701–710 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me this is like saying if you've ever written a bug into production software it should be career-limiting.
Disclosures of that nature are not at the same order as writing bugs into production software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One can ignore the Old Testament in its entirety and still be a Christian who believes being gay is wrong - it is addressed, albeit briefly, in the New Testament.
Yeah, but they were straight people who god deliberately turned gay for committing the sin of idolatry, so being gay wasn't the sin but the punishment for having a great art collection. "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that? I don't see any difference between a ban on gay marriage and a ban on interracial marriage. I just want to be sure I understand your calibration settings. If you think a prop on banning interracial marriage should be just as acceptable as what you seem to be saying for prop8, then I'm…
>If I understand your position correctly, then if there really was a prop to ban interracial marriage we should all be okay with that? I would strongly oppose such a measure. But I would certainly respect the rights of others to support the opposing side and vote their conscience, and when the vote was over I would not go scouring donation records to figure out whom I should fire or force out of their jobs.
No such right exists in this context. A proposition to ban interracial marriage has nothing to do with people's consciences and everything to do with the letter of the law, where marriage is an established legal construct to which access is guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Voting to have rights stripped from other citizens for arbitrary reasons is not a protected freedom and such a proposition is patently unconstitutional on its face. You don't need to be impartial here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. After I came out, one of the best things was getting an email from an 18-year-old guy who had read my blog saying that he'd never spoken to or read anything from a gay person in technology and it was cool to read something from someone who as a programmer and geek came from the same perspective as him. He then said he'd gotten the courage to tell his parents from that. Which left me feeling amazing for about…
why "come out." Why do you feel you need to tell others you're gay? I don't feel like I need to tell everyone I'm straight. I never understood this. You're gay, so what? What is this thing with some people feeling like they just have to tell others about their personal sexual orientation; especially in the context of business article. This has nothing to do with Apple. If they wanted to report on Apple's equality the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would not judge a CEO for publicly admitting to being a racist? I do not believe you. I think that you are lying, either to us or to yourself. Calling something "Ideology" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. You are free to have whatever political beliefs you desire, but we are all free to criticism you for your political beliefs. Our criticism of political beliefs is just as political as the beliefs that…
> Calling something "Ideology" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Of course. It is after all entirely different than: Calling someone "Gay" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Or: Calling someone "Jew" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Or: Calling something "Black" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Or: Calling someone "woman" is not a "get out of criticism free" card. Or: Calling some…
Islamophobia, racism, etc., are not criticisms. Criticism is the application of reason and intelligence for the purpose of analysis and improvment. Bigotry is the assumption that "others" are worse simply by their being "other". Nothing you listed is criticism, it is various forms of bigotry. In bigotry there is no desire for dialogue, simply judgement and superiority.
> And YES I would take a racist for CEO - if he is more qualified than others - each and every time. Because I truly believe in a society where gender, sex orientation, race, religion, ideology - do NOT matter.
Those two sentences are incongruent. You cannot claim to champion a society where gender, race, etc., do not matter, and then turn around and state your acceptance of a racist CEO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me it came across as purely figurative. IMHO the usual phrases like "thank God it's not raining" are pretty much detached from the religious context. Is it different in US?
"Thank God it's not raining" is completely different from saying "... the greatest gifts God has given me." The first is just a frivolous small talk type comment. Non-religious people would say this. It's part of the common US vocabulary. The second is much more serious, and the speaker is actually thanking God for how he is. A non-religious person would never say it. Religious people do this type of thing all the ti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At least your kids (...) will have both bloods? Are you sure you thought this through?
I'm not sure what's wrong with that statement (I'm also not a native speaker). Please let me know how I could have worded it better. (In my native language, Dutch, it's common to refer to people of mixed race as having "mixed blood". I can find similar statements made in English on Google)
I wonder how carefully crafted this line was: ... I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me. It seems a particularly odd thing to slip in, on so many levels.
The fact that various kinds of people will consider it an odd thing to say is probably just the reason why Cook went out of his way to say it.
The world has a wide range of people, and they don't fit into neat little boxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but they were straight people who god deliberately turned gay for committing the sin of idolatry, so being gay wasn't the sin but the punishment for having a great art collection. "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glor…
That is but one passage. Others in the New Testament do in fact include "lechery with men" in the same category as murder.
Though this category in Corinthians is about who will not inherit the kingdom of god, and then in Timothy it is describing who the law is written for, so in either case it is not distinguishing categories of sins, but merely listing them.
Elsewhere in Paul, homosexuality is equated with the greedy, the sexually immoral, thieves, drunks, slanderers, idolators and swindlers, but makes no mention of murderers.
edit - the passage in Corinthians is also interesting as it is in the context of a wider passage banning recourse to civil law in secular courts between believers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No... They simply acknowledge that the roughly 4% of the population that identify with the LGBT community exists. It's a pretty far push from acknowledging existence to "pushing homosexuality on everyone." I'll leave as an exercise to the reader to identify the mental gymnastics required to come up with the phrase: "pushing homosexuality on everyone"
Whew! Got quite the downvotes. If one were to say, "I support legal equality for LGBT couples compared to straight couples", as well as "I question the health of LGBT acceptance in society", would you find their opinion repugnant? If so, then you're pushing LGBT on everyone. For the record, I truly support legal equality, and don't see how accepting LGBT in society is harmful. But the above example is a reflection of…
1. What I find repugnant doesn't push anything on anyone.
2. My comment had nothing to do with what you or I do, it had to do with the above comment about Disney and Coke showing LGBT people in shows and ads.
By this logic, your logic, they have been "pushing" straight, black, hispanic, white, Christian, Jewish, youth, and elderly on us for years. Having the individual (or couple) on the show/ad does not in and of itself "push" anything. That's absurd.