As a gay man, I always am happy to hear about other successful members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Also, entering the business world is intimidating, so I thank God above for trail-blazers like Tim Cook.

I am so proud of Tim Cook and I aspire to be just like him some day.

I suggest, for a better understanding of this article, and to be honest as you talk about others sexuality, that you M. Salmon tell us about your sexuality, are you gay? Straight? It makes no difference and you would write this article thé same way in either case? So why bother about Tim Cook sexuality… To help the gay community because, as you say in your article, people’s mentality has evolved? Then read some of the comments here and you’ll see your are totally wrong.

Certainly when it comes to gay role models, Cook is great: he’s the boring systems-and-processes guy, not the flashy design guru, and as such he cuts sharply against stereotype. He’s like Barney Frank in that sense: a super-smart, powerful and non-effeminate man who shows that being gay is no obstacle to any career you might want.

Q. What if Cook was a flaming, flamboyant systems-and-processes EFFEMINATE guy? Or, for that matter, a boring systems-and-process effeminate man. A. He probably wouldn’t have his current job. As you indicate, being gay is probably not a career obstacle in a lot of contexts these days, as long as it is kept neatly and privately contained, and isn’t visible in the form of effeminacy. This is called ‘effeminophobia’ and if you think it isn’t connected to ‘homophobia’, think again.

So, like it or not, and many of you don’t, it’s newsworthy. IMO, it’s most newsworthy because GLBT people don’t have full civil rights, so if a gay man, who is in many important respects a second-class citizen, also happens to be the CEO of the most valuable company in the world it might help shine even more light on such inequality.

Congratulations. You came up with an article and title that jumped the shark, managing to elbow your way through the articles talking about how wonderful Steve Jobs has been using a well-honed modern journalistic tool: prurience.

But you can also look at gay in a few ways. First off, sure, a closet is a liability. Fine. But he was already OUT of the closet, even if various news agencies (using this odd concept that we call “good taste”) forbore to wave an executive’s sexuality around when talking about 1. the sickness and resignation of an industry leader, and 2. whether the new CEO would do a good job and keep stock prices up. So that leaves two things: sexuality as used in a political sense (e.g. to make a statement) or sexuality as performed in one’s home.

Cook has clearly not decided to take a flag-waving path, nor does he have to. Frankly, the level of “fabulosity” in anybody who can exist at IBM for an extended length of time is very low. So let the guy do what he does best, why don’t you?

And then we come to what goes on the bedroom. And Mr. Salmon, if you’re going to start reporting at the prurient level, linking sexuality to business prowess, I would encourage you to go all out. I can think of ANY NUMBER of business achievers whose name can fit into the “Don’t Overlook XYZ’s Sexuality” headline. Or what about those low-achieving sleazebags in Congress?

In short, I think that perhaps you should leave off of financial reporting and start a new column in, say, “Gawker.” Because, pretty words aside, the topic of this post belongs there.

The APA was right years ago in categorizing homosexuality as a treatable disorder. And its just as clear now to many who sense a reclamation of our social principles and boundaries is overdue (vis a vis. Look at how far we have come with same sex marriage) Some of us haven’t yet been compromised by political correctness and populist views that contravene medical facts, extensive medical research and available psychological and medical treatments.

So why are psycho-sexual disorders given special treatment? Because boundaries of any kind – even if they are essential to the function of a healthy society, are an enemy of liberal idealism. And the liberals will stop at nothing to eliminate all boundaries, to wit same sex marriage becoming their latest take down.

Frankly, Felix had so many men not permitted their esteem to be so consumed by their “sexual identity” we would have had dealt properly with the issue, advancing treatments and becoming a far healthier culture for it. Its called dealing with an medical issue intelligently and not in way it was done — politically. So in an sexually distressed culture such as the one we now have, boundaries are even more precariously blurred and everything social convention and truth is seen as untrustworthy.

So the fact is this. We need to treat disorders not celebrate them. Unless of course you are using any pet issue as a ruse to push your permissive idealism on others. Thanks for that Salmon, and be certain to congratulate yourself. In the long run liberalism cant hold its own except by inflaming and beating a non-issue. And you’re moving social progress not forward as you claim, but another step backward.

A healthy society should insist that those affected seek effective treatment of it, just like any disorder. Why is it that being born with a homosexual affective disorder is society’s issue and no longer an issue that needs to be responsibly dealt with by the person affected with it? No reason to celebrate a treatable disorder any more than one should celebrate failing to treat any disorder.

Firm and stable gender boundaries provide our society a very important modicum of cultural stability it needs, certainly now with the family structure in ruin mainly from progressive ideals.