or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Tim Cook encourages US House to pass sexual orientation nondiscrimination act
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Tim Cook encourages US House to pass sexual orientation nondiscrimination act - Page 6

post #201 of 245

Scarlett Johansson is discriminating because she won't go out with me.  I'm bi, I'm even cute, but she's not interested.

 

That's not a violation of my human rights.  That's a basic exercise of *her* human rights.

 

It's called freedom of association.  Freedom of association IS a basic human right.

 

I have no right to be hired by Apple.  Apple has the right to decide to make me an offer or to decline.  I have the right to accept their offer, or decline it.   That's discrimination in both cases.

 

If Apple won't hire me because I'm bi, then Apple is stupid.  BEING STUPID IS A HUMAN RIGHT!

 

Just like Scarlett is stupid for not returning my calls.  Her loss.

 

This bill, just like the one that makes it a crime for me to refuse to hire a christian, is itself a violation of human rights.

 

So if you support it, that's your right-- after all, being stupid is your right-- just don't claim that you're defending human rights, because you aren't.

 

Also, queer people don't need hiring quotas.  Only bigots who think we can't get jobs otherwise think we do. 

post #202 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
When it comes to homosexuality, I'm inclined to think of it as a mental disorder.  ... But obviously, the human race wouldn't have survived if it was common to everyone. 

 

Homosexuality exists in wildlife. Those species have not died out.  Since it exists in animals it's not unique to sentience.  Thus it cannot be a mental disorder.

 

The disorder is your inability to accept people who are different.  That is taught by other ignorant people.  I think that childhood trauma enhances it, and that you might be able to seek some relief with a lot of counseling with a therapist. 

 

But please, stop projecting your disorder onto others. 

post #203 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDCragg View Post
 

You have been conditioned by liberal orthodoxy to immediately label anybody who is somehow opposed to such a law or concerned about bad practices to which it may give rise as "discriminatory".  Therefore you are the one who is being intolerant and bigoted.

 

The problem with liberalism is that their ideology is profoundly anti-intellectual.  So they've been conditioned to simply parrot attitudes while being smug in their belief in their correctness.

 

Thus you see liberals claiming to have a monopoly on science running around espousing pseudo-science BS when it comes to "global warming"... but they're so smug- because the idiots they follow have told them they have a monopoly on science-- so they don't even know enough science to comprehend scientific arguments.

 

You see this with economics as well... they believe what Krugman says, even though he advocated creating a housing bubble. 

 

You see it with every issue.  They just parrot the Obamacare party line even though a basic understanding of economics reveals why it will fail. 

 

It's quite sad. 

 

Yes, Christian republicans can be just as bad, this is true.  But at least there are thinking republicans and libertarians.  Every liberal these days seems to be a mind washed zombie unable to comprehend arguments, and ignorant of even the basic facts.

post #204 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post
 

Is it really that hard for you to tell discrimination from respectful treatment. The proposal we are discussing here is about preventing discrimination, not about protecting it.

 

The "guy from Mozilla" was saying idiotic hateful things about people with different sexual orientation and paid the price for it. There is not much else that should be said about it. But of course people who discriminate would love it if somehow a law could be passed that would allow them to launder their hate and to hide behind (just like the religious people launder their hate with their imaginary god - I don't hate you god does).

You castigate the guy from Mozilla for saying 'idiotic hateful things' and yet your first post on this thread was:

 

I am a long time citizen and it troubles me when Christian bigots use their political position to push their religious agenda on everyone (remember, religion is now debunked bunch of bronze age lies).

 

Presumably being hateful is fine as long as you're the only one being it.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #205 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomusername View Post

Can I just point out that if Jonny Rockets, from next door wrote this tweet, this wouldn't be an issue? Everyone is getting upset because they think Tim Cook is using his position in order to progress what they feel is a political agenda. He didn't bring Apple in to this. He simply used his social media account to express his support for something. Something that MILLIONS of people do everyday.

No, he 'simply' used his position as the CEO of the richest and most influential company in the world.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #206 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post
 

 

This is a red herring, though. 

In day-to-day life, we all "discriminate" in one way or another. When I go to buy groceries, I discriminate, in the sense that I choose one item over another for a variety of reasons (e.g. my preferences about taste or nutritional value).

 

This is explicitly not what the subject of this thread is about, though. I think the distinction ought to be pointed out clearly because these analogies are unhelpful.

 

On the point about Christians being the most "mocked, persecuted and vilified" religion in society today - I can't say whether or not that's true in terms of religions, but Christians as a subset of the population still have undue influence in many societies. Or, to put it another way, religious groups generally still have enormous influence over the rights of others. What's happening at the moment is an overdue redressing of that balance.

 

Unfortunately though, I think numerous issues come in that cloud the debates (like the poor analogies around what kind of discrimination we are talking about here, for example). These kinds of red herrings only serve to muddy up the discussion, I think.

 

Also just to add one key point - when there is a debate about whether or not being gay is a choice, then the conversation really kind of ends there. It's difficult to move past that point, because that is a bit of a show stopper. Any conversation about rights or equal protections has to be based on reason and on a shared acceptance of the core facts behind the issue. Without that, how can the conversation progress?

 

My analogy here would be that it would be difficult to have a discussion about medical policy with someone who is an anti-vaccination campaigner (or, another analogy would be that it would be difficult to have a conversation with someone about geological science when that person believes the Earth is flat, and/or 6,000 years old). 

How is it a red herring? You seem to be muddying the waters by saying that 'day-to-day' we all use discrimination. I gave the example of politicians, which is their job, not a day-to-day activity.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #207 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Of course not. Simply put they are naturally attracted to certain individuals within an additional sex.

Consider the women you've been attracted to. Are you attracted to all women? Now consider other guys you've known that are attracted to women. Were you all attracted to the same women? It could be height, weight, hair color, eyes, face, skin tone, or any number of physical features... or any number of other features like how someone carries themselves, how they speak... or non-physical characteristics that make up the complex structure of our fundamenta desires. Some of these people you know might be attracted to more superficial aspects that you may also find attractive features, just not as a sole reason for the attraction in-and-of themselves, while you might like a deeper connection which they may consider to be an annoyance.

Regardless, the variety of ways in which attraction can manifest is clearly not so cut and dry that we choose to be attracted to certain people.

There seems to be a long history of bisexuality in human history but today more than ever things might be less distinct because of the way genders have evolved. In today's society the divide between male and female roles has bleed together. From fighting in combat, to be police officers, to voting, to even wearing pants. Then you have metrosexual as a term for man that groom or have themselves groomed in a way that were traditionally only done by women (at least in the 20th century).

Unfortunately I don't have anyone I can ask about this topic but, to me, I can see how someone who defines themselves as bisexual might find an effeminate gay man attractive as well as a more less feminine woman as those qualifiers tend to push certain characteristics toward each other. Or perhaps that scenario has nothing to do with how one find another human being attractive.

Precisely; bisexuality can be a very fluid thing. It can be a choice!

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #208 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 

 

When it comes to homosexuality, I'm inclined to think of it as a mental disorder. Whether this is from birth or acquired later is an open question. But obviously, the human race wouldn't have survived if it was common to everyone. I think that trauma plays a large part in the development of homosexuality at a very early age. 

 

 

The beautiful part is that these questions have been pondered, and answered. You only have to take a cursory glance at various online resources to find that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder some years ago (in the U.S., I believe this happened in the 1970's).

 

In fact, homosexuality is part of the normal range of sexual orientations. Various sexual orientations exist, and not only within human beings, it should be noted.

 

So, there is no need to actually ponder whether or not this is a mental disorder; that kind of pondering became redundant several decades ago.

 

Also, I can't see how anyone can suggest that physical attraction is a choice. That makes no sense on its face. Sure, you can choose who to actually have sex with, that's true. But choosing who you are attracted to?  

 

A good thought experiment is to think about someone you are attracted to, and then to choose to be unattracted to them. As you will discover in short order, such things are not conscious choices. If they were, then we could theoretically make choices about a whole range of things such as when to feel (or not feel) grief, stress, emotional pain, etc...

post #209 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post
 

 

I'm sorry, but I don't think you read his post if you came to this conclusion.

Even if you disagree with it, calling it "puerile language" is absurd.

Here's part of his post:

 

And his followers are required to eat his flesh, soul and divinity in a form of a cookie which magically turns into him after a few incantations. All that so that we could join him one day in a celestial North Korea, praising the dear leader incessantly

 

That is puerile language.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #210 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

 

Homosexuality exists in wildlife. Those species have not died out.  Since it exists in animals it's not unique to sentience.  Thus it cannot be a mental disorder.

 

The disorder is your inability to accept people who are different.  That is taught by other ignorant people.  I think that childhood trauma enhances it, and that you might be able to seek some relief with a lot of counseling with a therapist. 

 

But please, stop projecting your disorder onto others. 

You think that animals can't have mental disorders? I'm not a biologist, but that seems unlikely.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #211 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc View Post
 

 

The beautiful part is that these questions have been pondered, and answered. You only have to take a cursory glance at various online resources to find that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder some years ago (in the U.S., I believe this happened in the 1970's).

 

In fact, homosexuality is part of the normal range of sexual orientations. Various sexual orientations exist, and not only within human beings, it should be noted.

 

So, there is no need to actually ponder whether or not this is a mental disorder; that kind of pondering became redundant several decades ago.

 

Also, I can't see how anyone can suggest that physical attraction is a choice. That makes no sense on its face. Sure, you can choose who to actually have sex with, that's true. But choosing who you are attracted to?  

 

A good thought experiment is to think about someone you are attracted to, and then to choose to be unattracted to them. As you will discover in short order, such things are not conscious choices. If they were, then we could theoretically make choices about a whole range of things such as when to feel (or not feel) grief, stress, emotional pain, etc...

If you really think that scientists in the 70s discovered the final word on the cause of homosexuality, then you're deluded. You, like many on this thread, repeat the mantra that none of us have any choice as to what we are attracted to, as though we are slaves to our desires. Based on myself, this is not true! 

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #212 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Precisely; bisexuality can be a very fluid thing. It can be a choice!

That is not what I stated at all. To be bisexual isn't moving in and out of homo- and heterosexuality, it's being naturally attracted to both sexes at all times.

I think what you're doing is conflating an attraction with an action on a said attraction. These are very different things. This means a bisexual person might only engage in hetero- or homosexual relationships depending on which feels most natural to them at a given time.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #213 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 

If you really think that scientists in the 70s discovered the final word on the cause of homosexuality, then you're deluded. You, like many on this thread, repeat the mantra that none of us have any choice as to what we are attracted to, as though we are slaves to our desires. Based on myself, this is not true! 

 

I never said that scientists discovered the final word on the cause of homosexuality in the 70s, so I'm not sure where you actually got that from.

My point was that science debunked the idea of homosexuality being a mental disorder at that point in time, and that is the key point.

 

In terms of none of us having a choice - that's right, we don't have a choice who we are attracted to. This is different than "being slaves to our desires". I think you confuse the two.

 

When you talk about us being "slaves to our desires", I think you imply the idea of acting on a feeling. I specifically mentioned that as being different than having the feeling in the first place.  I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. SolipsismX explained this perfectly in the post just before mine.

 

Tell me - how did you consciously choose not to be attracted to someone? You would be the first human being in history to have achieved this, so I'm curious as to how you managed it.

 

Quote:
 

Here's part of his post:

 

And his followers are required to eat his flesh, soul and divinity in a form of a cookie which magically turns into him after a few incantations. All that so that we could join him one day in a celestial North Korea, praising the dear leader incessantly

 

That is puerile language.

 

Well, you're good at quote-mining, that much is true. Have you read the whole thing, though, or just looked for these kinds of quotes?

Also, the first sentence in that quote is a pretty reasonable analogy if you think about it.


Edited by Ingsoc - 4/13/14 at 6:46pm
post #214 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That is not what I stated at all. To be bisexual isn't moving in and out of homo- and heterosexuality, it's being naturally attracted to both sexes at all times.

I think what you're doing is conflating an attraction with an action on a said attraction. These are very different things. This means a bisexual person might only engage in hetero- or homosexual relationships depending on which feels most natural to them at a given time.

You touch upon a critical point - how do you define what is natural? I'm not sure that you can. You could say that a man and a woman mating is a natural thing, and that therefore a man being attracted to a woman is a natural thing. But that doesn't scratch the surface of the gamut of sexual desire.

 

When you say, "depending on which feels most natural to them at a given time,' that sounds awfully like choice to me.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #215 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

You, like many on this thread, repeat the mantra that none of us have any choice as to what we are attracted to, as though we are slaves to our desires. Based on myself, this is not true! 

 

You choose who you're attracted to? That's fascinating. I'm sure millions of people would pay you good money to learn that incredible skill. 

 

Note: I'm referring to initial ATTRACTION. Not acting on that attraction, which IS a choice. But the attraction itself? Really? I can't CHOOSE not to be attracted to the hot girl I just saw, or CHOOSE to be attracted to someone that I find in no way whatsoever physically attractive. Nor can anyone else. 

post #216 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

You choose who you're attracted to? That's fascinating. I'm sure millions of people would pay you good money to learn that incredible skill. 

Note: I'm referring to initial ATTRACTION. Not acting on that attraction, which IS a choice. But the attraction itself? Really? I can't CHOOSE not to be attracted to the hot girl I just saw, or CHOOSE to be attracted to someone that I find in no way whatsoever physically attractive. Nor can anyone else. 

I think that we learn to be attracted to a particular sex as we grow up. Once we have settled on that, we then learn to find particular traits attractive, be it physical or other. So, like you, I generally find certain types more attractive than others. But I don't find it as set in stone as you imply. My tastes change-I don't find the poster girls I had as a teenager as desirable as now. That's why getting married to someone mainly due to physical beauty is likely to end in disappointment. As long as you're not so repelled by each other that you don't procreate, it's more important to get along.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #217 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

You choose who you're attracted to? That's fascinating. I'm sure millions of people would pay you good money to learn that incredible skill. 

Note: I'm referring to initial ATTRACTION. Not acting on that attraction, which IS a choice. But the attraction itself? Really? I can't CHOOSE not to be attracted to the hot girl I just saw, or CHOOSE to be attracted to someone that I find in no way whatsoever physically attractive. Nor can anyone else. 

I think a lot of people are unable to separate the two. Same goes for pretty much all innate desires v the action of satisfying one's innate desire.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #218 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post
 

Scarlett Johansson is discriminating because she won't go out with me.  I'm bi, I'm even cute, but she's not interested.

 

That's not a violation of my human rights.  That's a basic exercise of *her* human rights.

 

It's called freedom of association.  Freedom of association IS a basic human right.

 

I have no right to be hired by Apple.  Apple has the right to decide to make me an offer or to decline.  I have the right to accept their offer, or decline it.   That's discrimination in both cases.

 

If Apple won't hire me because I'm bi, then Apple is stupid.  BEING STUPID IS A HUMAN RIGHT!

 

Just like Scarlett is stupid for not returning my calls.  Her loss.

 

This bill, just like the one that makes it a crime for me to refuse to hire a christian, is itself a violation of human rights.

 

So if you support it, that's your right-- after all, being stupid is your right-- just don't claim that you're defending human rights, because you aren't.

 

Also, queer people don't need hiring quotas.  Only bigots who think we can't get jobs otherwise think we do. 

 

I haven't reviewed the bill in enough depth to make a meaningful comment on what it may or may not do, but this is specifically regarding your argument. When you start talking about theoretical entities, they no longer possess all human rights. They're a method of abstraction used to shield their ownership against part of their financial obligations. The business can go down without bankrupting its ownership. It's not really the same thing as an individual. Both are recognized as legal entities, but they are not identical.

post #219 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 

When you say, "depending on which feels most natural to them at a given time,' that sounds awfully like choice to me.


It is in action, but not in desire. As in, if i'm sitting in a coffee shop and an extremely desirable person walks in and this person is all I can see or think about now. I didn't choose to be attracted to them but those emotions have hit me like a truck – lovestruck. The choice now comes from if I do something about it or not. I have one friend that never would have though of dating a woman before – and had dated men on numerous occasions with varying degrees of success. Then she met one woman that changed everything and now they have been together for years. Sometimes you can't know what you want until it's presented to you. Then you don't know hoe you ever managed without. It's how I feel about my wife, and it's how my friend feels about her wife. If you know anything about love you should know that there are no choices in the matter other than between allowing yourself to take the risk or letting the opportunity pass, knowing you may never find it again.

It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #220 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

I've agreed with most of what you've said in these threads, but not the gender-change one. Yes, there is something 'seriously wrong' in their heads, but that's no reason to be intolerant of them! It's probably a genetic aberration that we're not fully aware of yet. It's very rare.

I didn't say that. I said I was tolerant of transgendered people- just intolerant of the act- and choose not to recognize their claim of being a different gender. No different than I chose not to recognize that some blonde lady dressed up like Cinderella at Disney World really was Cinderella. Of course, the difference is, that if that lady genuinely thought she were Cinderella, we'd all think she was nuts. Yet somehow Transgenders get a pass 1hmm.gif
Edited by Andysol - 4/14/14 at 9:19am

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #221 of 245
Gays already have equal rights. What this really about is the right to persecute someone who's religious beliefs you disagree with
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlappyWhite View Post

Equal rights aren't an "agenda" and it shouldn't be considered "politics" either. And just for the record, equal rights should NEVER be put up for a vote. 

It's time to pass laws like ENDA to ensure equal rights for all. 

Gays already have equal rights. This is about giving individuals the right to persecute people for their religious beliefs. Right now any non-religious organization that fires someone purely for being gay would have their rear handed to them in court. This is why lawyers love this country, they're laughing all the way to the bank.
post #222 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

Gays already have equal rights. 

 

Not right now they don't but soon, very soon they will. Sorry but you're on the wrong side of history (not the first time I'm sure). 

post #223 of 245

Overdue.

post #224 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

I didn't say that. I said I was tolerant of transgendered people- just intolerant of the act- and choose not to recognize their claim of being a different gender.

Gender and sex are not the same thing. Genders are culturally defined and sex is biologically defined. A transvestite or transsexual can not change their sex but they can choose to be a different gender.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #225 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Gender and sex are not the same thing. Genders are culturally defined and sex is biologically defined. A transvestite or transsexual can not change their sex but they can choose to be a different gender.

Ugh- can't you see that is the most empty argument ever?

 

We have friends- The woman works full time and is a regional president for Aetna. The man is a stay at home dad, and very nurturing and raises his 3 sons.  So She is a woman, and he is a man.  But because our culture has women making less, women staying at home, etc- So his sexual orientation is a man, but his gender is a woman.  And likewise, her sexual orientation is a woman, but her gender is a man.

 

Dumbest, most restricting, stereotyping stance/argument anyone could take.


Edited by Andysol - 4/14/14 at 10:25am

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #226 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Ugh- can't you see that is the most empty argument ever?

We have friends- The woman works full time and is a regional president for Aetna. The man is a stay at home dad, and very nurturing and raises his 3 sons.  So She is a woman, and he is a man.  But because our culture has women making less, women staying at home, etc- So his sexual orientation is a man, but his gender is a woman.  And likewise, her sexual orientation is a woman, but her gender is a man.

Dumbest, most restricting, stereotyping stance/argument anyone could take.  If this is the Transgender's role- than no one should dislike them more than a feminist.

I underlined a part where you're really going off the deep end. I have no idea how you have jumped to that conclusion. You don't get to tell people what their gender is so you believing that a stay-at-home-dad isn't a "real man" is just bigotry.

Again, sex is determined by biology and gender is cultural. You're only seeing things in terms of your own heteronormativity but there plenty of societies throughout history and today with androgynes. These people don't identify with the strict 1:1 placement of gender and sex that you're trying to ascribe them.

Here is one famous anthropologic example: http://androgyne.0catch.com/2spiritx.htm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #227 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I underlined a part where you're really going off the deep end. I have no idea how you have jumped to that conclusion. You don't get to tell people what their gender is so you believing that a stay-at-home-dad isn't a "real man" is just bigotry.

Again, sex is determined by biology and gender is cultural. You're only seeing things in terms of your own heteronormativity but there plenty of societies throughout history and today with androgynes. These people don't identify with the strict 1:1 placement of gender and sex that you're trying to ascribe them.

Here is one famous anthropologic example: http://androgyne.0catch.com/2spiritx.htm

I was using "gender characteristics" as a premise for defining a gender.  How else would you define your gender?  DYI- I also read how the "World Health Organization" defines it and it is similar.  See: Gender Characteristics

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

 

To make a less clear-cut example.  Say you have a person who was born a man (male genitalia, etc) but culturally is very feminine and relates/defines himself as a woman due to his femininity.  Then that person dates a man.  In the LGBT community- that is defined as a heterosexual relationship due to their self-defined femininity.  Yet, if they go to another country- theres a potential they could be in a homosexual relationship.  Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?

Screw what the culture says and screw what stereotypes people like to reinforce- it's detrimental to us as a country.  If you're born with a penis- you cant play in the WNBA, Use a women's bathroom or changing room, or do anything only women can do.  It's not that complicated.  "Gender" differentiation is constricting and again- crazy.


Edited by Andysol - 4/14/14 at 10:32am

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #228 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

In the LGBT community- that is defined as a heterosexual relationship due to their self-defined femininity.

Where do you get that idea? You clearly stated that it was a male was dating a male. Hetero means different and homo means same. They are either the same sex or a different sex. Your mention of gender roles is meaningless to your definition since you're only taking about the same sex (i.e.: homosexual).

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #229 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Where do you get that idea? You clearly stated that it was a male was dating a male. Hetero means different and homo means same. They are either the same sex or a different sex. Your mention of gender roles is meaningless to your definition since you're only taking about the same sex (i.e.: homosexual).

Incorrect!  A man born a man- who now considers himself a woman- and dates a man- is now a heterosexual relationship.  Period.

 

Thats the lunacy of this thing!

 

If you disagree- then you agree with me- thats not a freakin' woman its a dude who lives in this fantasy world where he thinks he's a woman!

 

 

Again- please address the point:  Be gay, wear a dress- whatever you want- do it!  Just don't call yourself a woman if you were born a man! And if you think you are a woman, you need to be committed.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #230 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Incorrect!  A man born a man- who now considers himself a woman- and dates a man- is now a heterosexual relationship.  Period.

Thats the lunacy of this thing!

If you disagree- then you agree with me- thats not a freakin' woman its a dude pretending to be a woman!

No, they aren't. I don't know how I can be any more clear on the well worn subject regarding sex involving having particular organs. I can't imagine anything more restrictive and insulting to a person than clams that males should all like some archaic notion of men and females should all act like some archaic idea of women. Humans are simply far too diverse for use to say that if you are an effeminate male or a cross dresser than you're defined as a female. You'll always be the sex you were born as, regardless of what gender you identify yourself as.

Here is a very simple usage explanation from the Mac's dictionary: "sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender refers to cultural or social ones."

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #231 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

No, they aren't. I don't know how I can be any more clear on the well worn subject regarding sex involving having particular organs. I can't imagine anything more restrictive and insulting to a person than clams that males should all like some archaic notion of men and females should all act like some archaic idea of women. Humans are simply far too diverse for use to say that if you are an effeminate male or a cross dresser than you're defined as a female. You'll always be the sex you were born as, regardless of what gender you identify yourself as.

Here is a very simple usage explanation from the Mac's dictionary: "sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender refers to cultural or social ones."

Then we'll just have to disagree.

If they consider themselves women because of their "gender"- I consider them men with feminine attributes. I won't be calling them women.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #232 of 245

I'm Christian, and my understanding is that God intends for people to act in a moral way, and that for sexual activities that is only between a man and a woman who are married to each other.   That may sound like discrimination, but it means that homosexual activities are in the same category as fornication and adultery.  It's not that we're meant to not have fun and do what feels natural; it's that there is a 'right way' to do things, and that it matters.

 

That's my belief, and I respect others who have differing beliefs.  Some of the people I hold in highest regard have different beliefs than I do.

 

But here's an interesting thing: others' orientation and preferences (and actions) are not my decision.  But my belief system does have something to say about something that is my decision (in addition to my own chastity), and that is a strict injunction to love my neighbor.  That is not limited to those who believe and act the way I feel we all should.

 

I believe all people should be given a chance to receive a job offer based on their ability to do the job well.

 

People are created equally and should be treated equally.

 

'Moral' and 'immoral' are not equal, and should not be treated equally.  I support actions to treat people fairly.  I also support actions to not condone or legitimize wrong behavior.  Denying a qualified person a job only because he or she is attracted to the same gender is wrong, as is legalized same-sex marriage.

 

Jesus didn't condone sin.  Nor did he reject sinners (in fact he purposefully ate with them and forgave them and tried to help them get on track).  I'm sure he expects the same of us, on both counts.

 

I honestly don't know whether homosexuality is a choice, or something people are 'born with', or something they didn't choose or were born with but felt as a result of environmental influences.  I suspect that there are cases of each, but couldn't even begin to guess the numbers.  In the end, acting on it is what's wrong.  I think where choice is not involved that there is no moral culpability.

 

I may be born with (or develop through choice or otherwise) a really hot temper.  That may be something I'm faced with in my life.  But I am responsible to not act on it.  There are appropriate ways to respond with great energy, conviction, passion, indignation, etc. that don't represent succumbing to my hot temper.

 

A person may be born with a handicap.  I believe God intends to 'make all things beautiful in His time'.  I believe that includes healing all kinds of things people were born with or that happened to them during their lives that are different than the way that will allow for their greatest happiness.

 

A temper and being handicapped are not even close to perfect analogues to homosexuality.  But these things help me understand it.

 

I realize that some will see inconsistency in the set of beliefs I've outlined here.  I feel they are complementary parts of a consistent belief.  In the end I'm imperfect (aren't we all) and hope that others will try to have the same respect for me and my beliefs that I strive for towards them.

 

Edit: I noticed that the OP said "most employers".  Something else I believe is that religious organizations have the right to consider moral (sexual) behavior as part of their job qualification criteria.  While I think purely secular businesses don't (or shouldn't) have that right except as relates to sexual harassment, I do think that religious individuals do have the right to run a secular business without being forced as part of that business to support what they consider to be immoral behavior (ie. Hobby Lobby, photographers, bakeries, etc.).


Edited by jinglesthula - 4/14/14 at 12:50pm

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

- Gordon Hinckley

Reply

You did not come into the world to fail. You came into the world to succeed.

- Gordon Hinckley

Reply
post #233 of 245
Wow. This thread has gone off the rails. Jane, get me off this crazy thing!
post #234 of 245

I remember, not long ago, when Apple was known for it's amazing new products and features and not the politically controversial remarks of its CEO.  I guess with Jobs gone Cook needs to keep the company in the headlines somehow.

post #235 of 245
Just reported @MDCragg for blatant trolling.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #236 of 245
If Apple Insider doesn't do its due diligence in moderating this discussion away from being another soapbox for the heteronormative cheer squad I'm going to stop visiting this site.

So many self-identified experts yet so little insight. And then with the bashing.
post #237 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Just reported @MDCragg for blatant trolling.

 

What did I say that you consider to be "blatant trolling"?  Or are you just trying to silence somebody of whom you are intolerant?

post #238 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinglesthula View Post

I'm Christian, and my understanding is that God intends for people to act in a moral way, and that for sexual activities that is only between a man and a woman who are married to each other.   That may sound like discrimination, but it means that homosexual activities are in the same category as fornication and adultery.  It's not that we're meant to not have fun and do what feels natural; it's that there is a 'right way' to do things, and that it matters.

That's my belief, and I respect others who have differing beliefs.  Some of the people I hold in highest regard have different beliefs than I do.

But here's an interesting thing: others' orientation and preferences (and actions) are not my decision.  But my belief system does have something to say about something that is my decision (in addition to my own chastity), and that is a strict injunction to love my neighbor.  That is not limited to those who believe and act the way I feel we all should.

I believe all people should be given a chance to receive a job offer based on their ability to do the job well.

People are created equally and should be treated equally.

'Moral' and 'immoral' are not equal, and should not be treated equally.  I support actions to treat people fairly.  I also support actions to not condone or legitimize wrong behavior.  Denying a qualified person a job only because he or she is attracted to the same gender is wrong, as is legalized same-sex marriage.

Jesus didn't condone sin.  Nor did he reject sinners (in fact he purposefully ate with them and forgave them and tried to help them get on track).  I'm sure he expects the same of us, on both counts.

I honestly don't know whether homosexuality is a choice, or something people are 'born with', or something they didn't choose or were born with but felt as a result of environmental influences.  I suspect that there are cases of each, but couldn't even begin to guess the numbers.  In the end, acting on it is what's wrong.  I think where choice is not involved that there is no moral culpability.

I may be born with (or develop through choice or otherwise) a really hot temper.  That may be something I'm faced with in my life.  But I am responsible to not act on it.  There are appropriate ways to respond with great energy, conviction, passion, indignation, etc. that don't represent succumbing to my hot temper.

A person may be born with a handicap.  I believe God intends to 'make all things beautiful in His time'.  I believe that includes healing all kinds of things people were born with or that happened to them during their lives that are different than the way that will allow for their greatest happiness.

A temper and being handicapped are not even close to perfect analogues to homosexuality.  But these things help me understand it.

I realize that some will see inconsistency in the set of beliefs I've outlined here.  I feel they are complementary parts of a consistent belief.  In the end I'm imperfect (aren't we all) and hope that others will try to have the same respect for me and my beliefs that I strive for towards them.

Edit: I noticed that the OP said "most employers".  Something else I believe is that religious organizations have the right to consider moral (sexual) behavior as part of their job qualification criteria.  While I think purely secular businesses don't (or shouldn't) have that right except as relates to sexual harassment, I do think that religious individuals do have the right to run a secular business without being forced as part of that business to support what they consider to be immoral behavior (ie. Hobby Lobby, photographers, bakeries, etc.).

Well said.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #239 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


I didn't say that. I said I was tolerant of transgendered people- just intolerant of the act- and choose not to recognize their claim of being a different gender. No different than I chose not to recognize that some blonde lady dressed up like Cinderella at Disney World really was Cinderella. Of course, the difference is, that if that lady genuinely thought she were Cinderella, we'd all think she was nuts. Yet somehow Transgenders get a pass 1hmm.gif

 

If somebody wants to have their genitals creatively mutilated and to have their bodies pumped full of hormones from the opposite sex that's their choice.  But that is all that happened.  A man was not transformed into a woman or vice versa.

post #240 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDCragg View Post

What did I say that you consider to be "blatant trolling"?  Or are you just trying to silence somebody of whom you are intolerant?

Read your post again.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Tim Cook encourages US House to pass sexual orientation nondiscrimination act