). Homosexual behavior is something that requires action. Being non-white is something that does not. Big, big difference.
All that said, I believe a person has the God-given right to choose what he or she does with his or her life. They must also face the consequences of those choices.
But in the US we are trying to wrestle with allowing behavior that some consider immoral into our society's laws. There is a cultural war going on. How free is free?
I'm a person who believes the teachings of Jesus (as opposed to the teachings of say, Mohammed, Buddha, or even Charles Darwin--we all believe something unless we experience it firsthand). As such I am bound to the moral concepts He established. And it is because of those concepts that I also believe that gay people should be free to pursue their lifestyle, with limitations. For example, if gays want to marry, let them. There is consent. If gay people want to adopt, then sorry, no. There would be now a third person involved: a child. It is impossible for 2 people of the same sex to have children. Their behavioral choice (inclination, impetus, desire, or whatever you want to call it, whether innate or not) prevents them from doing so. This is not an issue of a system malfunction (like a hetero couple who is infertile), but that of choice. If a gay couple were to engage in hetero sex (barring system malfunction), they would have the ability to have children. They choose not to, so our society should not reward deviant behavior (from a reproductive sense, at least). This last bit is an opinion; a moral argument, which is a foundation for societal law.
Now, this debate is almost moot in the US, as the govt. has already allowed this to happen. So now individuals like me must abide with the law, and exercise our right to attempt to change it through debate. That's the beauty of a democracy: the people decide what right and wrong is. Unfortunately, it is also it's greatest weakness, since right and wrong then become a matter of "opinion".
I believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, simply because (my) God says so and I believe Him. I see thatthe basic science confirms it given that reproductive design runs contrary to homosexual behavior, ie. engaging in homosexual intercourse is performed for pleasure, not reproduction. The Bible (my moral compass) also indicates that performing these acts puts an individual in a position of enmity with God. It's not about what or who you are, it's about what (or rather humorously, who) you do. Make no mistake, according to Biblical scripture, homosexual behavior is egregious enough to warrant it being labeled (by God) as a capital offense. Don't shoot the messenger, please.
That said, my (Biblical) mandate is merely to tell people. Not to oppress them with it. Not to hate them because of their choice. We (Christians, that is) are to detest the behavior, not the person. And to indicate that it is detestable (to God). Nothing more. As such I have fulfilled the Christian mandate here, unlike most people that call themselves Christians.
As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."
And of course, Joshua: "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
So be free, folks, and choose wisely.
I don't believe that the CEO of any company should be discussing any issue that relates to sex. Sex is something private and intimate, not for mass consumption (although the porn industry has something to say about that
), and definitely unrelated to a company's products. I take issue with the transformation of the issue of sexual preference into a mechanism for propaganda. Unfortunately, the "gay community" has done just that, transforming it into a civil rights issue akin to the 60's movement.
It isn't. But I understand why they did it. Abuse. Lack of compassion. Violence. Hate. The law. The similarities between the 2 movements lie in the behavior of the "oppressor".
The difference between the 2 movements lies in the fact that one is related to behavior, the other related to status (state of being?). Homosexual behavior is something that requires action. Being non-white is something that does not. Big, big difference.
All that said, I believe a person has the God-given right to choose what he or she does with his or her life. They must also face the consequences of those choices.
But in the US we are trying to wrestle with allowing behavior that some consider immoral into our society's laws. There is a cultural war going on. How free is free?
I'm a person who believes the teachings of Jesus (as opposed to the teachings of say, Mohammed, Buddha, or even Charles Darwin--we all believe something unless we experience it firsthand). As such I am bound to the moral concepts He established. And it is because of those concepts that I also believe that gay people should be free to pursue their lifestyle, with limitations. For example, if gays want to marry, let them. There is consent. If gay people want to adopt, then sorry, no. There would be now a third person involved: a child. It is impossible for 2 people of the same sex to have children. Their behavioral choice (inclination, impetus, desire, or whatever you want to call it, whether innate or not) prevents them from doing so. This is not an issue of a system malfunction (like a hetero couple who is infertile), but that of choice. If a gay couple were to engage in hetero sex (barring system malfunction), they would have the ability to have children. They choose not to, so our society should not reward deviant behavior (from a reproductive sense, at least). This last bit is an opinion; a moral argument, which is a foundation for societal law.
Now, this debate is almost moot in the US, as the govt. has already allowed this to happen. So now individuals like me must abide with the law, and exercise our right to attempt to change it through debate. That's the beauty of a democracy: the people decide what right and wrong is. Unfortunately, it is also it's greatest weakness, since right and wrong then become a matter of "opinion".
I believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, simply because (my) God says so and I believe Him. I see thatthe basic science confirms it given that reproductive design runs contrary to homosexual behavior, ie. engaging in homosexual intercourse is performed for pleasure, not reproduction. The Bible (my moral compass) also indicates that performing these acts puts an individual in a position of enmity with God. It's not about what or who you are, it's about what (or rather humorously, who) you do. Make no mistake, according to Biblical scripture, homosexual behavior is egregious enough to warrant it being labeled (by God) as a capital offense. Don't shoot the messenger, please.
That said, my (Biblical) mandate is merely to tell people. Not to oppress them with it. Not to hate them because of their choice. We (Christians, that is) are to detest the behavior, not the person. And to indicate that it is detestable (to God). Nothing more. As such I have fulfilled the Christian mandate here, unlike most people that call themselves Christians.
As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."
And of course, Joshua: "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
So be free, folks, and choose wisely.
Either you have been living under a rock or you do not understand how fast we are using the resources on this earth
Ah, so you admit to having "stirrings" for members of the same sex. So if you were "conditioned", logically that means you were conditioned against something else, that being homosexuality. Thus your family knew you had homosexual "desires" and forced you into heterosexuality through "conditioning".
So when they start talking about their kids and their family... that's not okay when you are CEO. LMAO! Please.My two (long-winded) cents:
I don't believe that the CEO of any company should be discussing any issue that relates to sex. Sex is something private and intimate, not for mass consumption (although the porn industry has something to say about that
I take issue with the transformation of the issue of sexual preference into a mechanism for propaganda. Unfortunately, the "gay community" has done just that, transforming it into a civil rights issue akin to the 60's movement.
It isn't. But I understand why they did it. Abuse. Lack of compassion. Violence. Hate. The law. The similarities between the 2 movements lie in the behavior of the "oppressor".
The difference is one is related to behavior, the other related to status (state of being?). Homosexual behavior is something that requires action. Being non-white is something that does not. Big, big difference.
All that said, I believe a person has the God-given right to choose what he or she does with his or her life. They must also face the consequences of those choices.
But in the US we are trying to wrestle with allowing behavior that some consider immoral into our society's laws. There is a cultural war going on. How free is free?
I'm a person who believes the teachings of Jesus (as opposed to the teachings of say, Mohammed, Buddha, or even Charles Darwin--we all believe something unless we experience it firsthand). As such I am bound to the moral concepts He established. And it is because of those concepts that I also believe that gay people should be free to pursue their lifestyle, with limitations. For example, if gays want to marry, let them. There is consent. If gay people want to adopt, then sorry, no. There would be now a third person involved: a child. It is impossible for 2 people of the same sex to have children. Their behavioral choice (inclination, impetus, desire, or whatever you want to call it, whether innate or not) prevents them from doing so. This is not an issue of a system malfunction (like a hetero couple who is infertile), but that of choice. If a gay couple were to engage in hetero sex (barring system malfunction), they would have the ability to have children. They choose not to, so our society should not reward deviant behavior (from a reproductive sense, at least). This last bit is an opinion; a moral argument, which is a foundation for societal law.
Now, this debate is almost moot in the US, as the govt. has already allowed this to happen. So now individuals like me must abide with the law, and exercise our right to attempt to change it through debate. That's the beauty of a democracy: the people decide what right and wrong is. Unfortunately, it is also it's greatest weakness, since right and wrong then become a matter of "opinion".
I believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, simply because (my) God says so and I believe Him. I see thatthe basic science confirms it given that reproductive design runs contrary to homosexual behavior, ie. engaging in homosexual intercourse is performed for pleasure, not reproduction. The Bible (my moral compass) also indicates that performing these acts puts an individual in a position of enmity with God. It's not about what or who you are, it's about what (or rather humorously, who) you do. Make no mistake, according to Biblical scripture, homosexual behavior is egregious enough to warrant it being labeled (by God) as a capital offense. Don't shoot the messenger, please.
That said, my (Biblical) mandate is merely to tell people. Not to oppress them with it. Not to hate them because of their choice. We (Christians, that is) are to detest the behavior, not the person. And to indicate that it is detestable (to God). Nothing more. As such I have fulfilled the Christian mandate here, unlike most people that call themselves Christians.
As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."
And of course, Joshua: "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
So be free, folks, and choose wisely.
Of course they are not all the same but they share some common attributes : a holy book that claims to have all the answer of life, the universe and everything. If you dare to critic them with facts, they go out of their way to claim we are persecuting them.
Now, if this is not your case, good for you.
Why? We shouldn't be worried about his private life. He has shown he has the ability to do his job, that's the only thing that matters.
Wait... what?!?? Is Apple like one of the most profitable companies in the world under Tim? Do you have more info that I do not, that points to Tim as a lousy CEO????
If any CEO speaks about their family or anything in their private life, no matter what their preferences are, I don't care.
- Status