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

[Ambush083]

I think some people are confusing hate with disgust.

I don't hate mayonnaise, but I do find it nasty.

I don't hate milk, I find it repulsive.

So what if some people spontaneously regurgitate when seeing two men kiss, gay people are going to have to learn that is life and deal with it, because that's never going to change. Like literally never.

This isn't anything special. People don't like your skin, hair, cologne or your clothes, or your taste in beer, or whatever. Something about you furrows brows and turns up noses daily. That's far from hate. That's life on earth, yet most of us don't run around accusing people of "hate" as a result.

Want to learn about hate? Visit Mosul where Muslims are cutting off Christian baby heads while their parents watch. That's hate. Find a holocaust survivor with a whole family that has been gassed. That's real hate.

This is an awesome description. I totally agree.

 

[Irishman]

I did not word that very well. Oops. I agree with you statement in that he has the freedom to live how he wants to live. I was just saying that I believe homosexuality is wrong. We all have the freedom to belief what we want to believe.

Let me try. I believe that heterosexuality is wrong. We all have the freedom to believe what we want to believe.

See? All you gotta do is make an utterly ridiculous statement and excuse it by couching it in the context of freedom of speech.

 

[grahamperrin]

Oh, please. Goose. It's GOOSE, people. Gay as a GOOSE.

To all the weirdos who make the weird association between 'homosexuality' and 'sex with goats': you're reading it all wrong. You need stronger spectacles. Or you need your ears syringed. Or … I neither know nor care what you need, but you certainly need no help making things up, so just go ahead and make up whatever potion you need to cure yourselves.

Yeah, you got it. I address not only the unfortunate people who associate homosexuality with bestiality. I'm quite fair, quite inclusive in my approaches to such things. You're welcome. That bit above about 'curing' is for anyone reading who imagines that homosexuality can, or should, be cured.

Since the intention of those unfortunate people is to pigeonhole people like me as 'sick' or 'bestial', I can without hesitation put those people with warped imaginations in one simple bundle and call them 'weirdos'. That is precisely how their thought patterns appear to me: weird. Oh look, look above, you weirdos – a gay bloke used the word 'pigeonhole'.

(Cue some fictional thoughts of a weirdo: "pigeon, hole, he must be into pidgyfiddling or paediatrics or something beginning with the letter 'p', yeah now come to think of it the burble definitely used lots of words beginning with that letter.") Continuing the cartoon theme …

… back on topic. The subject line. Geese and stuff.

It's not "gay with a goat", or any other combination of human with nonhuman. Keep up, will you? The word is:

as​

So, for example, "gay as a goat". Or more commonly "gay as a goose" – go on, you weirdos, follow that link, you'll see a row of animals with a genuine requirement for medical attention. I should add, in case you still need help distinguishing between cartoons and reality: that's a cartoon. Continuing a cartoon view of humanity …

… If we cold tolerate homosexual, are we gonna tolerate sex between human and animal? …

For intolerance alone, I might people on my ignore list without letting them know.

MisakixMikasa: since your intolerance of human nature can not be decoupled, by you, from some truly weird stuff, I respectfully suggest that you pick up a red plastic telephone on wheels (ages 3 and up) and call Popeye, get him to come and sort me out. Incidentally I have never liked the taste of spinach, I never understood why Popeye was so keen to gobble down a load.

Pretty soon it will be a marriage will be:

1 man, 1 woman, 2 goats
or
2 men, 1 woman
or
2 women and one man
or
maybe we can let parents marry children, or sisters and brothers marry.

When does it end?

For me, it ends with 'Macboy Pro' and 'MisakixMikasa' listed as ignored, swiftly followed by a skip to the kitchen in a white feathered hat.

Yea, I guess its sad.

Aw, hush little baby, don't you cry. If I could ignore the ridiculous prejudice, or if you could think twice before writing things that are so easily ridiculed, it's entirely possible that I yi yi yi yi could like you very much.

… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

This is just a short list of animals which have been observed to exhibit homosexual behavior. It may not include deer specifically, but it does include carabou, goats, and giraffes, along with examples from virtually every classification of animal, including invertebrates. …

+1 for the sanity of tbrinkma.

Incidentally, I'm neither gay as a goose nor gay as a goat. To coin a local phrase from the early 1970s, I'm a bit of a bender. Politically incorrect? Maybe, but (as a bit of a bender) it makes me laugh.

 

[skottichan]

I think some people are confusing hate with disgust.

I don't hate mayonnaise, but I do find it nasty.

I don't hate milk, I find it repulsive.

So what if some people spontaneously regurgitate when seeing two men kiss, gay people are going to have to learn that is life and deal with it, because that's never going to change. Like literally never.

This isn't anything special. People don't like your skin, hair, cologne or your clothes, or your taste in beer, or whatever. Something about you furrows brows and turns up noses daily. That's far from hate. That's life on earth, yet most of us don't run around accusing people of "hate" as a result.

Want to learn about hate? Visit Mosul where Muslims are cutting off Christian baby heads while their parents watch. That's hate. Find a holocaust survivor with a whole family that has been gassed. That's real hate.

So what you're saying is, if I'm fired from my job for being a lesbian, or I can't visit my girlfriend in the hospital, I should just suck it up because it's not "real hate"?

And just a reminder, gays were also targets for brutality including "corrective rape", some of Mengele's horrific "treatments" and executed during the Holocaust. It's where the Pink Triangle that's used by the LGBTQIA community originated.

 

[grahamperrin]

Truth or dare! Guilty confessions time …

I Like Dick.

(Hint: if you're rushing to click the ! report button concerning that preference, please think twice. The link above is to something posted in MacRumors Forums around six weeks ago. The majority of readers should find nothing offensive in that post.)

 

[brianvictor7]

At this point, I have to ask: What if one doesn't believe in Him? Or believes in a different God? Or doesn't believe in any god?

Are those people bound by your morality, or are they bound by their own morality, within the limits defined by civil law? You may well believe that they are damned for their choices, and that is well within your religious right to do so. But are you also allowed to hold them to a moral code they disagree with, if their behavior you disagree with is within the limits of civil law?

If freedom of religion is a human right, then freedom to live one's own life according to that moral code is a direct consequence of that. If freedom of religion means anything at all, it means the freedom to live within one's own morality, no matter how disagreeable others in society may find it.

Of course, that morality also has to be squared with the civil laws that one lives under, so there's a definite balance between the two. That balance lies in in the insersection of moral code with civil law. It DOES NOT lie in the intersection of every religion's moral codes. In other words, no one religion, nor group of religions, gets to decide everyone else's morality; only civil law decides that, and civil law is not immutable.

Suppose some gay and lesbian people got together and organized a Church of Acceptance, in which same-sex as well as opposite-sex marriage and couples are defined to be moral. You can object all you want that they are sinful and immoral, and under your moral code you'd be completely right. But under their moral code, you'd be wrong. So who decides which one is "really" right? Civil law.

For a real-world not-so-ancient historical example, look at the early years of the Mormon Church, where polygyny was not only moral, but a duty. The Christians of that day considered it deeply immoral, as I suspect many Christans of today would. In other words, two religions had different and conflicting moral codes, and only one happened to be encoded into civil law.

Since that time, the main LDS Church has renounced polygyny, but the FLDS Church has not. And under Islam today, a man can have up to 4 wives. The thing preventing that in the US is civil law, not the moral codes of conflicting religions.

There is a lot here that I wish I had time to fully respond to. Let me first say thank you for asking thoughtful questions and making a polite argument. It seems you are advocating moral relativism and letting the state decide whose rights take precedence. It looks like a moral democracy which as Plato (?) said, is three wolves and a sheep coming together to decide what is for dinner. So while letting the government be the moral authority sounds appealing in many ways, who is to tell a society they are wrong when they start rounding up the Jews and sticking them in gas chambers? There must be a morally transcendent law that trumps our present system of salvation by survey.

 

[Irishman]

It comes from the Creator of this universe. The reason there is bad in this world, is not because of God, but us.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it bad or evil!

 

[dec.]

Want to learn about hate? Visit Mosul where Muslims are cutting off Christian baby heads while their parents watch. That's hate. Find a holocaust survivor with a whole family that has been gassed. That's real hate.

I agree, it's always worse somewhere else. Now please move away from this reserved seat.

----------

Life is harmfull, abusive and results in death.

yes why do anything about injustice in first place? Live with it all the way it is...

 

[brianvictor7]

So you agree that not every commandment applies to us today?

I've written repeatedly in this forum where the Scripture says homosexuality is a sin (Lev 20), where Jesus affirms the OT Law (Matt 5) noted that there are ceremonial, judicial/civil and moral laws in the OT, noted that the ceremonial and judicial 1) only applied to the Jews (this is a very basic Jewish and Christian doctrine). and 2) shown how in Acts 15 it is was strictly forbidden to force the Gentiles (all non-jews) from being held to the ceremonial and judicial laws. Moreover, gentiles were explicitly told in Acts 15 to abstain from sexual immorality, of which homosexuality would have been inescapably understood to be included based on the context of Acts 15.

 

[dec.]

Two gay people in a loving, committed relationship is a contradiction in terms. If they are in it, it is not loving. It isn't what was intended for human sexuality. But you are right to say that in and of itself it has far fewer immediate and visible consequences than prostitution, but both fall short of the mark of what is right.

It is loving. You might have been conditioned to "believe" that your unicorn does not like it, but that's completely irrelevant. People like you are the picture perfect example for "religion" being one of the most disgusting concepts to control people. I feel very, very sorry for people like you who will never have the potential to explore individuality.

Edit: By the way - this is not "intolerance" but a plain reaction to your disgusting, judgemental views. "It is not loving"... I'm glad that *******s like you are the ones being left behind in all the current social and political developments.

 

[Irishman]

And then thousands more before the planet becomes a barren wasteland that we can no longer survive on. A few flooded cities ≠ uninhabitable.

Hope you don't mind if I place the unbiased work of trained, working scientists over your claim.

 

[Technarchy]

I agree, it's always worse somewhere else. Now please move away from this reserved seat.

You've been asked to get to the back of the bus and been arrested for refusing?

You've been lynched for trying to eat at a straight only lunch counter?

Ever been beat to death for whistling at a white person?

Last I checked it's nearly a crime for BMW (black man walking). For some reason there is no gay equivalent.

So, about that reserved seat...

 

[brianvictor7]

No, it isn't rocket science, it's outdated, religious dogma.

Ready to come back to me yet?

I find it tragic you still believe what someone may or may not have said a couple of thousand years ago should be the way we live our lives today, to the letter, despite the constant development of human understanding of the world and changing cultural and scientific landscapes.

Whether it is religious dogma or not is not what I am arguing. I am arguing where I get my beliefs from. The validity of the Scripture as a guide to morality is another argument.

 

[Irishman]

Why is he? It's his choice that he doesn't support homosexuality just as being gay is Tim cooks choice.

Doesn't mean he is a horrible person.

What do you think that supporting Tim means where it touches on your beliefs?

 

[dec.]

You've been asked to get to the back of the bus and been arrested for refusing?

You've been lynched for trying to eat at a straight only lunch counter?

Ever been beat to death for whistling at a white person?

Last I checked it's nearly a crime for BMW (black man walking). For some reason there is no gay equivalent.

So, about that reserved seat...

As much as I understand the reasons for your own personal agenda (say hi to your gay hating hip hop buddies, (joking -although I think to remember some statistics saying that blacks were one of the most unaccepting demographics in regards to homosexuality, I could be wrong), you really won't be stupid enough to deny that there are direct attacks towards gays, will you?

 

[Renzatic]

There is a lot here that I wish I had time to fully respond to. Let me first say thank you for asking thoughtful questions and making a polite argument. It seems you are advocating moral relativism and letting the state decide whose rights take precedence. It looks like a moral democracy which as Plato (?) said, is three wolves and a sheep coming together to decide what is for dinner. So while letting the government be the moral authority sounds appealing in many ways, who is to tell a society they are wrong when they start rounding up the Jews and sticking them in gas chambers? There must be a morally transcendent law that trumps our present system of salvation by survey.

That's the thing. While you can claim to trust in God, His institutions here on earth have far short of their lofty boss' standards in the past, and have at times acted just as terribly as the worst governments of the world.

I would say that it's never wise to pin your morality to one source, and trust in it unerringly. It's wiser instead to believe in the inherit dignity of all people, and that everyone deserves their modicum of respect. If morality is transcendent as you say, then any act of goodwill will flow from God, regardless of if its in His name or not.

 

[Irishman]

We don't get to decide what happens to someone soul. We don't get to judge whether they go to heaven or hell or what the cost of their sins will be.

We can point out someones sins. That is not judging, that is observation.

People are always trying to say don't judge to escape hearing about what they are doing.

Then why pick out this "sin"?? Why not be evenhanded about it and criticize divorcees just as quickly? People who lie? Steal?

There are no mortal sins as I read the book. So why does homosexuality get treated by many believers as though it's the worst of the lot?

----------

God set the standard of 1 man and 1 woman. He gave allowances to the Ancients to have more than one wife to accomodate their cultural and economic realities. And just look at all the trouble that came from man's insistance on having more than one bride.

Where exactly did God give Solomon permission to have 700 wives and 300 concubines (not wives)!

 

[Irishman]

i actually do hate most wedding. But mainly because of the exorbitant cost.

How does that cost effect you? Are you asked to foot the bill???

 

[Technarchy]

As much as I understand the reasons for your own personal agenda (say hi to your gay hating hip hop buddies, (joking -although I think to remember some statistics saying that blacks were one of the most unaccepting demographics in regards to homosexuality, I could be wrong), you really won't be stupid enough to deny that there are direct attacks towards gays, will you?

I'm smart enough to know when Jay Edgar Hoover was having gay parties while having one of the highest positions in the federal government, blacks were being lynched and segregated by law and force.

When Rock Hudson and James Dean were living high in Hollywood Ray Charles couldn't even ride in the same elevator as a white person when going to perform.

But yeah it's all the same thing.

 

[chown33]

There is a lot here that I wish I had time to fully respond to. Let me first say thank you for asking thoughtful questions and making a polite argument. It seems you are advocating moral relativism and letting the state decide whose rights take precedence. It looks like a moral democracy which as Plato (?) said, is three wolves and a sheep coming together to decide what is for dinner. So while letting the government be the moral authority sounds appealing in many ways, who is to tell a society they are wrong when they start rounding up the Jews and sticking them in gas chambers? There must be a morally transcendent law that trumps our present system of salvation by survey.

Nope, I'm not advocating moral relativism. I'm just saying that civil law (1st Amendment, specifically) guarantees freedom of religion, and if that means anything at all, it means every person is free to practice their choice of religion (or other moral code) within the limits of the law. If it didn't mean that, then it doesn't really mean much.

Under the 1st Amendment guarantees, you are free to practice your religion as you choose, within the bounds of civil law. You are free to associate with those you wish, and to not associate with those you don't wish to, within the bounds of civil law. You are also free to petition the government for a "redress of grievances", which includes (but is not limited to) petitioning the government to enact laws that align with your moral code (the "grievance" would be the absence of a law prohibiting something).

You are as free to do all these things as every other person is.

Therefore, you should not be surprised if there are sometimes conflicts about what should be enacted as civil law. The way we resolve those conflicts is by using other parts of the civil law, such as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

Which I think also covers the "rounding up Jews" part of your post.

Since you brought up anti-Semitic laws, you should realize that the Nuremburg laws would not stand up under a Constitutional challenge. That is, they'd easily be declared unconstitutional. Any party trying to institute such laws would have to first repeal substantial parts of the Constitution and its Amendments, or do something equally drastic like declare Martial Law and the suspension of various Constitutional rights.


EDIT

It looks like a moral democracy which as Plato (?) said, is three wolves and a sheep coming together to decide what is for dinner.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Democracy#Misattributed

...
In 1992, Marvin Simkin wrote in Los Angeles Times,
Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.[2]
​

 

[brianvictor7]

Says the guy that also keeps talking about Lennon as well. My original comment about Lennon was sarcasm and you ran with it making some invalid point Lennon and scripture. You said and I quote "much of his music was inspired by what he learned in Scripture.". Now you back tracking and saying it was just a song. Trying to surmise about someone based on being a nice guy is a bit silly. The latest school shooting, the shooter was called a 'nice guy'. That's a bit of a jump to say someone was nice therefore they were inspired by scripture, which is basically what you're saying.


As for making a case of divinely delivered morality, that would have to be backed by evidence, which case there isn't any. Short of biblical scripture, there isn't any evidence that even the ten commandments were divinely inspired. Which leads me back to atheism, if no god, there is no divine being providing morality and therefore it's all based on humanities social growth. Which is also far more logical then some divinely inspired moral views that become outdated over time. After all if moral basis were from a divine creator, who supposedly can't do no wrong, can't seem to keep morality static over time, it would seem those morals weren't so divine in the first place.

For the record the Lennon thing is dead.

The divine origin for morals is something I need more time than I currently have tonight to address, but any man-made source of morals falls apart under the great Why Should I test. It is only in God that we can hope to get a "Because I said so" that can last.

 

[dec.]

I'm smart enough to know when Jay Edgar Hoover was having gay parties while having one of the highest positions in the federal government, blacks were being lynched and segregated by law and force.

When Rock Hudson and James Dean were living high in Hollywood Ray Charles couldn't even ride in the same elevator as a white person when going to perform.

But yeah it's all the same thing.

Can you link to articles about Hoovers, Hudsons or Dean(?!)'s public coming out? Or is it all the usual "ahh yes in hindsight everyone knew it"? I keep reading the "yeah in secrecy some knew it..." thing...

Btw., this place looks quite nice

 

[skottichan]

You've been asked to get to the back of the bus and been arrested for refusing?

You've been lynched for trying to eat at a straight only lunch counter?

Ever been beat to death for whistling at a white person?

Last I checked it's nearly a crime for BMW (black man walking). For some reason there is no gay equivalent.

So, about that reserved seat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people#United_States

Really? You want to ask those questions? Bradon Teena, or Matthew Shepard, or Harvey Milk, etc are all victims of institutional hatred towards the gay community.

Sodomy Laws existed to target gay men.

It's completely legal in 33 states to fire a transgender person, legal in 29 to fire a gay person.

Fun bit of trivia, it's common place for police to arrest transwomen on suspicion of prostitution, while in the jail system, they are consistently degraded, physically assaulted and purposely misgendered for heightened humiliation.

Let's also not forget the events leading to the Stonewall Riots and White Night Riots.

So yes, the black community is regularly ****ed by The Man, but don't act like you're the only ones.

I'm smart enough to know when Jay Edgar Hoover was having gay parties while having one of the highest positions in the federal government, blacks were being lynched and segregated by law and force.

When Rock Hudson and James Dean were living high in Hollywood Ray Charles couldn't even ride in the same elevator as a white person when going to perform.

But yeah it's all the same thing.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2423/was-j-edgar-hoover-a-cross-dresser

Huh, most things I'm finding have pretty much concluded that Hoover was in fact, no only not gay, he wasn't a cross-dresser either.

 

[Peter K.]

Good for him; I just wish he didn't invoke God in his letter. God most certainly did NOT "bless" him with being gay.

 

[HyperZboy]

Did I say that or are you willfully misconstruing my words? Would you care to share with me the Scriptures that describe what a man and woman are allowed and not allowed to do with one another in the bedroom? I'm very interested in seeing your exegetical thesis on the topic.


Well now, this discussion has truly devolved to a petty level. I am afraid I cannot keep up with your non sequiturs.



HyperZboy, you state that Jesus didn't hang out with the Pharasees. Are you aware of Luke 7:36? "36Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. 37And there was a woman in the city who was a sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume,…"
He had some humiliating words to say to the unrepentant Pharisee by the way.

Jesus showed great compassion and lenience on the sinners who came to him convicted of their sin. He had very scary words for the sinners who refused to acknowledge their sin.



I've given you the proof texts and you have yet to quote me one scripture (that I can recall). I'd say you have failed to make your case. As for me judging others, to what are you referring to exactly? That I say that homosexuality is wrong? It is, of course according to the Bible. I've already given you the verse in Lev 20 as proof-text. There are others in the NT if you need them.

In what way did I confuse Sodom with homosexuality?



Sadly we are at the point where I must politely tell you that you saying a thing does not necessarily make it so.

----------



Where do you get that idea from? Some churches (to their peril) teach this.

Quoting yourself and unquoting yourself and others, some exempt, some not from various different rules, only quotes you into an intellectual conundrum.

You STILL have found no QUOTE from JESUS CHRIST himself that condemns homosexuality as it applies to Tim Cook.

It's like quoting my neighbor about something I've said when I've said nothing. Just because my neighbor said it and wrote it down doesn't mean I believe it or it is true or that I even said it. Nor does it mean you should use it against me!

You keep quoting OT then discounting OT that doesn't apply to you because you're not a Jew, then quoting OT and saying Jesus had to have believed it because he was a Jew and dined with the Pharisees. I've dined with neighbors I hated too.

You are nothing but Gladys Kravitz from the old Bewitched TV show! LOL