Apple CEO Tpm Cook come outs

[Omollo]

That is one aspect of the movement I detest and fear at the same time. I know how the media has been tuned to work for their cause. Take this guy I know. He had a business that was on its last legs. He had been married and had kids - a normal guy. Then he had divorced. Then one day he calls the media and announces that he is gay. And vooke, wonders happened. He appeared in every newspaper and TV station. Then he did rounds in all talk shows. His presence at public events was recognized. You would have been mistaken to think he had won the Euro Jackpot. And indeed he won the jackpot! His business got a mysterious injection like a ship that gets a gale in its sails in hitherto calm seas.

What did he really achieve to earn all those accolades? Think of it. I can see those same forces being marshalled to crush anybody with opposing views. The Catholics are now giving in. I think it is wrong.

If you have an institution that has set its values such a church. Why should somebody come and lecture to it how to conduct its business? This is why I get irritated. I want people to be free to enjoy their sexuality to the full. But they should not impose values on others.

They are winning. The next crime will be preaching against homosexuality. That will be bigotry. The will vilify churches preaching thus as intolerant, nudge Catholicism to shift the boundaries and they will gladly oblige. I think the next generation of heroes will be gay activists, thre are one too many low lying fruits in this area

[kadame]

They are winning. The next crime will be preaching against homosexuality. That will be bigotry. The will vilify churches preaching thus as intolerant, nudge Catholicism to shift the boundaries and they will gladly oblige. I think the next generation of heroes will be gay activists, thre are one too many low lying fruits in this area

Catholicism will never oblige, though many other churches already do, one by one, each year. The pressure is much more on the Catholic Church because it is the big one. Yes, they are winning and in Canada people are being fined for voicing their opinions in church that it is a sin, which is something virtually every religion on earth (and culture) believes. I just do not understand why stating what appears to be a natural human assumption on sexual mores should be turned into some form of social crime.

@Mya, Muslims believe I will go to Hell because I do not accept their creed. They say it in their Mosques and among themselves freely. I am yet to hear of a Western country fining a Muslim or a Christian for loudly teaching in their places of worship that all other religions lead to hell, or that everyone rejecting their religion is sinning. This is slowly happening in the West with regards to gays, however. Its not ok to believe there is something wrong or bad about it. Already there are harsh social penalties and now, creeping legal penalties as well. It is one thing to say gay people should be beaten, abused, or otherwise mistreated, but more and more, it is becoming a crime just to say that it is wrong. In the next few decades, parents will not be allowed to tell their children that it is wrong.

[Omollo]

Before the new constitution, anybody going to seek redress in court had to prove that he had been personally adversely affected by what he was complaining about. When somebody questioned the non application of the bill of rights, he was asked to clearly state how he had been personally affected by the failure to effectuate the Bill of Rights.

This is a matter affecting the wider society, me included. Let me put it differently, should I as your boss demand to know your sexuality? It won't matter what I intend to do with the information. Better still, should I go ahead and investigate your sexuality to establish what it is? If you answer NO to any of the above, then explain why you should feed me with that information!
 

Omollo:

Why exactly does it bother you?   The announcement was not "I wish to have Omollo know that I am gay".  Did he ask you, or anyone else, to "acknowledge" anything? Has it occurred to you that the announcement could well have been directed at other gays, for the last reason I give above?  You and others could save yourselves the "irritation" by simply ignoring the announcement; write about others things instead of  getting worked up over this one.

[Omollo]

I would be very relieved if you also acknowledge that Christians preach the same about other religions and have an unlimited number of verses in the bible to back their claim. That is just a BTW

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/letters/other-religions/muslims-01.html

@Mya, Muslims believe I will go to Hell because I do not accept their creed. They say it in their Mosques and among themselves freely. I am yet to hear of a Western country fining a Muslim or a Christian for loudly teaching in their places of worship that all other religions lead to hell, or that everyone rejecting their religion is sinning. This is slowly happening in the West with regards to gays, however. Its not ok to believe there is something wrong or bad about it. Already there are harsh social penalties and now, creeping legal penalties as well. It is one thing to say gay people should be beaten, abused, or otherwise mistreated, but more and more, it is becoming a crime just to say that it is wrong. In the next few decades, parents will not be allowed to tell their children that it is wrong.

[kadame]

I would be very relieved if you also acknowledge that Christians preach the same about other religions and have an unlimited number of verses in the bible to back their claim. That is just a BTW

@Mya, Muslims believe I will go to Hell because I do not accept their creed. They say it in their Mosques and among themselves freely. I am yet to hear of a Western country fining a Muslim or a Christian for loudly teaching in their places of worship that all other religions lead to hell, or that everyone rejecting their religion is sinning. This is slowly happening in the West with regards to gays, however. Its not ok to believe there is something wrong or bad about it. Already there are harsh social penalties and now, creeping legal penalties as well. It is one thing to say gay people should be beaten, abused, or otherwise mistreated, but more and more, it is becoming a crime just to say that it is wrong. In the next few decades, parents will not be allowed to tell their children that it is wrong.

Omollo, I did mention Christians as well, (see the bolded part) though I see the reason for your complaint because I did emphasize the Muslims. I highlighted Muslims because Mya88 used them (actually, she used terrorists, not regular Muslims) to highlight the need to protect gays from ill treatment. Yes, you are perfectly right that there are churches that do nothing every sunday (or Saturday) but highlight their specialness and how everyone else is on the road to Hell. Historically, the catholic church committed her own errors in that regard as well. There are people (Christians) of every church who also do this. They believe it and most countries permit them this belief even if most others would disagree. The SDAs, for  example, feel free to assign the anti-Christ title to the Pope, calling our religion the whore of Babylon and all that. I am yet to here of a Catholic or any member of any religion taking them to a Human Rights tribunal for it. I am perfectly fine with it, I think they are mistaken, but I think they can believe whatever they want about me as a Catholic as long as they treat me as a human being, which they do, of course.  I don't see why human rights tribunals need to be involved.

[Kichwambaya]

I think Moon Ki and Mya88 gave good explanations of why some gay people in high position have to announce that they are gay to educate ignorant  people that gay people are just like all of us and that they should not be discriminated against. Its not like being black where everyone can see and Obama does not have to come out and testify that being black is not an ailment.  However, we see men and women in high position come out and tell us that they have breast cancer, colon cancer, depression, prostate cancer, that they were abused, etc. to help highlight the problem, find solutions and bring about awareness.  This is why gay people come out and when the discrimination stops then gay people will not need to come-out anymore because it will not serve any purpose whatsoever.

[Omollo]

Greatly relieved as promised. In this day of Islamophobia, I would not wish to ignore it as we discuss other phobias and manias

Omollo, I did mention Christians as well, (see the bolded part) though I see the reason for your complaint because I did emphasize the Muslims. I highlighted Muslims because Mya88 used them (actually, she used terrorists, not regular Muslims) to highlight the need to protect gays from ill treatment. Yes, you are perfectly right that there are churches that do nothing every sunday (or Saturday) but highlight their specialness and how everyone else is on the road to Hell. Historically, the catholic church committed her own errors in that regard as well. There are people (Christians) of every church who also do this. They believe it and most countries permit them this belief even if most others would disagree. The SDAs, for  example, feel free to assign the anti-Christ title to the Pope, calling our religion the whore of Babylon and all that. I am yet to here of a Catholic or any member of any religion taking them to a Human Rights tribunal for it. I am perfectly fine with it, I think they are mistaken, but I think they can believe whatever they want about me as a Catholic as long as they treat me as a human being, which they do, of course.  I don't see why human rights tribunals need to be involved.

[MOON Ki]

Before the new constitution, anybody going to seek redress in court had to prove that he had been personally adversely affected by what he was complaining about. When somebody questioned the non application of the bill of rights, he was asked to clearly state how he had been personally affected by the failure to effectuate the Bill of Rights.

Relative to the questions I asked, the above is irrelevant and misplaced.   All the man has done is say that he is gay.  That's it.   At that level, it has nothing to do with any "new constitution" and a "Bill of Rights".   And even if, at that level,  it did, I don't see how the Kenyan constitution comes in when the guy is an American in America.   (I think I may reasonably assume that you are not referring to the American system, because the American constitution is hardly new, nor is  their "Bill of Rights", which in the USA refers to the first ten amendments.)

This is a matter affecting the wider society, me included. Let me put it differently, should I as your boss demand to know your sexuality? It won't matter what I intend to do with the information. Better still, should I go ahead and investigate your sexuality to establish what it is? If you answer NO to any of the above, then explain why you should feed me with that information!

The man has not done any of the above.   What's more, it's an absurd extrapolation to suggest or imply that merely stating that he is gay means he will be demanding to know of the sexuality of others or will be investigating to establish what it is.   

If it will help you see the irrelevance of your question, consider a person telling others "this is my religion", or "I am a member of this or that political party", or whatever.   Don't jump to conclusions that the mere fact of an announcement means that something is expected of you.

Now, can you answer the questions that I asked?  Specifically, what exactly is it about such an announcement that bothers you, nd why can't you just ignore such an announcement?    And, please, try to do so without dragging in all sorts of irrelevant material.
 

[Kichwambaya]

All that the gay people want is that they be accorded equal treatment.  When Anyang Nyongo announced that he has prostate cancer people commended him for bringing awareness to the disease and to encourage men go for reqular annual check ups so that it can be caught early.  This man is high profiled gay person and his announcement can help a lot of people understand that being gay is not a curse or an ailment or an impedament.  There are a lot of people who need education on this matter. If you have ever been disriminated then you ought to understand how hurtful it is.

[MOON Ki]

All that the gay people want is that they be accorded equal treatment.  When Anyang Nyongo announced that he has prostate cancer people commended him for bringing awareness to the disease and to encourage men go for reqular annual check ups so that it can be caught early.  This man is high profiled gay person and his announcement can help a lot of people understand that being gay is not a curse or an ailment or an impedament.  There are a lot of people who need education on this matter. If you have ever been disriminated then you ought to understand how hurtful it is.

That is exactly the point.   Just as it was for the early Christians, being gay today can be a very costly business (in many ways).   In many cases it takes a lot of courage to just come out and say "this is who I am", and I'm sure it helps when people like Cook come out and say "you are not alone".   

Blacks in America got to the point where "I'm Black And Proud!" was a very important statement.   This IS Who I Am, and I insist on being treated as an equal human being.  I'm sure there were many whites who found it "irritating".    And don't forget the "religious" ones who for long had insisted that according to the Bible blacks were inferior and God intended them to be treated like beasts; today, it's the gays for them.

Anyways ...

As we exchange views on this thread, I just noted this on the news:



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/texas-teen-lured-to-skate-park-for-gay-bashing-then-insulted-by-cops-activists/

[gout]

tragically ironical that religious people have turned into the most rabid persecutors of anything they don't agree/subscribe  to

In regard to the last point, it is enlightening to consider the early history of Christianity, especially in the Roman Empire.    It was a tough life and in many ways not dissimilar to the situation with gays.   "Coming out" as a Christian was a very risk thing; but people would do it, and other Christians "in the closest" claimed to find it supportive when others "came out", especially if it was a "big person".   

[kadame]

I find the analogy with early Christianity odd, though. The analogy to breast cancer and the like seems more appropriate. Christianity is a religion which is spread from people to people, it doesn't exactly catch you all alone in your house. Early Christians met in secret in catacombs and house Churches, every Christian was converted, baptized, anointed in a grouping of Christians. So I don't know how "coming out" would've said to a Christian "you're not alone". They never thought they were alone, they just knew they were an unwanted group.

[MOON Ki]

I find the analogy with early Christianity odd, though. The analogy to breast cancer and the like seems more appropriate. Christianity is a religion which is spread from people to people, it doesn't exactly catch you all alone in your house. Early Christians met in secret in catacombs and house Churches, every Christian was converted, baptized, anointed in a grouping of Christians. So I don't know how "coming out" would've said to a Christian "you're not alone". They never thought they were alone, they just knew they were an unwanted group.

Let me explain:

(0) "Coming out" refers to the public announcement.   For people at a "certain level", doing that as a gay person has many similarities with "coming out" as a Christian (way back when).

(1) Belonging to a religion and being gay are similar,  in that neither is immediately visually apparent.   They are also similar in the extreme prejudice that people have been subjected to if they were one or the other.   

(2) You say early Christians met in secret and so on.   Many gays too do that all over the world, and even in the USA.   "Alone" does not necessarily mean literally alone.  Think about it.  The word can be used with a variety of means: e.g. when your priest tells you that "you are not alone; God is with you", he doesn't literally mean ...

I'm sure that gays in America know that there are other gays in America; you know that, and I know that.   On that basis alone, it should have been immediately clear that my use of "alone" could not have been intended to mean what you have taken it to mean.  I also have a fairly good understanding of the early history of Christianity; so ...

I thought I would not have to explain such things, but seeing that I do, here's a different way of putting it, in the context of a guy like Cook: "there are others like you out here, and we can thrive".   

(3) Lest you misunderstand the last point too; it too is not intended to be read that literally.  Let me point out one aspect of my earlier statement---that it was a big deal if someone "big" came out as a Christian.   The larger point was not that nobody else knew they were Christians.     

I'm sure that there are people, gay and otherwise, who knew Cook was gay; but I'll bet there is an even larger number who did not.     The point is that all those other gays who did not know probably find something in the fact that someone "at that level" came out, just as the early Christians found something---or at least claimed they did---when someone "big" came out as a Christian.

The existence of this thread is precisely because the head of Apple, and not some manamba, has publicly stated that he is gay.   That is the thing to think about.

[kadame]

Moonki, I follow what you are saying, but I still think the analogy is off. Early Christians were not all that isolated from one another. They operated through letters and messengers with one another throughout the Roman World. If one church was in trouble, other churches knew about it and sent help etc. Christians knew each other who were from the same city, and likely if someone "big" became a Christian, if the Christians considered that kind of thing "newsworthy" then it would've spread to other churches. In other words, what I am saying is, Christians would likely have felt "You're not alone" when that big person converted, instead of when they "came out" after already having been Christian, an action which would've been understood more as a witness/testimony to unbelievers, because "coming out", depending on the particular period, sometimes meant surrendering yourself over to become lion lunch. The early church's belief in martyrdom as something glorious in itself and not denying Christ before men should be considered when understanding what purpose publicly identifying oneself as a Christian meant to them and why they did it (those who did, because many did not unless forced by circumstances). However, I don't think early Christians placed all that emphasis on worldly status in the first place, that is "big" people vs small ones.

When Cook comes out, it seems to me his purpose is to tell people there's nothing weird about being gay, you can be successful and be gay. Trying to minimize social stigma or to promote the idea that being gay is "normal". I see that with people who have cancer or even H.I.V. or perhaps not a killer-disease or even a disease at all but some more or less permanent condition who try to show people, "You don't have to be afraid of someone like me. W are normal, wont hurt you etc". Unlike Christianity, this is not something that's deliberately chosen, more like a condition one finds themselves in. I don't think gay people decide that they want to feel attraction to their own sex.

[MOON Ki]

Moonki, I follow what you are saying, but I still think the analogy is off. Early Christians were not all that isolated from one another.

I'll have to think about whether I want to "tackle" the rest, but the bit above explains why this "discussion" is going nowhere.

Nowhere have I stated or suggested or implied that Early Christians were necessarily isolated from each other.    Nor is the issue actually relevant to anything I wrote, which, perhaps, should be read again.  Carefully. 

 Equally irrelevant to the point I have been trying to make is the distinction between a "natural state" and a "chosen state".

That aside ....

A very real problem when "debating" such matters with many who claim to be Christians is that their tendency to conveniently forget the history of Christianity---if they know enough of it.      Many of the attitudes that such Christians express today about homosexuals go right back to the period right after Constantine and how Christians, quickly forgetting where they'd just been,  viewed and dealt with the so-called Pagans. 

A more serious problem, especially for those of us who have left the Christian church or who would not think of joining it, is that a great deal of what is said and done seems to have forgotten the "Christ" in "Christian".   Hardly anyone seems to reflect on the essence of Christ's message ...

Comments from Catholics, in particular, tend to be amusing (if one may use that word), cheeky,  and downright bizarre: The Catholic "men of the clothe", "Christ's messengers", ... In public, all firmly opposed to the idea of men having consensual sex with men.   But that's only in public.   Elsewhere those "pillars of the church" are busy buggering little, defenseless boys!     And after  that, they listen to others confess "sins" and proceed to offer "forgiveness"!

[kadame]

Moonki, I follow what you are saying, but I still think the analogy is off. Early Christians were not all that isolated from one another.

I'll have to think about whether I want to "tackle" the rest, but the bit above explains why this "discussion" is going nowhere.

Nowhere have I stated or suggested or implied that Early Christians were necessarily isolated from each other.    Nor is the issue actually relevant to anything I wrote, which, perhaps, should be read again.  Carefully. 

 Equally irrelevant to the point I have been trying to make is the distinction between a "natural state" and a "chosen state".

That aside ....

A very real problem when "debating" such matters with many who claim to be Christians is that their tendency to conveniently forget the history of Christianity---if they know enough of it.      Many of the attitudes that such Christians express today about homosexuals go right back to the period right after Constantine and how Christians, quickly forgetting where they'd just been,  viewed and dealt with the so-called Pagans. 

A more serious problem, especially for those of us who have left the Christian church or who would not think of joining it, is that a great deal of what is said and done seems to have forgotten the "Christ" in "Christian".   Hardly anyone seems to reflect on the essence of Christ's message ...

Comments from Catholics, in particular, tend to be amusing (if one may use that word), cheeky,  and downright bizarre: The Catholic "men of the clothe", "Christ's messengers", ... In public, all firmly opposed to the idea of men having consensual sex with men.   But that's only in public.   Elsewhere those "pillars of the church" are busy buggering little, defenseless boys!     And after  that, they listen to others confess "sins" and proceed to offer "forgiveness"!

Interesting you get into this diatribe about your feelings towards Christians right after accusing me of irrelevancies. How is any of this relevant? Honestly, you are approaching this topic with too much beef.

Christian attitudes about Homosexuality go right back to the church of the Apostles in the 1st century AD and the Ante-Nicene fathers in the immediately succeeding centuries before Constantine. Moreover, 98% of Catholic clergy do not fall into your sweeping categorization about clergy that does the deplorable in abusing children. That's like accusing Muslims of bringing down the WTC in 2001.

I mentioned the isolation and the chosen nature of Christianity to show that Christian motivation for public witnessing during persecution was different from what (it seems to me) has been suggested here regarding Cook's reasons for coming out.

[MOON Ki]

Interesting you get into this diatribe about your feelings towards Christians right after accusing me of irrelevancies. How is any of this relevant?

   

How is it relevant?   That's an easy one, and it's not so much about my feelings towards Christians as it is a statement of reality.

Here it is: the matter of Christianity somehow entered this thread, and the Catholic Church was specifically mentioned.   On the matter of sexual acts between males and the Catholic church, one can hardly overlook the fact that male Catholic priests have been very busy raping defenseless, little boys.   Hundreds of them.   For years.   Christ had something to say about specks vs. logs in the eye.

Christian attitudes about Homosexuality go right back to the church of the Apostles in the 1st century AD and the Ante-Nicene fathers in the immediately succeeding centuries before Constantine.

That is certainly true, at least on paper. My reference to the period right after Constantine was specifically made in the context of how Christians, once they had some power, dealt with the so-called Pagans.

The other thing I  have been trying to highlight that it's not so much about the "attitude" as it is about what one actually does.   E.g.:  The Catholic church says male-male sex is wrong, even if between consenting adults, but its priests are very busy at it with kids who are not in a position to say "no".    See what I mean?

Moreover, 98% of Catholic clergy do not ... 

I should hope not, but we still don't know what remains to be discovered.   See, the difference between a terrorist act, e.g. blowing up towers, and molesting little boys in the "confession box" is that one is immediately apparent whereas the other could stay unknown for years.

[kadame]

None of that is relevant. You and I were discussing the appropriateness of the parallels you were drawing between the motivations of early Christian martyrs refusing publicly to deny their faith in the midst of persecution and Cook's coming out in modern day America (complete with gay rights, gay marriages, hate crimes, and human rights commissions ready to punish anyone that refuses to service gays with enormous fines, and a news and entertainment media doing an excellent job on selling to the public the normalcy of being gay.) I simply pointed out why those parallels were inappropriate. You accuse me of irrelevancies before starting on a long rant about how you think Christians are horrible people and you would not want to be one. That's such a strange line of "argument" for a lawyer to take, but Haisuru! Enjoy your night.

[MOON Ki]

None of that is relevant. You and I were discussing the appropriateness of the parallels you were drawing between the motivations of early Christian martyrs refusing publicly to deny their faith in the midst of persecution and Cook's coming out in modern day America (complete with gay rights, gay marriages, hate crimes, and human rights commissions ready to punish anyone that refuses to service gays with enormous fines, and a news and entertainment media doing an excellent job on selling to the public the normalcy of being gay.) I simply pointed out why those parallels were inappropriate. You accuse me of irrelevancies before starting on a long rant about how you think Christians are horrible people and you would not want to be one. That's such a strange line of "argument" for a lawyer to take, but Haisuru! Enjoy your night.

Oh, I see where you are having difficulties.    It appears that you did not carefully read what I wrote.   If you back, you will find this:

I'll have to think about whether I want to "tackle" the rest, but the bit above explains why this "discussion" is going nowhere.

Nowhere did I then state that I had thought about .... and decided to tackle ...

and

That aside ....

"Aside" meant that I was putting aside a "discussion" that was going nowhere so that I could first tackle the general hypocrisy of some Christians and, in particular, some Catholics.

Modern day America, with all of this and all of that, eh?   That's why I posted this Oct 2014 story:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/texas-teen-lured-to-skate-park-for-gay-bashing-then-insulted-by-cops-activists/

By the way, I have made references to the nasty history of Christianity, the hypocrisy, Catholic priests buggering little boys, and so on.   Those are no more than hard facts, unpleasant though they might be.  But how did you arrive at this one:

"you think Christians are horrible people and you would not want to be one." ?

What makes you so sure that (a) I am not a Christian and (b), if not,  that I would not want to be one?

[kadame]

Putting aside a discussion so that you could accuse Christians and your discussion partner of hypocrisy (itself a slander) is nothing short of resorting to ad hominem when you have no more to say, so you attack the person instead of the arguments they are making. The "facts" about clergy abuse are irrelevant, unless you mean that religions only retain their right to their beliefs if there are no sinners/wolves among them disguised as the rest of the lambs, you keep referring to "catholic priests" in general and abusing children as if this is the norm among priests when facts show something else entirely or as if it is taught as such, and your proof that it is the norm is some argument from silence (You never know, so better assume they all are abusing children, facts be damned). Moonki, this is where I got that "weird" remark about what you said about

A more serious problem, especially for those of us who have left the Christian church or who would not think of joining it, is that a great deal of what is said and done seems to have forgotten the "Christ" in "Christian".   Hardly anyone seems to reflect on the essence of Christ's message ...

Don't know why you felt the need to share that, but like I said, in the context of the discussion we were having, it was indeed strange. You just seemed annoyed and lashed out with the best "dig" that came to mind.