If/when all those things are possible, I'd hope that people are doing them because they want to and not to avoid discrimination. But I fear that wouldn't be the case.
And here we get the heart of the matter: believe that sexuality is personal preference/desire and not something one is born with. If you believe that in spite of all the scientific evidence to the contrary, then I'm afraid there's no point in continuing our debate.
I didn't say that. My example specifically noted that acting on the desire is inappropriate, not having it. To quote DeForest Kelley, "they don't imprison people for having feelings".
The problem with this statement is that you're minimizing what's happening. On this day, and in relation to this action, it's about making life better for those struggling with having a sexual orientation that isn't in the majority. Don't minimize the importance of that action and it's effect on the world simply because you have a struggle which also needs to be addressed.
On the day when Malala Yousafzai spoke at the UN about the plight of women in the world, I certainly wouldn't have thought to diminish her moment by changing the dialog to be about gay and lesbian marginalization.
It was not my intention at all to minimise Tim's announcement. Nor was I attempting to change the dialogue. I was simply responding to your question of whether a straight woman had been "ostracized and had hurtful things said to [them]". As I said, from what I've seen lately, she probably has.
Oh, and for the record, I'm a straight white male, and thus can't really claim to have a struggle which needs to be addressed. I just think that everyone who is struggling needs help. If Tim coming out helps other gay people with their struggles, that's a good thing.
Also, "direct emotional & physical abuse"... women die under violent assault in the Western World way more often than I thought, as last awareness campaign informed me. To my opinion, this action by Tim Cook cannot be summed up as "just a gay thing". It's an act towards all minorities, or I'm very mistaken reading his statement.
Oh yeah, I was just talking about gamergate. I certainly don't believe that discrimination against women is any less important (or violent) than discrimination against gays and lesbians.
My problem is that I see so many people on the internet these days trying to diminish actions made to advance other causes in support of their own. Each individual act done in support of eliminating discrimination of any kind needs to be recognized and supported in it's own right. But yeah, I'm glad Tim included other minorities in his statement.
Oh, and for the record, I'm a straight white male, and thus can't really claim to have a struggle which needs to be addressed.
If you really think that, take a good look around. Maybe watch the Disney Channel. Or look at college graduation rates. Or college/high school test scores. Men in general (across all races) have more issues than most realize.
People don't seem to be able to bring themselves up without tearing others to shreds in the process.
Also, you being in Switzerland... I have many friends earning high salaries there who have to live in Germany/France because so many Swiss will only rent to Swiss people. Discrimination is an evil that hides everywhere.
Really, I have never heard that before, we have the largest ratio of foreigners living here in Europe, I don't believe them being foreigner was the problem, their guarantee that they will be in country for the duration of the lease was most likely was. However racism does exist here, we have a real problem with people from Albanian countries, as a large portion of our crime is associated them, we took in a lot of their refugees during the war.
It was not my intention at all to minimise Tim's announcement. Nor was I attempting to change the dialogue. I was simply responding to your question of whether a straight woman had been "ostracized and had hurtful things said to [them]". As I said, from what I've seen lately, she probably has.
I guess it was the way it was phrased by the original poster:
Hey I'm proud to be a straight woman and think that was God's gift to me. Will Bill Clinton send me a tweet?
Perhaps I misread, but what I took from that statement was that a very successful gay man coming out and speaking openly is no more deserving of praise than a straight woman stating her sexual orientation. So my issues with that were:
Last I checked, straight women are in the majority. Which doesn't mean they aren't discriminated against for being a woman, but a woman proclaiming that she's a lesbian would likely experience far more repercussions in her daily life than a woman proclaiming she's straight. This is more equivalent to what Tim Cook did.
It's glossing over the positive impact that Tim Cook's actions could potentially have on the lives of other gay men who are experiencing discrimination and instead focusing on getting personal attention (which is beside the point).
Really, I have never heard that before, we have the largest ratio of foreigners living here in Europe, I don't believe them being foreigner was the problem, their guarantee that they will be in country for the duration of the lease was most likely was. However racism does exist here, we have a real problem with people from Albanian countries, as a large portion of our crime is associated them, we took in a lot of their refugees during the war.
Well, I can only tell you about my friends' experience, not about the statistical situation. I guess only the government knows that?
Anyway, I wasn't bashing on the Swiss, it's a nice country with nice people, and some of my friends even married Swiss people, so I don't have much of a choice anyway. Friends are too precious to let any kind of prejudice take control
I especially like Basel [out of the Fasnacht (how noisy can it get during? Too noisy for me, for sure).] I have a ton of pics of the Basler Münster, it looks so awesomely medieval. I am so going to use that particular cathedral someday in a game... anyway I digress, that's "een paar biertjes" having an effect on my sanity, I'm afraid.
Anyway, I was just pointing out prejudice/racism can be anywhere. I really don't think the lease duration issue was the problem, my friends work in the finance industry and they definitely don't intend to go anywhere else in the years to come, given the world situation ^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon
If you really think that, take a good look around. Maybe watch the Disney Channel. Or look at college graduation rates. Or college/high school test scores. Men in general (across all races) have more issues than most realize.
People don't seem to be able to bring themselves up without tearing others to shreds in the process.
These sources show that being white and male is a huge statistical advantage. Almost as big as being born to higher-class parents. It doesn't automatically makes you a successful person, and it most definitely does not make you happy, but it gives you an edge over other people. Be thankful for it to your God(s) if you have any, to Luck if you don't, and try to share the happiness, I'd say. Just my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon
Basically, you're fine with people being run out of their job if their opinion doesn't agree with yours. Noted.
That's so not what I said. Also, where the hell does THAT come from?
I guess it was the way it was phrased by the original poster:
Perhaps I misread, but what I took from that statement was that a very successful gay man coming out and speaking openly is no more deserving of praise than a straight woman stating her sexual orientation. So my issues with that were:
Last I checked, straight women are in the majority. Which doesn't mean they aren't discriminated against for being a woman, but a woman proclaiming that she's a lesbian would likely experience far more repercussions in her daily life than a woman proclaiming she's straight. This is more equivalent to what Tim Cook did.
It's glossing over the positive impact that Tim Cook's actions could potentially have on the lives of other gay men who are experiencing discrimination and instead focusing on getting personal attention (which is beside the point).
I totally agree!
I believe there is another elephant in the room though, which is the one raised by Branson. USA != World.
In other words, how will Russia, Islamic Republics and other potentially unit-gay, anti-women countries react to this news? Will Apple be kicked out of Putinland? I just checked and Wikipedia states China is pro-gay, with the state media having already favorably covered gay weddings. I'm impressed.
Anyway, my point here is, women might be "almost equal" to men in America, but I can guarantee this is not true in the world at large. Two decades ago (suddenly I feel old), I remember women complaining that Pakistan was not a country to move to because "a woman needed a whip to keep men in check". We all have seen the high profile rape cases in India. My own female friends travelling and working in the Maghreb, in Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Iran have all reported the same general agressive anti-women behaviors (note, a few sentences in the country's language stating this is not appropriate behavior seems to work wonders... but need to be expressed every day, every new place, at every occurrence, not a situation I'd like to be put in) .
Cook has raised hope for millions, if not billions, of women, gay people, and other types of minorities I could not even think of.
As a stock holder of AAPL if it cause a drop in sales and therefore trade value its not worth it. He has a fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to keep his personal deals out of the business of the companies.
Although his orientation doesn't matter to me there are numerous places/countries in this world where you can be executed or imprisoned for this behavior (in fact there was just an article about selling iPhones in Iran). Do you think in these totalitarian countries they are going to say 'sure we understand it's just one of those things that westerners do'? I rather doubt it.
March 2014:
[Tim] Cook became visibly angry at Danhof’s questions and categorically rejected the NCPPR’s climate scepticism, according to the Mac Observer’s Bryan Chaffin, who attended the event. He told shareholders that securing a return on investment was not the only reason for investing in environmental measures.
“When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI,” Cook said, adding that the same sentiment applied to environmental and health and safety issues.
He told Danhof that if he did not believe in climate change, he should sell his Apple shares. “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” he said.
He told Danhof that if he did not believe in climate change, he should sell his Apple shares. “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” he said.
Impressive! Also, I believe it's incorrect to state there is a fiduciary obligation to shareholders. Unless I'm remembering my (admittedly pretty weak and faraway in past) stock market courses, a shareholder vote session is all you need to confirm a CEO's position, even if said position has a negative impact on the share value.
I don't care about his personal life either. I do care about him not alienating some Apple customers. And if he starts using Apple to push a political agenda Apple may lose some customers. When your CEO of a major corporation there isn't anything you can say or do that doesn't get tied to the company.
Right, so when companies the whole world over show product videos being used by happy male/female couples, grandparents, families with 2.4 children etc, etc, etc and no same sex couples anywhere in sight, they are not pushing a political agenda?
Tim Cook comes out and there is a collective "meh" from conservatives. The (former) CEO of Mozilla comes out in support of traditional marriage and he's rut out of his job, forced to leave. I'm sorry but the liberals are some of the least tolerant people I know. But so long as gays and gay rights supports are able to wrap their cause under the banner of "human rights" it's impossible for anyone to have a different viewpoint without being branded a hater and a bigot.
"Traditional marriage" is about denying legal rights to some folks on the basis of sexuality. It is the very definition of intolerance. Gay marriage is about granting rights to those same people, which detracts from the rights of no person, unless one somehow counts being overtly hateful and discriminatory as a "right" that needs to be protected.
To write about these views as mere differences of opinion is disingenuous, at best. To spin it into an argument that liberals are intolerant would be laughable, except that you probably actually believe it, which is just sad,
Conservatives who are averse to such criticism might try having less hateful and bigoted views.
Sexual orientation is none of the public's business, I understand that Cook is in the public's eye but he should have kept this to himself
I think there's more than just sexuality. People like to know who people associate themselves with. There were many articles written about Steve Jobs' girlfriends without his consent because people were interested in the people he dated to find out more about him and the character traits that interested him. If Tim had been straight, we'd most likely have had articles about his past girlfriends. The only reason why homosexuality is given more reverence is based on the expectation of harm or embarrassment from revealing it. That expectation shouldn't exist and once the less tolerant generations die out, it won't. When this happens, there won't be a move towards more privacy, gay people will be given just as little privacy as straight people get now.
Pretty sad thread overall, with a handful of blowhards spouting veiled social, sexual, and political stereotypes (with a wink, wink, no less) for the most part.
This is a concern. I'm taking a holding pattern at the moment, but I'm more leery than I was before.
Lost some respect for Nadella as well, there was no reason he had to comment. As has been said, there's really not a 'risk' to admitting you're gay these days.
Your use of the word "admitting" is telling. Replace the word "gay" in your sentence with "straight" and see how it sounds.
As for no risk, well you're lucky not to be living in Uganda, America, or England, or ...
As a stock holder of AAPL if it cause a drop in sales and therefore trade value its not worth it. He has a fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to keep his personal deals out of the business of the companies.
Although his orientation doesn't matter to me there are numerous places/countries in this world where you can be executed or imprisoned for this behavior (in fact there was just an article about selling iPhones in Iran). Do you think in these totalitarian countries they are going to say 'sure we understand it's just one of those things that westerners do'? I rather doubt it.
March 2014:
[Tim] Cook became visibly angry at Danhof’s questions and categorically rejected the NCPPR’s climate scepticism, according to the Mac Observer’s Bryan Chaffin, who attended the event. He told shareholders that securing a return on investment was not the only reason for investing in environmental measures.
“When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI,” Cook said, adding that the same sentiment applied to environmental and health and safety issues.
He told Danhof that if he did not believe in climate change, he should sell his Apple shares. “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” he said.
Maybe you will be following Danhof ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I don't care about his personal life either. I do care about him not alienating some Apple customers. And if he starts using Apple to push a political agenda Apple may lose some customers. When your CEO of a major corporation there isn't anything you can say or do that doesn't get tied to the company.
I disagree with 90% of what you posted today, but at face value, I agree with the words you wrote here. I care about him alienating some Apple customers, but I don't think he has (on net). Apple could lose some customers if he uses Apple to push a political agenda; I agree, but a) Apple's already been doing that to a small degree, and I haven't observed any impact and b) I don't expect Apple to ramp this up.
So yes, in theory it's bad thing if a CEO does something controversial that hurts the company. But I don't believe that's happening at Apple.
Although I posted earlier that I think a CEO has a responsibility to leave the personal stuff private and not put the company face on it by association and I still think that is true. In thinking further though most of what Apple has done is to Think Differently and to encourage others to do the same. There is always going to be someone that does not agree with your stand but my point was that the primary news making issue should have to do with the company -- I also agree that @malax is correct in that this won't make a piss ants difference either way.
Sexual orientation is none of the public's business
That would be a lovely world to live in, but it's not ours at the moment.
I'm gay and wish that the public had that attitude ... Sadly they have taunted us, made us illegal, preached from pulpits about us, journalists have forced gay men to leave their homes and more. I wish those six guys back in 1979 that attacked me and my boyfriend with chains, shouting "get the queers" as we walked home had decided it was none of their business too and left us alone.
I have no particular interest in your sexual orientation, but if you are straight then you also have the joy of not having the public interested in it either by default, unless you are a celebrity. How easy that must be.
I do believe that noone should be obligated to announce their sexual orientation (especially public figures) but I understand why Cook did it, and why he believed it was in everyone's best interest that he do so: Apple's, his own, and the LGBT community. I think the positives that come out of it far outweigh any perceived negatives.
At least now, it's there in the open, so people can stop "wondering" if he's gay, secretly "outing him", and there's no chance he will be caught off guard by a misguided interview Q, etc in the future. I believe Cook, above all else, has Apple's best interest in mind, and this was a massive factor when making this announcement. If he believed it would in any way hurt his company, he would not have done it, and I respect him for that, and the eloquent and true words of his essay.
Now everyone can move the **** on. Cook is absolutely correct in that he does not define himself by this, since it's only now that he's said a word about it.
Now you know why the iPhone 6 Plus bends easily. ????
Comments
ok, now you're just being a contrarian.
If/when all those things are possible, I'd hope that people are doing them because they want to and not to avoid discrimination. But I fear that wouldn't be the case.
Lol, I sure hope I'm not a contrarian!
Also, I agree with you on that!
And here we get the heart of the matter: believe that sexuality is personal preference/desire and not something one is born with. If you believe that in spite of all the scientific evidence to the contrary, then I'm afraid there's no point in continuing our debate.
I didn't say that. My example specifically noted that acting on the desire is inappropriate, not having it. To quote DeForest Kelley, "they don't imprison people for having feelings".
Oh, and for the record, I'm a straight white male, and thus can't really claim to have a struggle which needs to be addressed. I just think that everyone who is struggling needs help. If Tim coming out helps other gay people with their struggles, that's a good thing.
Also, "direct emotional & physical abuse"... women die under violent assault in the Western World way more often than I thought, as last awareness campaign informed me. To my opinion, this action by Tim Cook cannot be summed up as "just a gay thing". It's an act towards all minorities, or I'm very mistaken reading his statement.
Oh yeah, I was just talking about gamergate. I certainly don't believe that discrimination against women is any less important (or violent) than discrimination against gays and lesbians.
My problem is that I see so many people on the internet these days trying to diminish actions made to advance other causes in support of their own. Each individual act done in support of eliminating discrimination of any kind needs to be recognized and supported in it's own right. But yeah, I'm glad Tim included other minorities in his statement.
Oh, and for the record, I'm a straight white male, and thus can't really claim to have a struggle which needs to be addressed.
If you really think that, take a good look around. Maybe watch the Disney Channel. Or look at college graduation rates. Or college/high school test scores. Men in general (across all races) have more issues than most realize.
People don't seem to be able to bring themselves up without tearing others to shreds in the process.
Also, you being in Switzerland... I have many friends earning high salaries there who have to live in Germany/France because so many Swiss will only rent to Swiss people. Discrimination is an evil that hides everywhere.
Really, I have never heard that before, we have the largest ratio of foreigners living here in Europe, I don't believe them being foreigner was the problem, their guarantee that they will be in country for the duration of the lease was most likely was. However racism does exist here, we have a real problem with people from Albanian countries, as a large portion of our crime is associated them, we took in a lot of their refugees during the war.
It was not my intention at all to minimise Tim's announcement. Nor was I attempting to change the dialogue. I was simply responding to your question of whether a straight woman had been "ostracized and had hurtful things said to [them]". As I said, from what I've seen lately, she probably has.
I guess it was the way it was phrased by the original poster:
Perhaps I misread, but what I took from that statement was that a very successful gay man coming out and speaking openly is no more deserving of praise than a straight woman stating her sexual orientation. So my issues with that were:
Really, I have never heard that before, we have the largest ratio of foreigners living here in Europe, I don't believe them being foreigner was the problem, their guarantee that they will be in country for the duration of the lease was most likely was. However racism does exist here, we have a real problem with people from Albanian countries, as a large portion of our crime is associated them, we took in a lot of their refugees during the war.
Well, I can only tell you about my friends' experience, not about the statistical situation. I guess only the government knows that?
Anyway, I wasn't bashing on the Swiss, it's a nice country with nice people, and some of my friends even married Swiss people, so I don't have much of a choice anyway. Friends are too precious to let any kind of prejudice take control
I especially like Basel [out of the Fasnacht (how noisy can it get during? Too noisy for me, for sure).] I have a ton of pics of the Basler Münster, it looks so awesomely medieval. I am so going to use that particular cathedral someday in a game... anyway I digress, that's "een paar biertjes" having an effect on my sanity, I'm afraid.
Anyway, I was just pointing out prejudice/racism can be anywhere. I really don't think the lease duration issue was the problem, my friends work in the finance industry and they definitely don't intend to go anywhere else in the years to come, given the world situation ^^
If you really think that, take a good look around. Maybe watch the Disney Channel. Or look at college graduation rates. Or college/high school test scores. Men in general (across all races) have more issues than most realize.
People don't seem to be able to bring themselves up without tearing others to shreds in the process.
These sources show that being white and male is a huge statistical advantage. Almost as big as being born to higher-class parents. It doesn't automatically makes you a successful person, and it most definitely does not make you happy, but it gives you an edge over other people. Be thankful for it to your God(s) if you have any, to Luck if you don't, and try to share the happiness, I'd say. Just my opinion.
Basically, you're fine with people being run out of their job if their opinion doesn't agree with yours. Noted.
That's so not what I said. Also, where the hell does THAT come from?
While we're at it, this is telling: http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/HRC_Export-of-Hate-final.pdf
I guess it was the way it was phrased by the original poster:
Perhaps I misread, but what I took from that statement was that a very successful gay man coming out and speaking openly is no more deserving of praise than a straight woman stating her sexual orientation. So my issues with that were:
I totally agree!
I believe there is another elephant in the room though, which is the one raised by Branson. USA != World.
In other words, how will Russia, Islamic Republics and other potentially unit-gay, anti-women countries react to this news? Will Apple be kicked out of Putinland? I just checked and Wikipedia states China is pro-gay, with the state media having already favorably covered gay weddings. I'm impressed.
Anyway, my point here is, women might be "almost equal" to men in America, but I can guarantee this is not true in the world at large. Two decades ago (suddenly I feel old), I remember women complaining that Pakistan was not a country to move to because "a woman needed a whip to keep men in check". We all have seen the high profile rape cases in India. My own female friends travelling and working in the Maghreb, in Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Iran have all reported the same general agressive anti-women behaviors (note, a few sentences in the country's language stating this is not appropriate behavior seems to work wonders... but need to be expressed every day, every new place, at every occurrence, not a situation I'd like to be put in) .
Cook has raised hope for millions, if not billions, of women, gay people, and other types of minorities I could not even think of.
March 2014:
[Tim] Cook became visibly angry at Danhof’s questions and categorically rejected the NCPPR’s climate scepticism, according to the Mac Observer’s Bryan Chaffin, who attended the event. He told shareholders that securing a return on investment was not the only reason for investing in environmental measures.
“When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI,” Cook said, adding that the same sentiment applied to environmental and health and safety issues.
He told Danhof that if he did not believe in climate change, he should sell his Apple shares. “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” he said.
Maybe you will be following Danhof ...
He told Danhof that if he did not believe in climate change, he should sell his Apple shares. “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” he said.
Impressive! Also, I believe it's incorrect to state there is a fiduciary obligation to shareholders. Unless I'm remembering my (admittedly pretty weak and faraway in past) stock market courses, a shareholder vote session is all you need to confirm a CEO's position, even if said position has a negative impact on the share value.
Right, so when companies the whole world over show product videos being used by happy male/female couples, grandparents, families with 2.4 children etc, etc, etc and no same sex couples anywhere in sight, they are not pushing a political agenda?
"Fish are the last to recognise water"
"Traditional marriage" is about denying legal rights to some folks on the basis of sexuality. It is the very definition of intolerance. Gay marriage is about granting rights to those same people, which detracts from the rights of no person, unless one somehow counts being overtly hateful and discriminatory as a "right" that needs to be protected.
To write about these views as mere differences of opinion is disingenuous, at best. To spin it into an argument that liberals are intolerant would be laughable, except that you probably actually believe it, which is just sad,
Conservatives who are averse to such criticism might try having less hateful and bigoted views.
I think there's more than just sexuality. People like to know who people associate themselves with. There were many articles written about Steve Jobs' girlfriends without his consent because people were interested in the people he dated to find out more about him and the character traits that interested him. If Tim had been straight, we'd most likely have had articles about his past girlfriends. The only reason why homosexuality is given more reverence is based on the expectation of harm or embarrassment from revealing it. That expectation shouldn't exist and once the less tolerant generations die out, it won't. When this happens, there won't be a move towards more privacy, gay people will be given just as little privacy as straight people get now.
Your use of the word "admitting" is telling. Replace the word "gay" in your sentence with "straight" and see how it sounds.
As for no risk, well you're lucky not to be living in Uganda, America, or England, or ...
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/20/3093931/uganda-passes-kill-gays-anti-homosexuality/
http://news.yahoo.com/killing-gay-man-nyc-draws-protesters-062943751.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/gay-couple-targeted-in-homophobic-attack-by-teenage-gang-on-east-london-street-9558423.html
As a stock holder of AAPL if it cause a drop in sales and therefore trade value its not worth it. He has a fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to keep his personal deals out of the business of the companies.
Although his orientation doesn't matter to me there are numerous places/countries in this world where you can be executed or imprisoned for this behavior (in fact there was just an article about selling iPhones in Iran). Do you think in these totalitarian countries they are going to say 'sure we understand it's just one of those things that westerners do'? I rather doubt it.
March 2014:
[Tim] Cook became visibly angry at Danhof’s questions and categorically rejected the NCPPR’s climate scepticism, according to the Mac Observer’s Bryan Chaffin, who attended the event. He told shareholders that securing a return on investment was not the only reason for investing in environmental measures.
“When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI,” Cook said, adding that the same sentiment applied to environmental and health and safety issues.
He told Danhof that if he did not believe in climate change, he should sell his Apple shares. “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” he said.
Maybe you will be following Danhof ...
I don't care about his personal life either. I do care about him not alienating some Apple customers. And if he starts using Apple to push a political agenda Apple may lose some customers. When your CEO of a major corporation there isn't anything you can say or do that doesn't get tied to the company.
I disagree with 90% of what you posted today, but at face value, I agree with the words you wrote here. I care about him alienating some Apple customers, but I don't think he has (on net). Apple could lose some customers if he uses Apple to push a political agenda; I agree, but a) Apple's already been doing that to a small degree, and I haven't observed any impact and b) I don't expect Apple to ramp this up.
So yes, in theory it's bad thing if a CEO does something controversial that hurts the company. But I don't believe that's happening at Apple.
Although I posted earlier that I think a CEO has a responsibility to leave the personal stuff private and not put the company face on it by association and I still think that is true. In thinking further though most of what Apple has done is to Think Differently and to encourage others to do the same. There is always going to be someone that does not agree with your stand but my point was that the primary news making issue should have to do with the company -- I also agree that @malax is correct in that this won't make a piss ants difference either way.
That would be a lovely world to live in, but it's not ours at the moment.
I'm gay and wish that the public had that attitude ... Sadly they have taunted us, made us illegal, preached from pulpits about us, journalists have forced gay men to leave their homes and more. I wish those six guys back in 1979 that attacked me and my boyfriend with chains, shouting "get the queers" as we walked home had decided it was none of their business too and left us alone.
I have no particular interest in your sexual orientation, but if you are straight then you also have the joy of not having the public interested in it either by default, unless you are a celebrity. How easy that must be.
I do believe that noone should be obligated to announce their sexual orientation (especially public figures) but I understand why Cook did it, and why he believed it was in everyone's best interest that he do so: Apple's, his own, and the LGBT community. I think the positives that come out of it far outweigh any perceived negatives.
At least now, it's there in the open, so people can stop "wondering" if he's gay, secretly "outing him", and there's no chance he will be caught off guard by a misguided interview Q, etc in the future. I believe Cook, above all else, has Apple's best interest in mind, and this was a massive factor when making this announcement. If he believed it would in any way hurt his company, he would not have done it, and I respect him for that, and the eloquent and true words of his essay.
Now everyone can move the **** on. Cook is absolutely correct in that he does not define himself by this, since it's only now that he's said a word about it.
Now you know why the iPhone 6 Plus bends easily. ????
I want to know is he a Dom, macho, masculine gay or the other type submissive, camp, feminine type. I'm thinking the latter? Thoughts?
Sinful covers it in a nutshell.