Throughout my professional life, I’ve tried to maintain a basic level of privacy. I come from humble roots, and I don’t seek to draw attention to myself. Apple is already one of the most closely watched companies in the world, and I like keeping the focus on our products and the incredible things our customers achieve with them.
At the same time, I believe deeply in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, who said: “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’ ” I often challenge myself with that question, and I’ve come to realize that my desire for personal privacy has been holding me back from doing something more important. That’s what has led me to today.
For years, I’ve been open with many people about my sexual orientation. Plenty of colleagues at Apple know I’m gay, and it doesn’t seem to make a difference in the way they treat me. Of course, I’ve had the good fortune to work at a company that loves creativity and innovation and knows it can only flourish when you embrace people’s differences. Not everyone is so lucky.
While I have never denied my sexuality, I haven’t publicly acknowledged it either, until now. So let me be clear: I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.
Being gay has given me a deeper understanding of what it means to be in the minority and provided a window into the challenges that people in other minority groups deal with every day. It’s made me more empathetic, which has led to a richer life. It’s been tough and uncomfortable at times, but it has given me the confidence to be myself, to follow my own path, and to rise above adversity and bigotry. It’s also given me the skin of a rhinoceros, which comes in handy when you’re the CEO of Apple.
The world has changed so much since I was a kid. America is moving toward marriage equality, and the public figures who have bravely come out have helped change perceptions and made our culture more tolerant. Still, there are laws on the books in a majority of states that allow employers to fire people based solely on their sexual orientation. There are many places where landlords can evict tenants for being gay, or where we can be barred from visiting sick partners and sharing in their legacies. Countless people, particularly kids, face fear and abuse every day because of their sexual orientation.
I don’t consider myself an activist, but I realize how much I’ve benefited from the sacrifice of others. So if hearing that the CEO of Apple is gay can help someone struggling to come to terms with who he or she is, or bring comfort to anyone who feels alone, or inspire people to insist on their equality, then it’s worth the trade-off with my own privacy.
I’ll admit that this wasn’t an easy choice. Privacy remains important to me, and I’d like to hold on to a small amount of it. I’ve made Apple my life’s work, and I will continue to spend virtually all of my waking time focused on being the best CEO I can be. That’s what our employees deserve—and our customers, developers, shareholders, and supplier partners deserve it, too. Part of social progress is understanding that a person is not defined only by one’s sexuality, race, or gender. I’m an engineer, an uncle, a nature lover, a fitness nut, a son of the South, a sports fanatic, and many other things. I hope that people will respect my desire to focus on the things I’m best suited for and the work that brings me joy.
The company I am so fortunate to lead has long advocated for human rights and equality for all. We’ve taken a strong stand in support of a workplace equality bill before Congress, just as we stood for marriage equality in our home state of California. And we spoke up in Arizona when that state’s legislature passed a discriminatory bill targeting the gay community. We’ll continue to fight for our values, and I believe that any CEO of this incredible company, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, would do the same. And I will personally continue to advocate for equality for all people until my toes point up.
When I arrive in my office each morning, I’m greeted by framed photos of Dr. King and Robert F. Kennedy. I don’t pretend that writing this puts me in their league. All it does is allow me to look at those pictures and know that I’m doing my part, however small, to help others. We pave the sunlit path toward justice together, brick by brick. This is my brick.
Very cool. From what I understand, Cook's sexuality has more of less been an open secret at Apple, one that he has never publicly acknowledged until now.
I'm normally proud of my own actions and accomplishments, not natural, intrinsic parts of my being. Being CEO of Apple is something I would be proud of. Actually, no, I wouldn't, but you get what I'm saying.
I feel like someone just said to me, "I'm proud I have blue eyes." Uh... okay, dude. Good for you.
I am glad others have thought the same thing I have....
You're gay.
So what.
Why do you feel the need to announce it to the world?
I don't get that thought process....gay, black, hispanic, asian, white, purple, whatever....what's the big deal about announcing "I am ______" to everybody?
TheMeanDM wrote: I am glad others have thought the same thing I have....
You're gay.
So what.
Why do you feel the need to announce it to the world?
I don't get that thought process....gay, black, hispanic, asian, white, purple, whatever....what's the big deal about announcing "I am ______" to everybody?
To ride the approval wave and get some publicity in the progress. There's no reason not to, really.
When I arrive in my office each morning, I’m greeted by framed photos of Dr. King and Robert F. Kennedy. I don’t pretend that writing this puts me in their league.
TheMeanDM wrote: I am glad others have thought the same thing I have....
You're gay.
So what.
Why do you feel the need to announce it to the world?
I don't get that thought process....gay, black, hispanic, asian, white, purple, whatever....what's the big deal about announcing "I am ______" to everybody?
Well, see, GLBT youth have a tougher time than straight kids, even in 2014. Some of the highest suicide risk rates. So, making it to be the CEO of Apple, and saying "hey, I'm gay" sort of gives those kids a role model.
TheMeanDM wrote: I am glad others have thought the same thing I have....
You're gay.
So what.
Why do you feel the need to announce it to the world?
I don't get that thought process....gay, black, hispanic, asian, white, purple, whatever....what's the big deal about announcing "I am ______" to everybody?
Well, see, GLBT youth have a tougher time than straight kids, even in 2014. Some of the highest suicide risk rates. So, making it to be the CEO of Apple, and saying "hey, I'm gay" sort of gives those kids a role model.
Super simple stuff
I would've thought so too, but obviously not simple enough.
It's like when someone dies, and inevitably someone has to break their fingers in their haste to let the people in that thread know they don't care about (whoever). Thanks for going in a thread and letting everyone participating know of your disinterest, I guess?
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the Flames of War section, because those guys need to know I don't play their game and am not really interested in doing so.
Ouze wrote: It's like when someone dies, and inevitably someone has to break their fingers in their haste to let the people in that thread know they don't care about (whoever). Thanks for going in a thread and letting everyone participating know of your disinterest, I guess?
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the Flames of War section, because those guys need to know I don't play their game and am not really interested in doing so.
I have a strong interest in posting on Dakka. I have a strong lack of interest in any amount of personal pride anyone has in things that don't strike me as accomplishments. Thus, I voice my opinion of being very indifferent.
TheMeanDM wrote: I am glad others have thought the same thing I have....
You're gay.
So what.
Why do you feel the need to announce it to the world?
I don't get that thought process....gay, black, hispanic, asian, white, purple, whatever....what's the big deal about announcing "I am ______" to everybody?
Well, see, GLBT youth have a tougher time than straight kids, even in 2014. Some of the highest suicide risk rates. So, making it to be the CEO of Apple, and saying "hey, I'm gay" sort of gives those kids a role model.
Super simple stuff
It's a shame sexuality is tied to who people decide is a role model.
I look up to people for their character and accomplishments, not who they like to feth.
Unfortunately him coming out as gay is a big thing. It would be nice if everyone said "Ok and?", but many people don't, and the CEO of a major company can change attitudes. This is not like the people we have all met who insist on going round saying "Hi, I'm Dave! I'm gay!" and staring at you in the hope of a reaction, but someone opening their private life a little in the hope that it helps challenge attitudes. Don't forget, in many states in the US you can still be fired for your sexuality.
Ouze wrote: No real effect on AAPL, just down .71% right now.
.71% business well rid of. Damn homophobes. But it tells me .41% now. Social progress at its best.
I.. don't think that works the way you think it works.
Yeah, to be 100% clear, when I posted that I meant to show there was no effect at all, and that was just normal daily turbulence. On the other hand it's possible we may have fallen into the sarchasm, there.
I took this as to be encouragement for other homosexuals, rather than just some "look at me!" statement.
Its positive in my mind that so many people here have a "So What?" attitude, its a sign of change.
But many people in the US do not live in an area, or have a family, or have a job where open homosexuality is tolerated. And I think if this piece helps them see a light at the end of the tunnel, then its a good thing.
What I mean is that some people live in an area, or in a family, or go to a church, or work at a job where if they 'came out', they would be ostracized.
I'm not even sure there is any federal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation (Wikipedia says only 21 states currently outlaw such discrimination).
jasper76 wrote: What I mean is that some people live in an area, or in a family, or go to a church, or work at a job where if they 'came out', they would be ostracized.
I'm not even sure there is any federal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation (Wikipedia says only 21 states currently outlaw such discrimination).
Of course you could make the policy argument - why should they be protected? The First Amendment exists for a reason, so stupid people can say stupid things. After all, you want the freedom to ostracize those who don't like gays. They want the freedom to ostracize those who like gays.
Alternatively, I wonder if the current EEOC harassment laws be used to exclude the issue altogether. Aka - you can't discriminate against someone, because to find out is prima facae evidence of sexual harassment in the first place (querying people about their sexual history/proclivities is evidence of illegally harassing that employee to begin with). Interesting...
They should be protected IMO so that employers cannot fire them for the offense of being homosexual, landlords cannot deny them a place to live on the basis of being homosexual, businesses cannot deny them services on the basis of being homosexual, etc.
The more I think about it, the more I like my little train of thought. "Did you fire that woman? Why?" "She's gay." "How do you know? Did you ask her?" "Just the way she acted." "So you were leering at her in violation of federal law. You better get a lawyer, and we're going to have to let you go."
jasper76 wrote: They should be protected IMO so that employers cannot fire them for the offense of being homosexual, landlords cannot deny them a place to live on the basis of being homosexual, businesses cannot deny them services on the basis of being homosexual, etc.
Just wow. Even Dakka manages to surprise me sometimes.
jasper76 wrote: I'm not even sure there is any federal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation (Wikipedia says only 21 states currently outlaw such discrimination).
Sexual orientation/Identify is not a federally protected class.
The fact that you asked why it's not OK to sometimes discriminate against someone based on who they are intrinsically means any explanation as to why will be, as is often the case with you, a foolhardy exercise in feigned obtuseness, strawmen, and goalpost moving. Perhaps someone else will play, but I advise against it.
I'd really like a single, straight CEO of something to come out and say "I'M STRAIGHT AND FABULOUS!"
Actually, no I wouldn't.
Because it' doesn't fething matter, and it's no one's business but your own.
Again, to many it does. That's why there is the Lgbt and allyou dorms I now live in. They want to beat around people they know agree with them
but also, sexual it shapes who they are. And what experiences they have. Gay men have to worry that if they are walking down the street, holding hands with their partner, if they will get harrased. High profile people coming out makes them more notnoticeable and decreases the hate.
The fact that you asked why it's not OK to sometimes discriminate against someone based on who they are intrinsically means any explanation as to why will be, as is often the case with you, a foolhardy exercise in feigned obtuseness, strawmen, and goalpost moving. Perhaps someone else will play, but I advise against it.
1. I'm trying to have a policy/philosophical argument. I love how you immediate leap to attacking me. Is this how your mother raised you young man?
2. Now back to the argument. Why not? The FIrst Amendment provides an absolute protection against the federales for your rights to speech, assembly, and religion (including who you choose to associate with).
3. Now about my idea. Is it not evidence on its face of harassment. Merely inquiring or observing a person's proclivities as evidence of harassment. I wonder if there's case law on that.
I'd really like a single, straight CEO of something to come out and say "I'M STRAIGHT AND FABULOUS!"
Actually, no I wouldn't.
Because it' doesn't fething matter, and it's no one's business but your own.
Again, to many it does. That's why there is the Lgbt and allyou dorms I now live in. They want to beat around people they know agree with them
but also, sexual it shapes who they are. And what experiences they have. Gay men have to worry that if they are walking down the street, holding hands with their partner, if they will get harrased. High profile people coming out makes them more notnoticeable and decreases the hate.
I was of the, "why on earth does it matter" crowd, until this was pointed out. Even without discrimination, a regular teenager typically has issues with self image (well like all humans actually), and this would help that.
Frazzled wrote: [The FIrst Amendment provides an absolute protection against the federales for your rights to speech, assembly, and religion (including who you choose to associate with).
The first amendment is not at all an absolute right. There are tons of restrictions on it. You know this - the usual example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Fighting words, obscenity, threats, slander, etc etc etc.
jasper76 wrote: They should be protected IMO so that employers cannot fire them for the offense of being homosexual, landlords cannot deny them a place to live on the basis of being homosexual, businesses cannot deny them services on the basis of being homosexual, etc.
Just wow. Even Dakka manages to surprise me sometimes.
If this was a slight against my opinion, I don't get the point.
Of the ones you just mentioned, only slander is not an immediate situation action. Aka fighting words (which actually IS NOT one..) and threats only work if they are immediate and actionable.
Oscenity is almost never actionable. Besides you're arguing FOR obscenity laws - you know historically thats often a method of persecution against gays right?
Again - why? The Constitution protects against speech and actions you don't like. Why should they be protected? Why should any class be protected?
EDIT: never mind. I want to have a policy argument, and you can't do that here. People will just call you names. Everyone please carry on.
I, personally, have close friends and family members, who, upon seeing a same-sex couple even just kissing on television will climb up onto the sofa, scrunch themselves into a ball and look like they've just seen a diseased spider-mouse race across the carpet after relieving themselves in their coffee mug.
There's still plenty of ways to go with this sort of thing. So, even if I'm not an apple fan particularly, it's still good to see important people to the world continue discussions on this.
jasper76 wrote: They should be protected IMO so that employers cannot fire them for the offense of being homosexual, landlords cannot deny them a place to live on the basis of being homosexual, businesses cannot deny them services on the basis of being homosexual, etc.
Just wow. Even Dakka manages to surprise me sometimes.
@ Frazzled: I don't think the federal government should get in the business of telling people who they should choose to hang out with, what kind of people they should or should not find ickky, or what kind of lifestyles religions should or should not promote.
I think the federal government should provide the same protections to homosexuals that they do for race, ethnicity, gender, age, and religion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: That's why there is the Lgbt and allyou dorms I now live in.
I'd really like a single, straight CEO of something to come out and say "I'M STRAIGHT AND FABULOUS!"
Actually, no I wouldn't.
Because it' doesn't fething matter, and it's no one's business but your own.
Again, to many it does. That's why there is the Lgbt and allyou dorms I now live in. They want to beat around people they know agree with them
but also, sexual it shapes who they are. And what experiences they have.
I guess you'd probably be in a better position to comment on this then - so in the LGBT and allyou dorms that you're living in, what is the overall reaction to this announcement?
I'd really like a single, straight CEO of something to come out and say "I'M STRAIGHT AND FABULOUS!"
Actually, no I wouldn't.
Because it' doesn't fething matter, and it's no one's business but your own.
Again, to many it does. That's why there is the Lgbt and allyou dorms I now live in. They want to beat around people they know agree with them
but also, sexual it shapes who they are. And what experiences they have. Gay men have to worry that if they are walking down the street, holding hands with their partner, if they will get harrased. High profile people coming out makes them more notnoticeable and decreases the hate.
exactly, I'd like not to die for falling in love and getting married...
or those types that tell you to "not shove your sexuality in people's faces" when you ask for the right to marry or want to hold hands, sure straight people are allowed to hold hands and kiss in public, but cause some people find it "gross" that a dude wants to kiss a dude suddenly a line has been crossed...
The fact that you asked why it's not OK to sometimes discriminate against someone based on who they are intrinsically means any explanation as to why will be, as is often the case with you, a foolhardy exercise in feigned obtuseness, strawmen, and goalpost moving. Perhaps someone else will play, but I advise against it.
being an idiot is intrinsic,
so is being a pedophille.
is it ok to discriminate against stupid people and/or pedophilles? (not comparing being gay *morally* to being either, but in that these qualities are intrinsic, its comparable. just because qualities are not chosen, does not affect acceptance of those qualities. The actual merits of the qualities is what makes them acceptable or not, which is why being gay is accepted but being a pedo is not, choice has 0 relevance.)
easysauce wrote: (not comparing being gay *morally* to being either, but in that these qualities are intrinsic, its comparable. just because qualities are not chosen, does not affect acceptance of those qualities. The actual merits of the qualities is what makes them acceptable or not, which is why being gay is accepted but being a pedo is not, choice has 0 relevance.)
You're assuming sexuality necessarily involves sex, which is wrong. It is possible to be of a certain sexuality and also remain celibate.
easysauce wrote: (not comparing being gay *morally* to being either, but in that these qualities are intrinsic, its comparable. just because qualities are not chosen, does not affect acceptance of those qualities. The actual merits of the qualities is what makes them acceptable or not, which is why being gay is accepted but being a pedo is not, choice has 0 relevance.)
You're assuming sexuality necessarily involves sex, which is wrong. It is possible to be of a certain sexuality and also remain celibate.
???
no I do not make that assumption... re read please before making your incorrect conclusions into an argument that I am not even making.
Because that has nothing to do with what I posted... OFC you can be a celebate straight/gay/pedophille.... that makes 0 difference regarding acceptableness of that sexuality based on it being (or not being) a *choice*
So easysauce, do you think that someone who has a predilections to socially unnaceptable behavior, but does not act on them at all, should be discriminated against because of those predilictions?
Do you think that people of low intelligence should be discriminated against because they have low intelligence?
Do you think that people of low intelligence should be discriminated against because they have low intelligence?
Um... dude... that happens all the time.
But should it happen? I can understand if a person of low intelligence cannot perform a job, they should get fired, but only because they cannot perform the job, not because they are of low intelligence. I see a disctinction here, anyway, but acknowledge I may be splitting hairs.
jasper76 wrote: So easysauce, do you think that someone who has a predilections to socially unnaceptable behavior, but does not act on them at all, should be discriminated against because of those predilictions?
Do you think that people of low intelligence should be discriminated against because they have low intelligence?
Should we? thats a complicated question, one I cannot answer properly for all of society.
do we?
absolutely yes....
we "discriminate" against stupid people all the time, someone with F's doesnt get into university like someone with A's... plenty of other examples of situations where the stupid person gets the short end of the stick... this kind of discrimination would mostly be seen as acceptable in society (should it be? I dont know... probably, otherwise "hey just because im too stupid to do the job, doesnt mean you cannot hire me" becomes a thing)
people who admit to having pedophillic thoughts are institutionalized or worse, regardless of acting out those thoughts or not...
keep in mind, my point is strickly about *CHOICE* not being relevant to the acceptableness of the person,
that being gay isnt a choice, does not matter *at ALL* when determining if it is acceptable or not, the merits of being gay determine that.
People keep touting lines like "you cannot choose to be gay or not, so because of that being gay is ok"
while they are correct that being gay is OK, their justification for *why* is totally whack.
my arguement is "being gay is ok, regardless of choice in the matter. If simply not having a choice about your sexual preferences is enough to justify it being ok, then all sexual preferences (which would include beastiality/pedos/ect) are "ok" because none of them involve choice. Since beastiality/pedos are most certainly *not* ok, despite the person not having a choice in their preferance, then choice is a totally irrelevant factior in determining if a sexuality is acceptable or not."
@easysauce: I see your point. My only point was the 'discrimination' perhaps should occur because of results and actions rather than dispositions.
The people who can't get into college because of Fs....they can include people of very low and very high intelligence. Its the Fs that should be the determining factor, rather than the innate intelligence of the student, IMO.
Frazzled wrote: Of course it should happen. It HAS to happen in a technologically based society. Do you want a mouthbreather flying the airplane?
If he's good at flying airplanes, why not? As said above, I know I may be splitting hairs here.
How is an idiot going to be good at flying an airplane? It requires math skills. BAM auto discrimination.
People of low intelligence can still bunker down, study harder than their peers, and make successes of themselves in some cases. I'm not saying its common, but I'm saying its possible.
So then where do you draw the line on what is okay?
the thing with gay is, unlike say bestiality or pedophilia, it is two adults consenting to sex with one another.
Why should someone else get to tell me I cannot marry a consenting adult of my own gender?
And the reasons "cause it's weird or it's a sin" is not good enough.
Even if being gay was a choice, why would it be okay to tell consenting adults which other consenting adults they may or may not have sex with?
Rainbow Dash wrote: So then where do you draw the line on what is okay?
the thing with gay is, unlike say bestiality or pedophilia, it is two adults consenting to sex with one another.
Why should someone else get to tell me I cannot marry a consenting adult of my own gender?
And the reasons "cause it's weird or it's a sin" is not good enough.
Even if being gay was a choice, why would it be okay to tell consenting adults which other consenting adults they may or may not have sex with?
Now you're getting into the Libertarian argument - aka government shouldn't have the authority to make the law that discriminates in the first place.
TheMeanDM wrote: I am glad others have thought the same thing I have....
You're gay.
So what.
Why do you feel the need to announce it to the world?
I don't get that thought process....gay, black, hispanic, asian, white, purple, whatever....what's the big deal about announcing "I am ______" to everybody?
Well, see, GLBT youth have a tougher time than straight kids, even in 2014. Some of the highest suicide risk rates. So, making it to be the CEO of Apple, and saying "hey, I'm gay" sort of gives those kids a role model.
Super simple stuff
It's a shame that they still need a role model for something like this. Perhaps "proud" is the wrong thing to say though? Wouldn't it of been better if he'd said "I'm not ashamed to be gay"? Or if asked about being gay reply, "yes I am and your point is what...?" I know the intent was noble, but it just comes across wrong to me.
Rainbow Dash wrote: So then where do you draw the line on what is okay?
the thing with gay is, unlike say bestiality or pedophilia, it is two adults consenting to sex with one another.
Why should someone else get to tell me I cannot marry a consenting adult of my own gender?
And the reasons "cause it's weird or it's a sin" is not good enough.
Even if being gay was a choice, why would it be okay to tell consenting adults which other consenting adults they may or may not have sex with?
exaclty my point,
choice has nothing to do with it, if being gay is a choice, fine, its still totally 100% ok. if its not a choice, and its *not*, its STILL 100% ok.
The merits of it (IE:two consenting adults) justify it being ok, as opposed to whether or not people are born gay or not.
Our society is much more accepting of being gay however, then of straight men who come out as "not wanting to get married,ever, and always have multiple partners or change it up every now and then, or even polygamy"
just some perspective here, but two consenting dudes can marry, but one dude and two consenting ladies cannot.
Rainbow Dash wrote: So then where do you draw the line on what is okay?
the thing with gay is, unlike say bestiality or pedophilia, it is two adults consenting to sex with one another.
Why should someone else get to tell me I cannot marry a consenting adult of my own gender?
And the reasons "cause it's weird or it's a sin" is not good enough.
Even if being gay was a choice, why would it be okay to tell consenting adults which other consenting adults they may or may not have sex with?
exaclty my point,
choice has nothing to do with it, if being gay is a choice, fine, its still totally 100% ok. if its not a choice, and its *not*, its STILL 100% ok.
The merits of it (IE:two consenting adults) justify it being ok, as opposed to whether or not people are born gay or not.
Our society is much more accepting of being gay however, then of straight men who come out as "not wanting to get married,ever, and always have multiple partners or change it up every now and then, or even polygamy"
just some perspective here, but two consenting dudes can marry, but one dude and two consenting ladies cannot.
easysauce wrote: just some perspective here, but two consenting dudes can marry, but one dude and two consenting ladies cannot.
I honestly don't see why not. Who cares what two, three, four, or fifteen consenting adults do with their lives, so long as noone elses rights are being violated.
Count me in the camp of people who think that the government should get out of the marriage game altogether. Just tax everyone as individuals, and lets put this mess behind us.
Rainbow Dash wrote: So then where do you draw the line on what is okay?
the thing with gay is, unlike say bestiality or pedophilia, it is two adults consenting to sex with one another.
Why should someone else get to tell me I cannot marry a consenting adult of my own gender?
And the reasons "cause it's weird or it's a sin" is not good enough.
Even if being gay was a choice, why would it be okay to tell consenting adults which other consenting adults they may or may not have sex with?
exaclty my point,
choice has nothing to do with it, if being gay is a choice, fine, its still totally 100% ok. if its not a choice, and its *not*, its STILL 100% ok.
The merits of it (IE:two consenting adults) justify it being ok, as opposed to whether or not people are born gay or not.
Our society is much more accepting of being gay however, then of straight men who come out as "not wanting to get married,ever, and always have multiple partners or change it up every now and then, or even polygamy"
just some perspective here, but two consenting dudes can marry, but one dude and two consenting ladies cannot.
Yeah I think polygamy, polyamory and polyandry should be legal too.
People of low intelligence can still bunker down, study harder than their peers, and make successes of themselves in some cases. I'm not saying its common, but I'm saying its possible.
I might be misunderstanding the definition of intelligence that you are using here, but I think that for all intents and purposes*, you can't really measure a difference between "well learned and motivated" and "naturally intelligent", at least, not in any sort of traditional academic environment. I've interviewed people who've graduated with honors that couldn't think their way through anything that wasn't in a textbook, and dropouts who probably could do things I wouldn't be able to do with a years of practice and learning.
* I had initially written intensive porpoises, but I don't think people would have realized it was ironic.
I honestly don't see why not. Who cares what two, three, four, or fifteen consenting adults do with their lives, so long as noone elses rights are being violated.
I've heard arguments suggesting that it is potentially abusive/degrading to the spouses who's gender there are multiple of in the relationship. From a "social planning" point of view, it has also been argued to harm society by reducing the number of eligible gender for which is the multiple in the relationship construct. I.E, for a society that has roughly even number of men and women, and men are allowed to marry more than one woman at a time as common practice, the eventual extrapolation is that many men are unable to find a suitable spouse. One of those fun "people should be able to do what they want" things that falls apart when EVERYONE does it.
Curiously homosexuality falls into that second argument too. Personally, I reconcile it as not socially destructive by virtue of the fact that it's a natural thing, and that homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.
Daedelus, I don't think I am grasping your point. Your first sentence seems to be saying that you can't measure a difference between "well learned and motivated" and "naturally intelligent", but then you stated that you personally have been able to tell the difference. I feel like I am missing something.
Sorry, doing multiple things at once. I'm trying to say that there's no easily quantifiable test to measure that. That was my subjective estimate of their intelligence; I couldn't assign a number or ranking to it that wouldn't have been equally subjective.
Really the second sentence was just me babbling about an anecdote I think about often.
I've heard arguments suggesting that it is potentially abusive/degrading to the spouses who's gender there are multiple of in the relationship. From a "social planning" point of view, it has also been argued to harm society by reducing the number of eligible gender for which is the multiple in the relationship construct. I.E, for a society that has roughly even number of men and women, and men are allowed to marry more than one woman at a time as common practice, the eventual extrapolation is that many men are unable to find a suitable spouse. One of those fun "people should be able to do what they want" things that falls apart when EVERYONE does it.
Curiously homosexuality falls into that second argument too. Personally, I reconcile it as not socially destructive by virtue of the fact that it's a natural thing, and that homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.
again, choice has nothing to do with it, various poly sexual s ALSO have no choice in their preference, its also perfectly natural, and not socially destructive.
Technically, allowing the most desirable males/females to have multiple spouses enhances the gene pool... more desirable traits would be produced in greater quantities, as opposed having everyone to mate as some kind of participation prize which is counter productive to improving the gene pool in actual fact.
polygamy is not socially destructive *at all*, if *everyone* was polygamous, our species would continue just fine, if not better as the tendency would be for only the most desirable individuals to reproduce more.
on the flip side, if *everyone* was gay, our species would die off... (so not really a good determining factor into acceptability, as being gay is ok despite our species ending if everyone did it)
how many people would be applauding mr cook if he came out of the closet about wanting to be in a consensual relationship with two women? I suspect a lot of people would be calling him out as a bigot/sexist/misanthropist at that point.
I've heard arguments suggesting that it is potentially abusive/degrading to the spouses who's gender there are multiple of in the relationship. From a "social planning" point of view, it has also been argued to harm society by reducing the number of eligible gender for which is the multiple in the relationship construct. I.E, for a society that has roughly even number of men and women, and men are allowed to marry more than one woman at a time as common practice, the eventual extrapolation is that many men are unable to find a suitable spouse. One of those fun "people should be able to do what they want" things that falls apart when EVERYONE does it.
Curiously homosexuality falls into that second argument too. Personally, I reconcile it as not socially destructive by virtue of the fact that it's a natural thing, and that homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.
again, choice has nothing to do with it, various poly sexual s ALSO have no choice in their preference, its also perfectly natural, and not socially destructive.
Technically, allowing the most desirable males/females to have multiple spouses enhances the gene pool... more desirable traits would be produced in greater quantities, as opposed having everyone to mate as some kind of participation prize which is counter productive to improving the gene pool in actual fact.
polygamy is not socially destructive *at all*, if *everyone* was polygamous, our species would continue just fine, if not better as the tendency would be for only the most desirable individuals to reproduce more.
on the flip side, if *everyone* was gay, our species would die off... (so not really a good determining factor into acceptability, as being gay is ok despite our species ending if everyone did it)
how many people would be applauding mr cook if he came out of the closet about wanting to be in a consensual relationship with two women? I suspect a lot of people would be calling him out as a bigot/sexist/misanthropist at that point.
I've gotten more flack about wanting polyamory then being bisexual or anything else really... Strange that.
I've gotten more flack about wanting polyamory then being bisexual or anything else really... Strange that.
Yup, its a real disconnect, our society accepts gays far more then natural hetero sexual males (who generally desire multiple partners) and society puts a huge amount of pressure on men to change/suppress their sexual preference from the natural, un-chosen state, of wanting many partners.
Basically we put all straight males through the equivalent of *stop being gay* camp to get them to conform to how we think their sexually *should* be, despite them being born a different way, and the most hypocritical part is that so many people see this as ok, encourage it, and so on.
I've gotten more flack about wanting polyamory then being bisexual or anything else really... Strange that.
Yup, its a real disconnect, our society accepts gays far more then natural hetero sexual males (who generally desire multiple partners) and society puts a huge amount of pressure on men to change/suppress their sexual preference from the natural, un-chosen state, of wanting many partners.
Basically we put all straight males through the equivalent of *stop being gay* camp to get them to conform to how we think their sexually *should* be, despite them being born a different way, and the most hypocritical part is that so many people see this as ok, encourage it, and so on.
Some animals pare bond, I don't think humans are meant to.
The idea to me seems odd and...crappy, do I really want to spend all that much time with one person?
I mean I'd rather polyamory then polygamy, I think it'd be happier for everyone, but needless to say the two person thing... not jumping out at me as the best way to go.
Technically, allowing the most desirable males/females to have multiple spouses enhances the gene pool... more desirable traits would be produced in greater quantities, as opposed having everyone to mate as some kind of participation prize which is counter productive to improving the gene pool in actual fact.
Assuming that whatever trait it may be that determines who gets the most mates is the same trait that is considered desirable. Also, that the desirable trait is one genuinely beneficial for society. I can think of at least one time where a detrimental physical attribute was considered the most desirable.
polygamy is not socially destructive *at all*, if *everyone* was polygamous, our species would continue just fine, if not better as the tendency would be for only the most desirable individuals to reproduce more.
Well, certain genetic traits would be expressed far more frequently than others. This would also drastically curb genetic drift, as a given person has a drastically reduced chance of mating, as well as available options for mating. If you want to avoid inbreeding, it becomes even more difficult. You would see a homogenization of a populace over a long enough time, which is not healthy.
I kind of feel like you're assuming that you take western society, and drop in polygamy, and presume that it continues unchanged, when in reality it would drastically, and probably within a generation or so. For example, you're completely neglecting any possibility of this entire caste of disenfranchised people unable to find a mate. I don't think the haves and have-nots colliding would result in anything beneficial for society. Another good example is the fact that it would imbalance the effective value of one gender over the other, which would cause strange things to happen all over the place. I suspect that it would result in the return of marriage for favor and the like, but I might be a little doom and gloom.
on the flip side, if *everyone* was gay, our species would die off... (so not really a good determining factor into acceptability, as being gay is ok despite our species ending if everyone did it)
Baring everyone deviating from their sexual preferences for the sake of survival of the species, or turning to artificial means, yeah.
factually, it would not lead to more homogenization or incest... or it already would have...
otherwise every single animal species that almost exclusively breeds the alphas and not the betas as a rule would be suffering from this sort of thing as well... and they simply are not.
you are missing that a large percentage of the animal kingdom works like this, where the alphas breed and the betas do not (or rarely do)...
by your reasoning, most insects should be extinct due to incest/lack of mates since generally only the queen even reproduces.
if insects can have a hundred thousand to one ratio or more of breeders to non without it destroying their genetics over millions of years, then humans going from 1-1 to 1-2 or 1-10 isnt a stretch at all, especially considering how much of our history has had such ratios.
either way, regardless of the "benefit" or detriment of the sexual preference to society,
its not a choice to be gay or poly-sexual, yet one is accepted, and one is not
its not ok to try to try to force people to stop being gay, but it is acceptable, and explicitly encouraged/enforced to stop people from being naturally poly-sexual
thats a double standard, we dont say no to gays because they cannot breed at all, so why is it ok to say no to poly-heterosexuals because they *might* (they dont) breed slightly worse then mono-heterosexuals?
Ahtman wrote: Pretending unlike things are similar doesn't make for a very good or compelling argument.
Comparing the treatment of one sexuality to another sexuality, is going too far in ahtmans books I guess.
By your logic, If they out law apple juice and not orange juice, I cannot speak up for apple juice because its not "orange juice" they are totally different, orange juice can only be compared with itself.
So while it is true in that being gay is different from being poly-straight, they are both examples of sexuality, and comparable as such.
To add to that, no one was arguing, Dakka OT seemed to have a rare moment of people agreeing with one another that the general consensus seems to be good for mr cook, lets keep at making society better at accepting *all* sexualities, not just the more popular/familiar ones like straight/gay as well (or a resounding "meh")
To add to that, no one was arguing, Dakka OT seemed to have a rare moment of people agreeing with one another that the general consensus seems to be good for mr cook, lets keep at making society better at accepting *all* sexualities, not just the more popular/familiar ones like straight/gay as well (or a resounding "meh")
Okay... time for me to stir the pot.
Compare to the reactions to Mr. Cook's "announcement" to Mozilla's CEO Brendan Eich reaction.
*note: I applaud Cook's action, but I also had a collective *so what" response. Mr. Cook! Where's my Apple iWatch!
I think some people are reading into it in perhaps the wrong way. He's not saying he's proud of being gay as though it's some academic or physical achievement. He's making it clear that he's not ashamed of it and feels good enough about it to stand by it and not cover it up. You can be proud of other things about yourself that are not merely about achievement. You can be proud of your nationality or your race or gender. It carries more significance or importance when a person of some demographic that is a minority, especially one that suffers prejudice. For someone to say that they are happy and proud to be the sexuality they are, gives comfort and inspiration to those that are perhaps struggling. And it's pretty clear that there are still some very conservative, anti-gay attitudes and places in western countries where gay people still struggle to be open about it. Further, the more awareness of any minority educates others, there are many preconceptions and prejudices held about many minorities that only change by those in the public view.
Prominent public people can inspire and reassure others, I'm sure Obama is proud to be black, he's certainly not ashamed, and he must inspire many black people who feel they can achieve things unthinkable to their ancestors. But you can tell he's black just looking at him, he doesn't need to out himself as a black person to act as any sort of role model to black people. But prominent gay people are almost invisible unless they say so, they can't be a role model unless they out themselves. I don't think it reasonable that the reaction to someone declaring themselves gay is one of suspicion of an agenda and aggressively "so what?".
People lining up to say how little they care or make a fuss how it's not anything to be proud of or that doesn't deserve publicity, comes across as being churlish. I agree that as it isn't a major world event it doesn't deserve to be headlining, it isn't prominent on the BBC, but if it were then you should ask why something so benign gets so much publicity. If this wasn't worthy of note, then it wouldn't get reported at all. As long as people coming out (especially the case among sportsmen) as gay is still a 'thing', then it really isn't that normalised.
Ahtman wrote: Pretending unlike things are similar doesn't make for a very good or compelling argument.
Comparing the treatment of one sexuality to another sexuality, is going too far in ahtmans books I guess.
Not being monogamous is not the same as sexual orientation. Comparing straight to gay makes sense as they are both orientations. Comparing an orientation to a drive is not. That isn't comparing two different juices it is comparing a wheat stalk to Volvo.
You should avoid using words you really don't understand.
easysauce wrote: So while it is true in that being gay is different from being poly-straight, they are both examples of sexuality, and comparable as such.
Except that wanting multiple partners has nothing to do with orientation, unless you grossly misunderstand both, which wouldn't be surprising.
Rainbow Dash wrote: So then where do you draw the line on what is okay?
the thing with gay is, unlike say bestiality or pedophilia, it is two adults consenting to sex with one another.
Why should someone else get to tell me I cannot marry a consenting adult of my own gender?
And the reasons "cause it's weird or it's a sin" is not good enough.
Even if being gay was a choice, why would it be okay to tell consenting adults which other consenting adults they may or may not have sex with?
exaclty my point,
choice has nothing to do with it, if being gay is a choice, fine, its still totally 100% ok. if its not a choice, and its *not*, its STILL 100% ok.
The merits of it (IE:two consenting adults) justify it being ok, as opposed to whether or not people are born gay or not.
Our society is much more accepting of being gay however, then of straight men who come out as "not wanting to get married,ever, and always have multiple partners or change it up every now and then, or even polygamy"
just some perspective here, but two consenting dudes can marry, but one dude and two consenting ladies cannot.
Yeah I think polygamy, polyamory and polyandry should be legal too.
They are legal. Nothing stops you having multiple partners. If you are talking about polygamous marriages, that's a different thing. One good reason to not allow them are the huge issues it creates with taxation, inheritance, custody, next-of-kin, and more. It's all incredibly messy and actually very difficult to resolve. The other opposition of such arrangements is that traditionally they are seen as abusive or unequal relationships, that too is rather difficult to police.
I often see people saying 'but muh genetics' as if any argument like that could be so simple. We are socially and genetically evolved in complex ways which means you cannot say that humans are supposed to act a certain way or not. The same applies to homosexuality, the arguments that draw in genetics and evolution are frequently ignorant and ill thought out. It's best to respect personal preferences where possible in society on the basis of "what does harm", rather than attempt to justify behaviour or desires using borderline pseudo-scientific things in what is a very complex topic. Simply put, having read comments further above, it does not hold in population genetics that the 'most desirable' doing all the breeding is a good thing. Good/bad genes are often environmentally determined, if you force a bottle neck and things change, you can face extinction. One of the reasons we are perhaps more inclined to single-mating is the long maturation time and slow growth of our offspring requires long term investment by the male to ensure survival of progeny, this is complemented well by a rough 50:50 split in the gender population. Other species have a different gender balance, offspring production and time, that lends itself better to short term investment by the male. I'm not making a case for the validity of polyamory or not, but the rationale behind some of what is being proposed is not thought out.
Ouze wrote: Well, see, GLBT youth have a tougher time than straight kids, even in 2014. Some of the highest suicide risk rates. So, making it to be the CEO of Apple, and saying "hey, I'm gay" sort of gives those kids a role model.
i do not think he did it to be a role model. I believe he is a narcissist and wants the attention.
They are legal. Nothing stops you having multiple partners. .
well, that used to be true for gays as well, nothing really stopped them from being gay, they just couldn't legally enjoy the same treatment under the law/taxes as straight married couples... so thats the whole point... if you are going to deny one orientation the right to marry as they see fit because its "too complicated and confusing" once could easily state that men getting married and there fore divorces, is too complicated as well, after all, who pays who alimony?
and its not just poly straight, there is poly gay, and bisexuality... plenty of people who just want a happy three person marriage where one person isnt some third wheel who always has no legal recourse to adopted children, tax or health benefits.
I don't think being poly- is an 'orientation', it's a lifestyle choice. Like a poly person I'm attracted to lots of people, other than the fact I choose to be monogamous, there is no difference. I can't choose to be gay because I'm not attracted to men.
factually, it would not lead to more homogenization or incest... or it already would have...
otherwise every single animal species that almost exclusively breeds the alphas and not the betas as a rule would be suffering from this sort of thing as well... and they simply are not.
you are missing that a large percentage of the animal kingdom works like this, where the alphas breed and the betas do not (or rarely do)...
by your reasoning, most insects should be extinct due to incest/lack of mates since generally only the queen even reproduces.
if insects can have a hundred thousand to one ratio or more of breeders to non without it destroying their genetics over millions of years, then humans going from 1-1 to 1-2 or 1-10 isnt a stretch at all, especially considering how much of our history has had such ratios.
There have been observed genetic defects and diseases that European nobility (known for only breeding with each other) have suffered the the common person doesn't, due to the inbreeding. Polygamy doesn't necessarily mean inbreeding automatically, I know, but the reduction in genetic diversity would translate into the increase of potential for harmful birth defects. I refer to inbreeding as a magnified example of the issues that it causes.
Of the animals you refer to, how many of those species you mention also mate for life? I can't think of any off the top of my head that are polygamous AND mate for life, but I've not gone looking.
Insects are not really a fair comparison, as they're vastly different to humans. Consider the last time you heard of a human with one set of organs getting sliced in half and both sides regenerating into a living, functional person. We should stick to mammals, speaking of which....
A more apt comparison would be dogs. The health problems of purebred dogs are actually well known and documented, and the cause is, again, lack of genetic diversity.
We're also ignoring that a 1:2 ratio results in effectively 25% (assuming both genders equal in population, and twice as many mates of one gender are mated to one person) of a populace potentially desiring a mate and unable to find one. That's a large amount of potential disenfranchisement, frustration, and anger on your hands.
Ouze wrote: Well, see, GLBT youth have a tougher time than straight kids, even in 2014. Some of the highest suicide risk rates. So, making it to be the CEO of Apple, and saying "hey, I'm gay" sort of gives those kids a role model.
i do not think he did it to be a role model. I believe he is a narcissist and wants the attention.
I believe you are thinking about the former Apple CEO.
Tim Cook has always maintained a pretty thick layer of privacy in his personal life. As a matter of fact, he explains exactly why he decided to write the essay for Businessweek, which is along the lines of what Ouze said. He is also the first openly gay CEO of a company on the Fortune 500 list.
I'm not going to lie, I shared this article because I thought it was interesting: one of the most powerful businessmen in the world is gay. Unsurprisingly, some of the comments in this thread are just asinine.
Job well done everybody, the OT never lets me down!
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't think being poly- is an 'orientation', it's a lifestyle choice. Like a poly person I'm attracted to lots of people, other than the fact I choose to be monogamous, there is no difference. I can't choose to be gay because I'm not attracted to men.
That depends on the person. Some people are monogamous by nature and absolutely can not be happy in a non-monogamous relationship. Some people are all the way at the other extreme and absolutely can not be happy in a monogamous relationship. And these aren't usually conscious decisions, a common theme among non-monogamous people who view it as an orientation is that they weren't happy early in life in monogamous relationships, even before they realized why or even knew that there were other options. So those people wouldn't think of it as a choice at all, because for them the only "choice" is between following their orientation and being happy, or denying it and trying to force themselves into a relationship they don't want to be in just for the sake of being "normal".
And of course there are people who consider non-monogamy a choice that they made based on reasons they consciously thought about. Those people are the equivalent of bisexuals, people who exist in the middle of the scale and could go either way depending on the circumstances.
daedalus wrote: There have been observed genetic defects and diseases that European nobility (known for only breeding with each other) have suffered the the common person doesn't, due to the inbreeding. Polygamy doesn't necessarily mean inbreeding automatically, I know, but the reduction in genetic diversity would translate into the increase of potential for harmful birth defects. I refer to inbreeding as a magnified example of the issues that it causes.
That's not a very relevant comparison because polygamy has nothing to do with only breeding within a limited group. The European nobility problem exists because you have marriages that are limited to a tiny minority of the overall population, and marrying outside of that group (which would bring in more genetic diversity) is/was frowned upon for social reasons.
Polygamy, on the other hand, doesn't have this issue. If A marries and has children with B and C there's no reason to expect those children to only marry within the social group or family of any of the three parents, just like children of two-person relationships don't tend to marry their cousins. The only time you'd have a problem with inbreeding is if you're talking about religious polygamy in fundamentalist cults that keep everyone away from the outside world and encourage marriages within their tiny group. And you'd have the same problems there even with two-person marriages.
We're also ignoring that a 1:2 ratio results in effectively 25% (assuming both genders equal in population, and twice as many mates of one gender are mated to one person) of a populace potentially desiring a mate and unable to find one. That's a large amount of potential disenfranchisement, frustration, and anger on your hands.
We're ignoring it because it's a bad argument. The "can't find a mate" problem only exists with religious polygamy where high-status men get to claim all of the women as trophy wives, but women are never allowed to have multiple husbands (and should settle for a polygamous marriage with one of those high-status men). In a secular version the men marrying multiple women would be offset by the women marrying multiple men, leaving the situation for single people roughly the same as it is now. In fact, things would probably improve in this hypothetical world for single people, assuming they're willing to consider being in a non-monogamous relationship, because a potential partner being in a relationship already would not necessarily take them out of the dating pool.
I'm still struggling to see how this wouldn't still reduce genetic diversity still.
Can you perhaps point me to a culture that has chosen a polygamous social structure that is not founded in some manner of religious dogma? I would be interested in reading more.
daedalus wrote: I'm still struggling to see how this wouldn't still reduce genetic diversity still.
Flip it around the other way: how would it reduce genetic diversity? Genetic diversity is about how much the children spread out from their parents, not how many other people their parents are having sex with or what legal recognition that other sex has. You wouldn't claim that a person cheating on their spouse reduces genetic diversity, would you?
Can you perhaps point me to a culture that has chosen a polygamous social structure that is not founded in some manner of religious dogma?
I don't think you can, because secular polyamory, like non-monogamy in general, is still a small minority of the overall population and any areas/groups where it has been common have still existed within the context of the society around them. But history doesn't necessarily reflect the future, and the failures of religious polygamy would not necessarily apply to a secular equivalent that did become more common. Whether to legalize polygamy or not needs to be decided based on the likely effects of that particular decision in our society, not what completely different societies did with their version.
China had a polygamous society for several centuries. Polygamous in the sense that if you could afford to take concubines, it was acceptable. And afaik, it wasn't based on any religious dogma
cincydooley wrote: I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that there are entire GLTB Dorms.
Hall, like 5-10 rooms. On a floor of 100.
Its so they know they are around friends and allies.
Are there black hallways and asian hallways and muslim hallways too?
You are missing the point here Cincy. Its easy for you to hookup with asians, or other blacks. But not with gays. And they also want to know they are not going to get a room with a gay basher.
And yes, there is an Asian Hall,
You are missing the point here Cincy. Its easy for you to hookup with asians, or other blacks. But not with gays. And they also want to know they are not going to get a room with a gay basher.
And yes, there is an Asian Hall,
I'm not missing any point. You didn't really make one.
Why would it be harder for me to hook up with a homosexual than an Asian, were I so inclined?
Should they be more protected than a black person that doesn't want to room with a Klansmen, or a Jew that doesn't want to room with some Hitler youth?
You are missing the point here Cincy. Its easy for you to hookup with asians, or other blacks. But not with gays. And they also want to know they are not going to get a room with a gay basher.
And yes, there is an Asian Hall,
I'm not missing any point. You didn't really make one.
Why would it be harder for me to hook up with a homosexual than an Asian, were I so inclined?
Should they be more protected than a black person that doesn't want to room with a Klansmen, or a Jew that doesn't want to room with some Hitler youth?
Those are kinda hard to find in Santa Cruz, but gay bashers are not.
Also, because, a gay man cant be pointed out in a crowd(Gay Dar is not a real thing) but an asian can
Also, there seems to be some implied argument that asians only want to hook up with asians but it's easier to do so because it's easy to tell who's asian. This also seems kind of wtf.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Because you asked this
Why would it be harder for me to hook up with a homosexual than an Asian, were I so inclined?
So you're saying they have designated halls so it's easier to hook up? Sounds irresponsible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sining wrote: Also, there seems to be some implied argument that asians only want to hook up with asians but it's easier to do so because it's easy to tell who's asian. This also seems kind of wtf.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Because you asked this
Why would it be harder for me to hook up with a homosexual than an Asian, were I so inclined?
So you're saying they have designated halls so it's easier to hook up? Sounds irresponsible.
NO!!!!!
They only have the asian center hall. Which is one hall on the entire campus. Its for international transfers.
But they have the LGBT & Allies hall which is so LGBT will not live around gay bashers and those uncomfortable around gays wont have to share a room
They only have the asian center hall. Which is one hall on the entire campus. Its for international transfers.
But they have the LGBT & Allies hall which is so LGBT will not live around gay bashers and those uncomfortable around gays wont have to share a room
So again, I ask why isn't there a blacks only hall so that blacks can live apart from racists? Or an all Jews hall so they can live apart from anti-Semites?
They only have the asian center hall. Which is one hall on the entire campus. Its for international transfers.
But they have the LGBT & Allies hall which is so LGBT will not live around gay bashers and those uncomfortable around gays wont have to share a room
So again, I ask why isn't there a blacks only hall so that blacks can live apart from racists? Or an all Jews hall so they can live apart from anti-Semites?
Because, those are not as big as an issue on campus as gay bashing.
daedalus wrote: I'm still struggling to see how this wouldn't still reduce genetic diversity still.
Can you perhaps point me to a culture that has chosen a polygamous social structure that is not founded in some manner of religious dogma? I would be interested in reading more.
instead of producing offspring with just one person, there would exist the greater potential to have multiple offspring with multiple partners. As was said before, no one actually gets cut out so long as everyone is open to sharing, not to mention that if two people go after the same mate, instead of only having 2 people walk away happy and breeding, 3 could walk away happy.
Lots of prior cultures had it without religion, generally polygamy isnt religion based at all.
Usually it was based on high status people gaining multiple spouses, those who could afford to actually keep multiple spouses and children fed and protected.
There is a good book called the poison wood bible, long story short, there is a tribe in africa who's chief has multiple wives, because "he has a hard job and needs the extra help" in general polygamy was done because it was practical at the time.
I've gotten more flack about wanting polyamory then being bisexual or anything else really... Strange that.
Yup, its a real disconnect, our society accepts gays far more then natural hetero sexual males (who generally desire multiple partners) and society puts a huge amount of pressure on men to change/suppress their sexual preference from the natural, un-chosen state, of wanting many partners.
Basically we put all straight males through the equivalent of *stop being gay* camp to get them to conform to how we think their sexually *should* be, despite them being born a different way, and the most hypocritical part is that so many people see this as ok, encourage it, and so on.
Thats just being greedy, its nothing special.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some animals pare bond, I don't think humans are meant to.
Of course we were. You're just forgetting the time scale. Originally, by the time you got bored, you were already dead.
This only became an issue once we decided the hyena races were fun and all, but the pointy sticks in our hands meant it when we said NO MEANS NO!
They only have the asian center hall. Which is one hall on the entire campus. Its for international transfers.
But they have the LGBT & Allies hall which is so LGBT will not live around gay bashers and those uncomfortable around gays wont have to share a room
So again, I ask why isn't there a blacks only hall so that blacks can live apart from racists? Or an all Jews hall so they can live apart from anti-Semites?
Yeah there are far more homophobic people then racists and the like.
Ouze wrote: It's like when someone dies, and inevitably someone has to break their fingers in their haste to let the people in that thread know they don't care about (whoever). Thanks for going in a thread and letting everyone participating know of your disinterest, I guess?
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the Flames of War section, because those guys need to know I don't play their game and am not really interested in doing so.
Do you remember years ago when LGBT activists campaigned to remove the stigma from being gay? When they wanted to make people more accepting of LGBT relationships? Maybe we could look at some of the "Ok....and?" comments here to show the progress that has been made on the issue, so that someone coming out as gay is no longer a huge issue. I think that is a more constructive way to look at things instead of seeking of societal equality, and then demanding to know why people are as interested in someone proclaiming that they are gay as someone proclaiming that they are straight.
If they just mean on their campus it might be true, but if they mean overall then it is problematic. I have to imagine different places will have different problems. I do agree that it is problematic to separate a group from others, generally speaking. There will always be special situations and context, but as a general rule it seems a bad idea.
I can't really compare it to same sex only dorms as most straight people aren't interested in same sex intimacy and generally they are separated to avoid to much distraction from hormones. On the surface it would seem to reinforce otherness as well as put people who are young and horny in the same building/area, which is a whole set of other problems. Are they putting a gay woman and man together in a room? That would solve that problem, otherwise it is would seem like putting a straight guy and a straight girl in a room together.
It isn't that I think gay people are unable to control themselves, it is that I think young people are very sex driven because all of them I have met are and when I was that age all of them were as well. It is part of being that age. Also, I have seen Animal House.
TheMeanDM wrote: I am glad others have thought the same thing I have....
You're gay.
So what.
Why do you feel the need to announce it to the world?
I don't get that thought process....gay, black, hispanic, asian, white, purple, whatever....what's the big deal about announcing "I am ______" to everybody?
Well, see, GLBT youth have a tougher time than straight kids, even in 2014. Some of the highest suicide risk rates. So, making it to be the CEO of Apple, and saying "hey, I'm gay" sort of gives those kids a role model.
Super simple stuff
It's a shame sexuality is tied to who people decide is a role model.
I look up to people for their character and accomplishments, not who they like to feth.
TheMeanDM wrote: I am glad others have thought the same thing I have....
You're gay.
So what.
Why do you feel the need to announce it to the world?
I don't get that thought process....gay, black, hispanic, asian, white, purple, whatever....what's the big deal about announcing "I am ______" to everybody?
Well, see, GLBT youth have a tougher time than straight kids, even in 2014. Some of the highest suicide risk rates. So, making it to be the CEO of Apple, and saying "hey, I'm gay" sort of gives those kids a role model.
Super simple stuff
It's a shame sexuality is tied to who people decide is a role model.
I look up to people for their character and accomplishments, not who they like to feth.
This.
Except that isn't what Ouze was saying at all.
It isn't that people say, "Oh, he likes dudes and I like dudes, so he's my role model." That is an extremely simple way of thinking and if you think that is the case, you're spectacularly wrong. Grow the feth up.
Despite what you all think, we still live in a society where LGBT people are not accepted. LGBT youth have amongst the hardest, even where it is more "accepted." I'm sure plenty of you here were awkward teenagers, bumbling around in the world without a clue as to who you are and what you will do with your life (I was, to an extent). Now imagine, you go to church and you're told you're a sinner simply for being who you are, you turn on the TV and you see people fighting tooth and nail to make sure you aren't afforded the same rights as everyone else, you live in a community that would stigmatize you, you live with parents that would ostracize you because of who you choose to love. Those things happen and they happen all over the place in every kind of community.
So for an LGBT youth to see someone like Tim Cook, a Southerner from a small town in Alabama that came from humble means to become one of the most powerful businessmen in the world, can be powerful stuff. It says to them that they may live in a world that doesn't accept them as people, but you can still work hard and be successful without having to compromise who you are.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: So for an LGBT youth to see someone like Tim Cook, a Southerner from a small town in Alabama that came from humble means to become one of the most powerful businessmen in the world, can be powerful stuff. It says to them that they may live in a world that doesn't accept them as people, but you can still work hard and be successful without having to compromise who you are.
See I don't get that. I don't see what being gay has to do with his success. His talent, his drive, and his business/technological acumen made him the powerful individual he is. The fact that he's gay is, at best, tertiary to that and, at worst, utterly irrelevant. His sexual preference shouldn't be derided in any way, there's nothing wrong with having gay role models, and I can certainly see your point about the issues of discrimination with gay youth. but celebrating his sexuality it doesn't make a great deal of sense. He's gay. So what? How does that affect the products your company makes or how you develop them?
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't see what being gay has to do with his success.
No one is saying that being gay is what made him successful, just showing others that even in a society that often marginalizes gay people it can be useful to show people that it doesn't have to hold you back.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The fact that he's gay is, at best, tertiary to that and, at worst, utterly irrelevant.
In a perfect world that would be true, but this isn't a perfect world and it still matters. Last I checked many places it is ok to fire someone just for being gay and things like DOMA still exist. Hell, I've heard people that still think that gay is the same as pedophilia. There is also the problem of suicide and violence that exists.
Apparently it means a decent amount to those that need to know that one can be gay and not be an entertainer I suppose, not to mention all the other problems listed above. Again, if this were an ideal world it probably wouldn't matter, but we don't live in that world. The fact that people still want to pretend it is a world where it doesn't matter while it does actually does matter is reason enough for it to matter, as can be seen by this thread.
H.B.M.C. wrote: How does that affect the products your company makes or how you develop them?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: So for an LGBT youth to see someone like Tim Cook, a Southerner from a small town in Alabama that came from humble means to become one of the most powerful businessmen in the world, can be powerful stuff. It says to them that they may live in a world that doesn't accept them as people, but you can still work hard and be successful without having to compromise who you are.
See I don't get that. I don't see what being gay has to do with his success. His talent, his drive, and his business/technological acumen made him the powerful individual he is. The fact that he's gay is, at best, tertiary to that and, at worst, utterly irrelevant. His sexual preference shouldn't be derided in any way, there's nothing wrong with having gay role models, and I can certainly see your point about the issues of discrimination with gay youth. but celebrating his sexuality it doesn't make a great deal of sense. He's gay. So what? How does that affect the products your company makes or how you develop them?
You don't understand the difference between "celebrating his sexuality" and recognizing that despite living in a society where he isn't seen as equal to you and me, he was able to accomplish what he has? Because the latter is the gist of what is going on here.
Tim Cook is from a state (amongst others) that is a part of what is supposedly the greatest nation on Earth, where you can lose your job and your livelihood simply because you are attracted to the same sex. That is sickening.
So yeah, I think it's pretty neat that he is telling people that, despite living in a society that treats people like him as less than equal, he was able to accomplish what he has because of all those qualities you listed, while not being ashamed of who he is.
But hey, if you want to be so shortsighted as to thinking that means we are just "celebrating his sexuality," go right ahead.
EDIT: edited for grammar and also Ahtman ninja'd me... Well said.
Apple iWatch! 
