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

[flat five]

I agree that from the pov of non-gay people accepting gay people, it shouldn't matter if they were born that way or if they chose to be that way. We should accept them regardless of if it's a conscious choice, or it's something that can't be helped.

I do think, however, that in terms of someone struggling with their sexual identity, it increases their pain. I imagine many wish they could chose to be "normal," but find they can't.

yeah, i see what you're saying.. probably a hard (or painful) position to be in for a lot of people.. i'm in your first category (non-gay in acceptance of homosexuality) and haven't experienced first hand a sexual identity struggle but i can empathize.

 

[brianvictor7]

My response: Didn't Jesus dine with sinners? And I don't know about you, but I imagine he didn't spend the entire dinner lecturing them about the wrongness of their ways. If he had, the sinners would have kicked him out before the appetizer was served.

Night Spring, I hope you understand that I am rather battle fatigued by this point. I covered Jesus hanging with sinners several pages back. While I pesonally believe he inquired about people's lives, shot the breeze, and such, he spent most of his ministry healing and calling sinners to repentance. He pointed out their sins left and right and they killed him for it. He was also extremely compassionate towards those convicted by their sin. He never turned away anyone who insisted on his help. He was no enabler of sins. At a dinner with a Pharisee he even called out his host.

----------

I do think, however, that in terms of someone struggling with their sexual identity, it increases their pain. I imagine many wish they could chose to be "normal," but find they can't.

Agreed. Thank you for being a courteous voice in this thread.

 

[Meister]

As long as they follow the law no problem. Religion is basically nothing more then believing lord of the rings is real , I don't see any reason to give anyone preferential treatment for that.

That is your opinion and opinions are like *******s. Everybody has one.
The freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution so people like you cannot come along and say: "Religion is basically nothing more then believing lord of the rings is real , I don't see any reason to give anyone preferential treatment for that."

----------

Erm, tricky issues! Whenever I hear of controversies like these, I find I'm of two minds. In the cases you list. I feel like a chapel and photographer should be able to refuse to participate in weddings they object to, because they are such an integral part of the ceremony, but the baker? Just bake the cake!

I know others wil draw the line at different places, and personally, if I was planning a wedding and I discovered hat my cake baker objected to my wedding, I'll just take my business elsewhere.

You sound reasonable. You cannot force people to act against their religious believes, even if it is something trivial like a cake. For some christians this is very important and we have to respect that.

 

[samiwas]

That is your opinion and opinions are like *******s. Everybody has one.
The freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution so people like you cannot come along and say: "Religion is basically nothing more then believing lord of the rings is real , I don't see any reason to give anyone preferential treatment for that."

----------

You sound reasonable. You cannot force people to act against their religious believes, even if it is something trivial like a cake. For some christians this is very important and we have to respect that.

Isn't it weird that we give preferential treatment to something that is made up? Further proof that our founding fathers weren't all that bright.

 

[\-V-/]

The freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution so people like you cannot come along and say: "Religion is basically nothing more then believing lord of the rings is real , I don't see any reason to give anyone preferential treatment for that."

That's not what's guaranteed by the Constitution. You can practice religion, yes ... but the freedom of speech also gives him the right to disagree with your religion.

Isn't it weird that we give preferential treatment to something that is made up. Further proof that our founding fathers weren't all that bright.

Our founding fathers created the separation of church and state. I think the main point is that people have been given the right to be how they want to be without the fear of being outed by ... say ... the British government ... in which the colonists broke away from to start their own society ... and I think that by today's standards ... that is also being applied to LGBT. People should be free to live how they want to live in the confines of not causing harm to others. And they shouldn't be dealing with mental anguish from all the idiots telling them they're not allowed to be themselves.

 

[Meister]

You're right, it is. But it wouldn't be very respectful.

Well if they give you a lecture on a how gayness is a sin you can speak your mind, too. It's a free country.

----------

That's not what's guaranteed by the Constitution. You can practice religion, yes ... but the freedom of speech also gives him the right to disagree with your religion.

You are absolutely right, but that's not what I meant.
I meant that there have been cases quoted in other threads where christians were forced to participate in gay weddings.

 

[brianvictor7]

I will be honest ... this is why nothing you say in this thread has any merit because you are prideful, arrogant, and completely lack humility. You are the antithesis of the Christian way of life. I'm done responding to you because you really are hopeless ... and I hope others follow suit.

"I didn't read any of your post." Good job. This pretty much sums you up perfectly.

I would read more of what you wrote if you refrained from the ad hominem arguments.

 

[Meister]

Isn't it weird that we give preferential treatment to something that is made up? Further proof that our founding fathers weren't all that bright.

That is your opinion. The constitution should protect others from abuse of the law to impose your opinion on them.

I think every person makes up their own reality. Everything is made up and we need to respect other peoples realities.
I think the founding fathers were quite enlightened and ahead of their time.

 

[\-V-/]

You are absolutely right, but that's not what I meant.

I meant that there have been cases quoted in other threads where christians were forced to participate in gay weddings.

I agree ... nobody should be forced to ... regardless of religious beliefs or not ... engage in something they don't agree with. "We have the right to refuse service to anyone" applies here. Even if I don't agree with their objection to some gay couple wanting their pictures taken ... they have the absolute right to reject service to that couple. There are plenty of other photography companies that do, in fact, support gay marriage ... or they don't support it and take pictures anyway because they like money and money is their priority. I fully support the right of a business to refuse service to someone, regardless of how they feel. That's the right of the business. If that makes them a*holes, that's their prerogative. I'll just shop somewhere else. And that's MY choice too. That's the beauty of having options.

 

[k995]

That is your opinion and opinions are like *******s. Everybody has one.

The freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution so people like you cannot come along and say: "Religion is basically nothing more then believing lord of the rings is real , I don't see any reason to give anyone preferential treatment for that."[COLOR="#.

Actually wrong again , freedom of speech gives me every right to say that . Nowhere does the constitution say religion gets preferential treatment .

It does give people the right to believe in whatever nonsense they want from elfs and goblins to ghosts .

And thats not an opinion , thats simple fact .

 

[grahamperrin]

Isn't AIDS and mental illness more prevailant in practicing homosexuals? Purely statisticaly speaking.

Meister: those are reasonable questions, I have probably pondered the same things occasionally in the past.

----

The filtered view of this topic, sometimes including quotes, continues to interest and sometimes amaze me.

I'm not into stocks and shares but for a while earlier I felt the pain – the abject fear – of shareholders who wondered whether this new 'gay' Tim Cook was someone – or some thing – other than the person who became CEO of Apple not long ago. (Had spores from outer space, from Planet Samsung maybe, turned him gay – gay in a way that might be of detriment to the company's value? Was the real Tim Cook lying somewhere in a dark corner of a greenhouse with all that goodness, his straightness, being digested or absorbed by a pod of some sort? A pod of gays? Shouldn't a real man, a skirt-lifter, be at the head of any god-fearing company?)

Don't panic. The real Cook has not been taken, he's still with us and he's more than just gay, he's a gay person.

Two gays in a bed together. Plural. The shock of it. I agree, they're 'people'.

 

[samiwas]

That is your opinion. The constitution should protect others from abuse of the law to impose your opinion on them.

...which is why we have so many religion-based laws. Don't exactly have a whole lot of gay-based laws, now, do we?

I think the founding fathers were quite enlightened and ahead of their time.

And that is your opinion. I don't think they were any more "enlightened" than your average citizen today. They might have had some okay ideas, but they unfortunately left them so broad, poorly-written, and open for interpretation, that people can twist them to mean whatever they want them to mean. Some posters here think every amendment is crystal clear, and I find that ludicrous.

 

[k995]

I agree ... nobody should be forced to ... regardless of religious beliefs or not ... engage in something they don't agree with. "We have the right to refuse service to anyone" applies here. Even if I don't agree with their objection to some gay couple wanting their pictures taken ... they have the absolute right to reject service to that couple. There are plenty of other photography companies that do, in fact, support gay marriage ... or they don't support it and take pictures anyway because they like money and money is their priority. I fully support the right of a business to refuse service to someone, regardless of how they feel. That's the right of the business. If that makes them a*holes, that's their prerogative. I'll just shop somewhere else. And that's MY choice too. That's the beauty of having options.

Can you state the same for race ? Can anyone refuse you service because you are black ? Where to draw the line ?

 

[Meister]

...which is why we have so many religion-based laws. Don't exactly have a whole lot of gay-based laws, now, do we?

What religion based laws do you mean?

----------

...which is why we have so many religion-based laws. Don't exactly have a whole lot of gay-based laws, now, do we?

And that is your opinion. I don't think they were any more "enlightened" than your average citizen today. They might have had some okay ideas, but they unfortunately left them so broad, poorly-written, and open for interpretation, that people can twist them to mean whatever they want them to mean. Some posters here think every amendment is crystal clear, and I find that ludicrous.

I think you might change your mind if you would study the considerations that went into the constitution. It was also deliberatly left open for interpretation, because time ps and people change.

 

[\-V-/]

Can you state the same for race ? Can anyone refuse you service because you are black ? Where to draw the line ?

That is not the same thing. This is about being forced to participate in something someone doesn't believe in or support ... an entire ceremony they'd have to spend all day taking pictures of. Not denying service because of someone's race. They should be sued for that type of thing ... or at the very least ... lose business and get a bad reputation.

 

[Meister]

That is not the same thing. This is about being forced to participate in something someone doesn't believe in or support ... an entire ceremony they'd have to spend all day taking pictures of. Not denying service because of someone's race. They should be sued for that type of thing ... or at the very least ... lose business and get a bad reputation.

I agree. The race things is something entirely different.

 

[Irishman]

If you believe it is important for others to see the discussion then do you agree that it makes sense for you to make your argument specifically and post the relevant portions of the article here?

Absolutely.

I can only hope that your request is born of a desire to carry on the discussion from this point using the same spirit?

With that said, I Timothy 1:9-10 uses a Greek word arsenokoitai which the KJV translates as "for them that defile themselves with mankind". The religious tolerance.org article correctly points out that this Greek word seems to have only been utilized by Paul. His first use of it occurs in I Corinthians 6:9. http://www.gaychristian101.com/what-did-paul-mean-when-he-used-the-greek-word-arsenokoitai.html

There were many existing Greek and Latin words that Paul could have used, were his intent to condemn homosexuality, as shown here: http://www.gaychristian101.com/what...-if-he-intended-to-condemn-homosexuality.html

He did not. He coined a new word- arsenokoitai. Why? What did it mean?? We can't do what we would normally do to better understand ancient Greek words - look to other writers and their writings for clarification - because none else seems to have used the word.

The article reminds us that other translators have interpreted this unique term in varying ways -

"them that defile themselves with mankind," King James Version, 21st Century King James Version, Tyndale's New Testament, & Rheims New Testament.

"those who are immoral with...boys," The Jerusalem Bible.

"practicing homosexuals" New American Bible.

There is also evidence from Philo - a contemporary of Paul's and a fellow Jewish scholar - that it refers to shrine prostitutes. This is, at the very least, an option worth consideration.

So, why coin a new word to condemn homosexuals when many existing words would have sufficed? To put it plainly, arsenokoitai is not clearly used anywhere to refer to homosexuals.

Thoughts?

 

[MacAddict1978]

I certainly support him as CEO of Apple. But certainly don't support his homosexuality.

thats okay. most people don't support assholism, but we don't judge you for it.

 

[k995]

That is not the same thing. This is about being forced to participate in something someone doesn't believe in or support ... an entire ceremony they'd have to spend all day taking pictures of. Not denying service because of someone's race. They should be sued for that type of thing ... or at the very least ... lose business and get a bad reputation.

There is no difference between being gay or black , both are not choices . Again someone can refuse being photographer on a black wedding as this would mean the same .

 

[samiwas]

What religion based laws do you mean?

Well, in a lot of places, including here in Atlanta until recently, you couldn't buy alcohol in a store on Sunday. What's different about Sunday? Well, it's church day.

In many places, butt sex was illegal for a while. Now, who would think that butt sex needed to be illegal? It wasn't atheists, I assure you.

Why is gay marriage not allowed in many places? Could religion be getting in the way?

 

[Meister]

Well, in a lot of places, including here in Atlanta until recently, you couldn't buy alcohol in a store on Sunday. What's different about Sunday? Well, it's church day.

In many places, butt sex was illegal for a while. Now, who would think that butt sex needed to be illegal? It wasn't atheists, I assure you.

Why is gay marriage not allowed in many places? Could religion be getting in the way?

Those butt sex laws are gone now for over a decade and I am not talking about some third world countries.

Can you name all the other laws that are based on religion in the US?

Where I live all stores are forbidden to open on sundays or holidays and it is illegal to wash your car on those days, too. The world is full of freakish laws and they are not all the religions fault.

----------

There is no difference between being gay or black , both are not choices . Again someone can refuse being photographer on a black wedding as this would mean the same .

Marrying someone is clearly a choice and if your religion bans you from photographing black people then you can politely refuse.

 

[\-V-/]

This thread is really a disheartening display of our current state of the world. I don't care where you come from or what your beliefs are. If your actions are causing physical or mental harm to someone that is trying to live an otherwise peaceful life ... you are in the wrong 100% of the time. That is not up for debate, that is a fact. I will always stand up for the bullied ... the oppressed ... from people that feel the need to impose their harmful beliefs onto others. There's absolutely no reason people should ever be frightened to simply be themselves. They should't be afraid to live as they are truly meant to live out of the fear of how society is going to view them, what their friends and family are going to say, or how they'll be treated when they try and be themselves out in the real world. We are all human beings. How you choose to live your life ... or how you were born into this world ... are nobody's business but your own. I will always stand up for the oppressed until I die ... I will always fight for peace, love, and equality for all humankind. THAT is my religion. The religion of love and acceptance. If you are not pushing for love and peace ... you are a wasteful bag of skin and are no better than all the oppressors this species has seen throughout history.

We are an ever-changing species ... and it's sad to see how long it's taking ... even in this day and age ... for total human equality. Human beings have a dark past ... and it's only because of those brave enough to stand up for the oppressed [oftentimes they belonged to the oppressed] that any progress has been made to where we are today. We still have a long way to go, I'm afraid, but we are at least on the right path. Some countries are a lot further behind than others ... some countries are stuck in the dark ages, as far as I'm concerned. Just look at the Middle East. That is a frightening place.

You have the full right to express your opinions and beliefs in this forum ... but that does not in any way make it alright. Just because you have the freedom to be a hateful human being doesn't mean you should be a hateful human being. It is counterproductive to the societal evolution of our species. You are keeping us from moving forward. Our capacity for love is endless ... but so is our capacity for evil. We should really be focusing on the former. I'll leave this with a quote:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

 

[Meister]

You have the full right to express your opinions and beliefs in this forum ... but that does not in any way make it alright. Just because you have the freedom to be a hateful human being doesn't mean you should be a hateful human being. It is counterproductive to the societal evolution of our species. You are keep us from moving forward. Our capacity for love is endless ... but so is our capacity for evil. We should really be focusing on the former. I'll leave this with a quote:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

What/Who is your post related to? You should quote. It's confusing.

 

[\-V-/]

What/Who is your post related to? You should quote. It's confusing.

What? I'm not quoting anyone. I'm referring to everyone ... I'm referring to all the oppressors on this planet that are making anyone feel afraid to be themselves. It was an all-encompassing general statement to anyone in here being a dick. I didn't quote anyone because there's a lot of people in here that don't see any problem sharing their hateful opinions.

 

[brianvictor7]

Absolutely.

I can only hope that your request is born of a desire to carry on the discussion from this point using the same spirit?

With that said, I Timothy 1:9-10 uses a Greek word arsenokoitai which the KJV translates as "for them that defile themselves with mankind". The religious tolerance.org article correctly points out that this Greek word seems to have only been utilized by Paul. His first use of it occurs in I Corinthians 6:9. http://www.gaychristian101.com/what-did-paul-mean-when-he-used-the-greek-word-arsenokoitai.html

There were many existing Greek and Latin words that Paul could have used, were his intent to condemn homosexuality, as shown here: http://www.gaychristian101.com/what...-if-he-intended-to-condemn-homosexuality.html

He did not. He coined a new word- arsenokoitai. Why? What did it mean?? We can't do what we would normally do to better understand ancient Greek words - look to other writers and their writings for clarification - because none else seems to have used the word.

The article reminds us that other translators have interpreted this unique term in varying ways -

"them that defile themselves with mankind," King James Version, 21st Century King James Version, Tyndale's New Testament, & Rheims New Testament.

"those who are immoral with...boys," The Jerusalem Bible.

"practicing homosexuals" New American Bible.

There is also evidence from Philo - a contemporary of Paul's and a fellow Jewish scholar - that it refers to shrine prostitutes. This is, at the very least, an option worth consideration.

So, why coin a new word to condemn homosexuals when many existing words would have sufficed? To put it plainly, arsenokoitai is not clearly used anywhere to refer to homosexuals.

Thoughts?

This is an excellent start. I beg your patience as I am on the go at present. Will need some hours (<24 I expect) to compose a considered response.