In a live TV segment of CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" on Friday, co-anchor Simon Hobbs caused a kerfuffle when he inadvertently "outed" Apple CEO Tim Cook as being openly gay....
...The gaffe came during a discussion with New York Times columnist and CNBC contributor James Stewart, who was on the show to talk up his latest think piece dealing with corporate culture and gay executives....
..."I just found it very, very fascinating," Stewart said. "Of course, there are gay CEOs in major companies, and I reached out to many them. I got an extremely cool reception"...
Then Hobbs jumped in.
"I think Tim Cook is open about the fact he's gay at the head of Apple, isn't he," Hobbs asked. Following a stifling silence from the panel, and a disparaging shake of the head from Stewart, the anchor tried to recover. "Oh, dear, was that an error? I thought not." [WTF]
The irony of Hobbs' ill-timed mistake was not lost on co-anchor David Faber, who said, "Wow, I think you just...yeah."
Listening closely, Hobbs can be heard just under the prattle of his co-anchors trying to cover for the slip, saying, "I think he's very open about it."
While Cook speaks somewhat frankly about Apple, he is notoriously guarded when it comes to his private life. [And this is why he should be!]
Speculation as to Cook's sexual orientation has been bandied about -- a profile from Valleywagwent so far as to call Cook the "most powerful gay man in Silicon Valley" -- but the Apple chief has never "come out" publicly. Perhaps the closest thing to an acknowledgement was a speech Cook gave in December when he accepted a lifetime achievement award from his alma mater Auburn University. In it, he alluded to discrimination from his past, which was "rooted in fear of people that were different than the majority." [How many hero clarify that they are not gay and in fact only do the nasty in the missionary position.]
As for Cook, Stewart chose not to offer remarks on what is clearly speculation.
"I don't want to comment on anybody who might or might not be," Stewart said. "I'm not going to out anybody."
These guys are worse than analyst (so-called reporters). Not once in then article did it mention that Hobbs apologized for making a mistake or possibly doing so, nor did he give a good reason using Tim Cook as an example. Neither did he apparently try to list anyone else.
Sad that personal life of a very successful CEO must be brought up in anyway unless it might interfere business. Funny that Hobbs didn't bother to mention that Steve Jobs picked Tim as his successor many years ago -- Steve Jobs certainly knew and had not a fear in the world that it would be a detract from Apple's business in any way?!
I am not gay but do count several as close friends. Most Christian churches teach that tolerance and love is the way to go.
To Marvin: I accept some of your points, though I think your perspective is skewed. I think you make causal links where there are none. But I do take issue with your Jesus analogy: virtually everyone who goes on holiday comes into contact with many people. If you went on a trek into the wilderness for a month and a half and didn't see or be in contact with a soul, I think you'd get lonely.
Everyone nowadays is pro-gay and everyone who is not has to be quiet. And that's fine, I'm not one to fight against the majority of people's opinions or to fight against people's personal lifestyle. But since everyone has a right to their own opinion that's mine, I find it appalling that people do these things sexually behind closed doors, of men having sex with men. I believe it to be perverse. Would I ever be disrespectful to homosexuals because of my opinion, no. That's their life and right to choose what they want. They aren't harming anyone. Can I disagree with their lifestyle, yes.
Funny how if there is a disagreement on a moral issue, the one who has a more conservative view has to be quiet now. I feel society's morals are degrading every year and if you disagree with it you get bitten. I'm not a political conservative either, as I'm neutral and never vote. I'm a peaceful person who never believed homosexuals should be "suppressed" or "hidden".
So that's my opinion and since people can voice theirs I would like to voice mine. I find this sexual behavior repulsive and society is going down the drain quickly because they are blind to see it.
So that's my opinion and since people can voice theirs I would like to voice mine. I find this sexual behavior repulsive and society is going down the drain quickly because they are blind to see it.
You haven't exactly shown how one leads to the other. Just calling others blind without doing that much is ridiculous.
Not sure if there's anything about Federighi. He went to the Oscars, it might be his wife next to him:
Federighi is a good looking guy and I imagine a lot of women would be interested to know if he's single and also interested in women. If it turned out he was gay, they'd be wasting their time.
I'd like to assume that Federighi is still married. He took a call from his wife "Hairforce 2" while on stage last year.
[CONTENTEMBED=/t/180977/apple-ceo-tim-cook-outed-as-gay-by-cnbc-co-achor/120#post_2557359 layout=inline]<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> Not sure if there's anything about Federighi. He went to the Oscars, it might be his wife next to him:</span>
[/CONTENTEMBED]
Federighi is a good looking guy and I imagine a lot of women would be interested to know if he's single and also interested in women. If it turned out he was gay, they'd be wasting their time.
I'd like to assume that Federighi is still married. He took a call from his wife "Hairforce 2" while on stage last year.
Everyone nowadays is pro-gay and everyone who is not has to be quiet. And that's fine, I'm not one to fight against the majority of people's opinions or to fight against people's personal lifestyle. But since everyone has a right to their own opinion that's mine, I find it appalling that people do these things sexually behind closed doors, of men having sex with men. I believe it to be perverse. Would I ever be disrespectful to homosexuals because of my opinion, no. That's their life and right to choose what they want. They aren't harming anyone. Can I disagree with their lifestyle, yes.
Funny how if there is a disagreement on a moral issue, the one who has a more conservative view has to be quiet now. I feel society's morals are degrading every year and if you disagree with it you get bitten. I'm not a political conservative either, as I'm neutral and never vote. I'm a peaceful person who never believed homosexuals should be "suppressed" or "hidden".
So that's my opinion and since people can voice theirs I would like to voice mine. I find this sexual behavior repulsive and society is going down the drain quickly because they are blind to see it.
When you say, "I feel society's morals are degrading every year" and "society is going down the drain quickly", there is an implication that homosexuality is a new thing or that there are more homosexuals now than there have been in the past. There isn't. About 10% of human population has always been homosexual. It may simply seem like there's more homosexuals because gays (for the most part) are no longer "in the closet".
The fact that you personally find gay sex repulsive does not make it a moral issue any more than if I find brussels sprouts repulsive. The question in a truly free society is whether people who are different than you are, even people you may find repulsive, have the same rights as you do. It's not a matter of being "pro-gay". It's a matter of whether you believe gays are entitled to the same civil rights as everyone else. If you find gay sex repulsive, that's fine...don't have any.
Never voting does not make you neutral. Never voting is usually an endorsement of whoever is already in office, because it's relatively hard to throw out an incumbent. I would go so far to say that never voting is an immoral position because it's refusing to take any role in improving society even when those choices are the lesser of two evils.
I might agree with you that "society is going down the drain". But not for the reasons you do. I think it might be going down the drain because we're moving away from logic, intellect and science; because we are moving away from caring about the rights of other people; because we're obsessed with guns; because we're placing corporations above people; because we're not taking care of this planet; because we place the measure of our success solely on either fame or the almighty dollar and because so many of our institutions - both public and private - have become completely corrupt.
First of all, it shouldn't matter if he is or if he isn't. Isn't that the intent of a free and open society? Differences should not normally matter. They can remain private or not private and there should be no impact on or from society. But "we" keep dragging out differences. When will "we" just get over it and move on?
But second, if the man wants to keep it private, and you don't really know one way or the other, as a journalist shouldn't you shut your trap?
I guess the only thing CNBC can say for themselves is "at least we aren't MSNBC."
When you say, "I feel society's morals are degrading every year" and "society is going down the drain quickly", there is an implication that homosexuality is a new thing or that there are more homosexuals now than there have been in the past. There isn't. About 10% of human population has always been homosexual. It may simply seem like there's more homosexuals because gays (for the most part) are no longer "in the closet".
You're right in the amount of homosexuality and it's always existing. But I do believe when people are young, sexuality can be twisted, or an emotional, physical and spiritual view on it can be influenceable - it's not something set in stone for a long of young people. While it may not be that common or that easy per se, I do believe that exists.
Quote:
The fact that you personally find gay sex repulsive does not make it a moral issue any more than if I find brussels sprouts repulsive. The question in a truly free society is whether people who are different than you are, even people you may find repulsive, have the same rights as you do. It's not a matter of being "pro-gay". It's a matter of whether you believe gays are entitled to the same civil rights as everyone else. If you find gay sex repulsive, that's fine...don't have any.
Sorry, the fact that I find it repulsive is not the reason it is a moral issue. Correct. I didn't mean to come off like that. I do however, like yourself, have a definition of morality and I believe this is an unnatural and immoral form of sexuality. Such as adultery and fornication. Also, I believe people should always be treated equally and with respect if they do so to others. My disagreement is not a tyrannical loathing that wants people to have discriminative treatment.
Quote:
Never voting does not make you neutral. Never voting is usually an endorsement of whoever is already in office, because it's relatively hard to throw out an incumbent. I would go so far to say that never voting is an immoral position because it's refusing to take any role in improving society even when those choices are the lesser of two evils. One thing I do blame both the left and those in the middle for is not coming out to vote. The Tea Party is brilliant at getting the far right to vote and as a result, they have far more influence than their actual numbers.
We have very different views on this. And I will respect your view as it has a lot of truth and positive attributes. My reasons have very deep meaning, as yours, and it does have somewhat do with the "two evils". I really won't go into it more than that but it has nothing to do with apathy or lack of understanding on the repercussions of not voting.
Quote:
I might agree with you that "society is going down the drain". But not for the reasons you do. I think it might be going down the drain because we're moving away from logic, intellect and science; because we are moving away from caring about the rights of other people; because we're obsessed with guns; because we're placing corporations above people; because we're not taking care of this planet; because we place the measure of our success solely on either fame or the almighty dollar and because so many of our institutions - both public and private - have become completely corrupt.
I'm sorry, I did sound ignorant there. I didn't mean to say homosexuality is the reason for society going down the drain. I believe people's views are becoming much more immoral, and thats one of the reasons society is degrading. There are many other reasons, some of which you yourself have named. Caring for other people's rights is actually on the increase with gay rights and abortion (which I'm also against). So I would disagree there, can more be done, yes, but that will be attended to in time because society is empowered to fight for its right, thanks to the US constitution - which has made the government weak (for a period of time). I have very different views on what "progress" is however. The gun rights issue is an agenda right now and guns will be done away with in a couple of years. Corporations above people is something I firmly believe is an evil that will exist until the very end. It represents the established hierarchy and the very core of capitalism. And much more.
Is not a choice is how God made them
Society is very complex
As long as nobody's is hurting others
Let them be
There will always be people who view anything outside of the more common relationships as objectionable. For example this 26 year old guy with his own 72 year old grandmother:
There was a skater boy actually posted videos of himself making out with his own grandmother online. Don't Google it. Not least because you'll get bombarded with mature dating ads forever more.
There's this 31 year old male with a 91 year old woman:
It's not as simple as the parties involved being hurt as many of them aren't being hurt but society deems the relationships to be inappropriate. Inter-family relationships are considered harmful due to birth defects, age laws are to ensure informed consent is given.
One thing that doesn't help acceptance of homosexual relationships is the prevalence of HIV. This shows up in blood donor guidelines:
"You should not donate blood for 12 months after having sex with:
a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man (if you are female)
a man (if you are male)
As of November 2011, a man who has sex with men can donate blood provided they have not had anal or oral sex with a man during the past 12 months (even with a condom). Previously, men who had sex with men were not allowed to donate blood."
"In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population.
Results of HIV testing conducted in 20 cities as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS) indicated that 18% of gay and bisexual men tested in 2011 had HIV"
When 2% of the population produced 60-70% of new HIV infections and almost 1 in 5 are afflicted by it, that gives people a false perception that the disease and the lifestyle are directly related. This has caused some problems in the adult industry:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/derrick-burts-hiv-in-pornography-the-naked-truth-2167532.html
That 24 year old became a victim after just 6 months in the industry. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/10/hiv-positive-porn-star-derrick-burts-gay-for-pay.html
"Like many male porn actors, Burts sometimes went “gay for pay,” performing in both straight porn with women under the name Cameron Reid, and gay porn with other men under the name Derek Chambers. The reason for two distinct names is that in the porn industry, doing both gay and straight porn—called “crossing over”—is both relatively common and also fairly taboo. Many female performers believe that the risk of contracting HIV during a scene is vastly increased if their male partner participates in gay porn. In October, when the alarm bells were first sounded about the still anonymous Patient Zeta, porn star Courtney Cummz told The Daily Beast she was “terrified” by stars who cross over, and thought the Occupational Safety and Health Administration should step in to prevent it."
Another thing that can make people uneasy is when it comes to the family setup, like this:
A child will almost always have a single biological father and mother so producing children this way separates children from their biological parents. This can happen with heterosexual couples but it will be the case in every homosexual relationship.
I imagine that tolerance of relationships is in some way linked to perceived harm but who gets to decide what's harmful? Is it more or less harmful to prevent a student being with a teacher if they end up killing themselves because they can't be with who they want to be with?
People usually suggest a rule that anything that two people of a certain age consent to is ok but that doesn't go far enough to guarantee a positive outcome in every scenario. The ultimate aim should be to try and eliminate suffering and help people to have as positive an experience in life as they can but it's very difficult to determine fixed rules to ensure this outcome.
There was a case this year of a 5 year old who had their gender reassigned:
The child was reportedly extremely unhappy being a girl even at that young age but making the judgement call to go about fixing it is not an easy task.
Ultimately society will always try to impose rules on what is tolerated and what isn't by a consensus. The more cases that come out in favor of particular scenarios, the more they'll be accepted but when dealing with small minorities, it's more likely for the progress to be impeded. It would help for people not to be hateful even when they object to things but I doubt this will ever happen as it's just human nature.
Five is too young to make a massive decision like that !
What two consenting adults do is up to them
We really need to have more common sense
Society needs more tolerance We seem to blow things out of proportion And point out extreme cases God made us the way we are we all need love some people love in a different way
Comments
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
In a live TV segment of CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" on Friday, co-anchor Simon Hobbs caused a kerfuffle when he inadvertently "outed" Apple CEO Tim Cook as being openly gay....
...The gaffe came during a discussion with New York Times columnist and CNBC contributor James Stewart, who was on the show to talk up his latest think piece dealing with corporate culture and gay executives....
..."I just found it very, very fascinating," Stewart said. "Of course, there are gay CEOs in major companies, and I reached out to many them. I got an extremely cool reception"...
While Cook speaks somewhat frankly about Apple, he is notoriously guarded when it comes to his private life. [And this is why he should be!]Then Hobbs jumped in.
"I think Tim Cook is open about the fact he's gay at the head of Apple, isn't he," Hobbs asked. Following a stifling silence from the panel, and a disparaging shake of the head from Stewart, the anchor tried to recover. "Oh, dear, was that an error? I thought not." [WTF]
The irony of Hobbs' ill-timed mistake was not lost on co-anchor David Faber, who said, "Wow, I think you just...yeah."
Listening closely, Hobbs can be heard just under the prattle of his co-anchors trying to cover for the slip, saying, "I think he's very open about it."
Speculation as to Cook's sexual orientation has been bandied about -- a profile from Valleywag went so far as to call Cook the "most powerful gay man in Silicon Valley" -- but the Apple chief has never "come out" publicly. Perhaps the closest thing to an acknowledgement was a speech Cook gave in December when he accepted a lifetime achievement award from his alma mater Auburn University. In it, he alluded to discrimination from his past, which was "rooted in fear of people that were different than the majority." [How many hero clarify that they are not gay and in fact only do the nasty in the missionary position.]
As for Cook, Stewart chose not to offer remarks on what is clearly speculation.
"I don't want to comment on anybody who might or might not be," Stewart said. "I'm not going to out anybody."
These guys are worse than analyst (so-called reporters). Not once in then article did it mention that Hobbs apologized for making a mistake or possibly doing so, nor did he give a good reason using Tim Cook as an example. Neither did he apparently try to list anyone else.
Sad that personal life of a very successful CEO must be brought up in anyway unless it might interfere business. Funny that Hobbs didn't bother to mention that Steve Jobs picked Tim as his successor many years ago -- Steve Jobs certainly knew and had not a fear in the world that it would be a detract from Apple's business in any way?!
I am not gay but do count several as close friends. Most Christian churches teach that tolerance and love is the way to go.
JMHO,
"Can't we all just get along?"
I find this lifestyle repulsive.
Everyone nowadays is pro-gay and everyone who is not has to be quiet. And that's fine, I'm not one to fight against the majority of people's opinions or to fight against people's personal lifestyle. But since everyone has a right to their own opinion that's mine, I find it appalling that people do these things sexually behind closed doors, of men having sex with men. I believe it to be perverse. Would I ever be disrespectful to homosexuals because of my opinion, no. That's their life and right to choose what they want. They aren't harming anyone. Can I disagree with their lifestyle, yes.
Funny how if there is a disagreement on a moral issue, the one who has a more conservative view has to be quiet now. I feel society's morals are degrading every year and if you disagree with it you get bitten. I'm not a political conservative either, as I'm neutral and never vote. I'm a peaceful person who never believed homosexuals should be "suppressed" or "hidden".
So that's my opinion and since people can voice theirs I would like to voice mine. I find this sexual behavior repulsive and society is going down the drain quickly because they are blind to see it.
So that's my opinion and since people can voice theirs I would like to voice mine. I find this sexual behavior repulsive and society is going down the drain quickly because they are blind to see it.
You haven't exactly shown how one leads to the other. Just calling others blind without doing that much is ridiculous.
Federighi is a good looking guy and I imagine a lot of women would be interested to know if he's single and also interested in women. If it turned out he was gay, they'd be wasting their time.
I'd like to assume that Federighi is still married. He took a call from his wife "Hairforce 2" while on stage last year.
Funny name for a wife.
I find this lifestyle repulsive.
Everyone nowadays is pro-gay and everyone who is not has to be quiet. And that's fine, I'm not one to fight against the majority of people's opinions or to fight against people's personal lifestyle. But since everyone has a right to their own opinion that's mine, I find it appalling that people do these things sexually behind closed doors, of men having sex with men. I believe it to be perverse. Would I ever be disrespectful to homosexuals because of my opinion, no. That's their life and right to choose what they want. They aren't harming anyone. Can I disagree with their lifestyle, yes.
Funny how if there is a disagreement on a moral issue, the one who has a more conservative view has to be quiet now. I feel society's morals are degrading every year and if you disagree with it you get bitten. I'm not a political conservative either, as I'm neutral and never vote. I'm a peaceful person who never believed homosexuals should be "suppressed" or "hidden".
So that's my opinion and since people can voice theirs I would like to voice mine. I find this sexual behavior repulsive and society is going down the drain quickly because they are blind to see it.
When you say, "I feel society's morals are degrading every year" and "society is going down the drain quickly", there is an implication that homosexuality is a new thing or that there are more homosexuals now than there have been in the past. There isn't. About 10% of human population has always been homosexual. It may simply seem like there's more homosexuals because gays (for the most part) are no longer "in the closet".
The fact that you personally find gay sex repulsive does not make it a moral issue any more than if I find brussels sprouts repulsive. The question in a truly free society is whether people who are different than you are, even people you may find repulsive, have the same rights as you do. It's not a matter of being "pro-gay". It's a matter of whether you believe gays are entitled to the same civil rights as everyone else. If you find gay sex repulsive, that's fine...don't have any.
Never voting does not make you neutral. Never voting is usually an endorsement of whoever is already in office, because it's relatively hard to throw out an incumbent. I would go so far to say that never voting is an immoral position because it's refusing to take any role in improving society even when those choices are the lesser of two evils.
I might agree with you that "society is going down the drain". But not for the reasons you do. I think it might be going down the drain because we're moving away from logic, intellect and science; because we are moving away from caring about the rights of other people; because we're obsessed with guns; because we're placing corporations above people; because we're not taking care of this planet; because we place the measure of our success solely on either fame or the almighty dollar and because so many of our institutions - both public and private - have become completely corrupt.
First of all, it shouldn't matter if he is or if he isn't. Isn't that the intent of a free and open society? Differences should not normally matter. They can remain private or not private and there should be no impact on or from society. But "we" keep dragging out differences. When will "we" just get over it and move on?
But second, if the man wants to keep it private, and you don't really know one way or the other, as a journalist shouldn't you shut your trap?
I guess the only thing CNBC can say for themselves is "at least we aren't MSNBC."
Well hold on. Martian might be important. Do you grok?
You're right in the amount of homosexuality and it's always existing. But I do believe when people are young, sexuality can be twisted, or an emotional, physical and spiritual view on it can be influenceable - it's not something set in stone for a long of young people. While it may not be that common or that easy per se, I do believe that exists.
Sorry, the fact that I find it repulsive is not the reason it is a moral issue. Correct. I didn't mean to come off like that. I do however, like yourself, have a definition of morality and I believe this is an unnatural and immoral form of sexuality. Such as adultery and fornication. Also, I believe people should always be treated equally and with respect if they do so to others. My disagreement is not a tyrannical loathing that wants people to have discriminative treatment.
We have very different views on this. And I will respect your view as it has a lot of truth and positive attributes. My reasons have very deep meaning, as yours, and it does have somewhat do with the "two evils". I really won't go into it more than that but it has nothing to do with apathy or lack of understanding on the repercussions of not voting.
I'm sorry, I did sound ignorant there. I didn't mean to say homosexuality is the reason for society going down the drain. I believe people's views are becoming much more immoral, and thats one of the reasons society is degrading. There are many other reasons, some of which you yourself have named. Caring for other people's rights is actually on the increase with gay rights and abortion (which I'm also against). So I would disagree there, can more be done, yes, but that will be attended to in time because society is empowered to fight for its right, thanks to the US constitution - which has made the government weak (for a period of time). I have very different views on what "progress" is however. The gun rights issue is an agenda right now and guns will be done away with in a couple of years. Corporations above people is something I firmly believe is an evil that will exist until the very end. It represents the established hierarchy and the very core of capitalism. And much more.
Society is very complex
As long as nobody's is hurting others
Let them be
There will always be people who view anything outside of the more common relationships as objectionable. For example this 26 year old guy with his own 72 year old grandmother:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7662232/Grandmother-and-grandson-to-have-child-together.html
There was a skater boy actually posted videos of himself making out with his own grandmother online. Don't Google it. Not least because you'll get bombarded with mature dating ads forever more.
There's this 31 year old male with a 91 year old woman:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/pictures-toy-boy-aged-31-3649504
There was a male teacher who eloped with a 15 year old female student jailed for 5.5 years:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/459897/Will-jailed-school-teacher-Jeremy-Forrest-and-his-schoolgirl-lover-be-reunited
There was a female teacher who had a relationship with a 12 year old male student, jailed for 7 years and they got married when she was released:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/mary-kay-letourneau-back-jail-article-1.1568037
There's actually a surprising number of teacher student incidents (multiple gender combinations too - women-girls, men-boys etc):
http://28sherman.blogspot.com/2014/01/list-of-teachers-busted-for-sex-with.html
http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/39783/
It's not as simple as the parties involved being hurt as many of them aren't being hurt but society deems the relationships to be inappropriate. Inter-family relationships are considered harmful due to birth defects, age laws are to ensure informed consent is given.
One thing that doesn't help acceptance of homosexual relationships is the prevalence of HIV. This shows up in blood donor guidelines:
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Blood-donation/Pages/Who-can-use-it.aspx
"You should not donate blood for 12 months after having sex with:
a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man (if you are female)
a man (if you are male)
As of November 2011, a man who has sex with men can donate blood provided they have not had anal or oral sex with a man during the past 12 months (even with a condom). Previously, men who had sex with men were not allowed to donate blood."
This arises from the increased risk of infection:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html
"In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population.
Results of HIV testing conducted in 20 cities as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS) indicated that 18% of gay and bisexual men tested in 2011 had HIV"
When 2% of the population produced 60-70% of new HIV infections and almost 1 in 5 are afflicted by it, that gives people a false perception that the disease and the lifestyle are directly related. This has caused some problems in the adult industry:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/derrick-burts-hiv-in-pornography-the-naked-truth-2167532.html
That 24 year old became a victim after just 6 months in the industry.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/10/hiv-positive-porn-star-derrick-burts-gay-for-pay.html
"Like many male porn actors, Burts sometimes went “gay for pay,” performing in both straight porn with women under the name Cameron Reid, and gay porn with other men under the name Derek Chambers. The reason for two distinct names is that in the porn industry, doing both gay and straight porn—called “crossing over”—is both relatively common and also fairly taboo. Many female performers believe that the risk of contracting HIV during a scene is vastly increased if their male partner participates in gay porn. In October, when the alarm bells were first sounded about the still anonymous Patient Zeta, porn star Courtney Cummz told The Daily Beast she was “terrified” by stars who cross over, and thought the Occupational Safety and Health Administration should step in to prevent it."
Another thing that can make people uneasy is when it comes to the family setup, like this:
http://news.sky.com/story/1043945/elton-john-and-david-furnish-show-off-new-son
A child will almost always have a single biological father and mother so producing children this way separates children from their biological parents. This can happen with heterosexual couples but it will be the case in every homosexual relationship.
I imagine that tolerance of relationships is in some way linked to perceived harm but who gets to decide what's harmful? Is it more or less harmful to prevent a student being with a teacher if they end up killing themselves because they can't be with who they want to be with?
People usually suggest a rule that anything that two people of a certain age consent to is ok but that doesn't go far enough to guarantee a positive outcome in every scenario. The ultimate aim should be to try and eliminate suffering and help people to have as positive an experience in life as they can but it's very difficult to determine fixed rules to ensure this outcome.
There was a case this year of a 5 year old who had their gender reassigned:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2643231/When-family-dies-I-cut-hair-I-boy-Parents-share-story-having-transgender-child-let-change-gender-aged-just-FIVE.html
The child was reportedly extremely unhappy being a girl even at that young age but making the judgement call to go about fixing it is not an easy task.
Ultimately society will always try to impose rules on what is tolerated and what isn't by a consensus. The more cases that come out in favor of particular scenarios, the more they'll be accepted but when dealing with small minorities, it's more likely for the progress to be impeded. It would help for people not to be hateful even when they object to things but I doubt this will ever happen as it's just human nature.
What two consenting adults do is up to them
We really need to have more common sense
Society needs more tolerance
We seem to blow things out of proportion
And point out extreme cases
God made us the way we are we all need love some people love in a different way
Why is Craig F. behind him there?