Comments on: Why I’m talking about Tim Cook’s sexuality http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/26/why-im-talking-about-tim-cooks-sexuality/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: jammer11 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/26/why-im-talking-about-tim-cooks-sexuality/comment-page-2/#comment-42177 Wed, 01 Aug 2012 01:11:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9581#comment-42177 MrMath.

You challenge people to posit why they are ‘against gay’ lamenting they would have no argument – and then you say imply that to be anti gay must mean that one is a ‘closet gay’.

Your upside down premise (‘Mr Math’???, really???) of asking people to provide ‘valid arguments’ and then spewing something such stupid and childish positions that don’t deserve a reasonable response – in fact only validates how you and the ‘gay agenda’ are miserably ideological.

I’m not making an anti-gay statement.

I’m making an anti-gay supporter statement.

You losers claim ‘morality’ and then go on to make absurd claims.

Homosexuality is a disease. It is the misalignment of gender, and sexual orientation. Just as most complex forms of behavior are learned – they can be unlearned. We are in fact biological machines – and we will one day have the ability to create an adaptive environment that creates outcomes we desire – including sexual orientation.

That we don’t yet have the ability to correct homosexuality, and that gays can live otherwise healthy and normal lives, does not change the fact that it is a medical condition that would otherwise be cured.

100 years ago, were someone to have discovered a cure, or therapy for ‘gay’ that worked – gay simply would not exist for the most part, certainly not the extent that we have a disproportionate minority of bit&es in the media raving about it all day.

]]>
By: adreutex http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/26/why-im-talking-about-tim-cooks-sexuality/comment-page-2/#comment-30440 Fri, 02 Sep 2011 06:05:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9581#comment-30440 Steve Jobs must have picked his best choice. So why worry about a person’s ‘other side’ without fist waiting for delivering what the new man is supposed to?

]]>
By: Gerbils150 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/26/why-im-talking-about-tim-cooks-sexuality/comment-page-2/#comment-30409 Thu, 01 Sep 2011 18:35:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9581#comment-30409 What level have our journalists fallen to if they are treating “ohhh look, he’s gay (snigger)” as important journalism? Whilst a robust business will certainly have a diverse and inclusive workforce which will embrace all, regardless of age, gender, belief, status, orientation etc etc, do we have to peddle this as a news story? Sure, the world moves on and we are in a different place to where we were in 1851 but peerleeze, let’s not align ourselves with the gutter press and let’s write the stories that make a difference to the world. Felix – write us some real news! I’m sure you’re capable. If you want to draw a salary each month with a clear conscience, add some value back to the business and tell us about Apple’s business strategy. Keep your petty thoughts about Cook’s personal life to a non Reuters blog.

]]>
By: hsvkitty http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/26/why-im-talking-about-tim-cooks-sexuality/comment-page-2/#comment-30298 Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:03:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9581#comment-30298 dpw516, Felix didn’t say any such thing. Your stupid first line shows what a dork you are… and perhaps homophobic as well? I think you might be the reason this post is still necessary. (trying to reaffirm your macho by hiding behind your remarks and bravado and belittling others )

So you know Felix? Why would you make a new account for Reuters? Why not post under your usual name? Why not just make yourself known then and “come out” and debate rather than berate?

Felix isn’t the angry little man here, I assure you dpw516…

]]>
By: TFF http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/26/why-im-talking-about-tim-cooks-sexuality/comment-page-2/#comment-30265 Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:45:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9581#comment-30265 dpw, why do you assume that Felix is gay? Has he said so? (Admittedly I haven’t read everything he has ever written.)

]]>
By: dpw516 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/26/why-im-talking-about-tim-cooks-sexuality/comment-page-2/#comment-30263 Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:20:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9581#comment-30263 Felix wont be happy until all gays are wearing little pink signs around their necks declaring that they have the flavor for fellatio.

If you know Felix just a little bit, you know that it angers him to no end that folks CHOOSE to keep their sexuality private. Felix equates privacy with shame and that it is HIS moral obligation to expose the truth, regardless of the consequences or the wishes of his subjects.

This is typical of gay journalists; they resent those who hide in the closet and retaliate with a keyboard and blog.

Felix, you angry little man, please crawl back under the rock or rectum you came from. We don’t care.

]]>
By: Dafydd http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/26/why-im-talking-about-tim-cooks-sexuality/comment-page-2/#comment-30255 Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:02:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9581#comment-30255 Still legal to fire people for being gay? Even in California?

I am flabbergasted. How come every gay American doesn’t just jump to Europe? Here it is illegal to refuse a gay couple a hotel room because they are gay.

But anyway… “The closet is an institution designed to protect LGBT individuals from scorn and hatred”

Only half true. I know quite a few gay people who are pretty at ease with who they are in social and professional life, but who wouldn’t want to explain it at home. The closet exists for all sorts of reasons. Many of them exist largely in the closet builder’s mind.

]]>
By: uponrefelection http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/26/why-im-talking-about-tim-cooks-sexuality/comment-page-2/#comment-30253 Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:40:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9581#comment-30253 MrMath: “There is absolutely nothing wrong with observing and writing about a known fact, and it is a known fact that Mr. Cook is gay.”

Is Tim Cook, himself, the authoritative source of this “known fact”? If so, do cite chapter and verse.

]]>
By: MrMath http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/26/why-im-talking-about-tim-cooks-sexuality/comment-page-2/#comment-30251 Tue, 30 Aug 2011 02:19:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9581#comment-30251 It is simultaneously hilarious and disgusting how many of you are being quite explicitly homophobic while apparently fully convinced that you are the good people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with observing and writing about a known fact, and it is a known fact that Mr. Cook is gay. There is, however, something very wrong with pretending that writing about this is wrong.

Why is it wrong? Answer that. And be honest, for a change. For every single one of you, the real answer is that you, personally, are uncomfortable with confronting the blatant heterosexual privilege in the society you live in. You are uncomfortable with admitting that, yes, we straight people get an awful lot of advantages merely by being straight. But you don’t want to admit to your discomfort, so you hide it behind nice-sounding platitudes. You blather about privacy, or decency, or you pretend to be offended for Mr. Cook’s sake.

This is an important subject that shouldn’t be hidden away. The reason being that homosexuality is not the least bit abnormal or indecent. It is you closet homophobes (for lack of a better term) who are the real problem, not Mr. Cook nor the article author Mr. Salmon.

]]>
By: Christofurio http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/26/why-im-talking-about-tim-cooks-sexuality/comment-page-2/#comment-30249 Tue, 30 Aug 2011 01:07:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=9581#comment-30249 “The right to privacy is … explicitly protected by the US Constitution.”

Really? Where? Which clause? which article? Some judicial decisions have found a right to privacy IMPLICIT in the constitution, but they have had to talk about “emanations” and “penumbra” in order to do it. And you do know the difference between “implicit” and “explicit,” right?

It any case, although that right is understood to protect one’s sexual activity, prophylactic decisions, etc., … it has never been understood to impede anyone else from talking about those aspects of one’s life.

If “privacy” is supposed to be a right to shut people up it sounds like tyranny.

]]>