Tim Cook Speaks Up

If my position on gay marriage sits firmly atop my less than enthusiastic position of marriage in general, the burden of convincing any participant in the debate that my position is not fuelled by hate towards gays is not on me.

In other words, if you go into the debate primed with the objective of weeding out homophobic views by aligning anyone against gay marriage with homophobia, you've de-railed the debate before it's begun.

Many people don't care either way and are sick of the gay marriage debate taking up so much attention. It's not a pressing matter for the world in my opinion, and I don't sign petitions when hassled at the train station about it. I also don't sign petitions against gay marriage either, but I will enter a debate here online about it.

Some believe that "marriage" in and of itself doesn't need to be extended beyond heterosexual couples. When asked why, an increasing reason might be this collective foot-stomping campaign insisting that anything reserved for heterosexual couples must also be extended to gay couples or else there is some moral corruption happening. I don't believe there's a corruption of morality in reserving "marriage" to heterosexual couples. A substantial part of that position comes from my view on marriage in general - its origins, its contractual formula, its roots in the church, even the cost of marriage and the industry around marriage... It's not something built for 'expandability'... But anyway, thanks for replying, I'm sure the debate will continue.

Nobody wants women to be pushed out by force or denied opportunity to reach their deserved position. But is that really happening whenever we see more of one gender in a particular role than another? I don't think so.

I remember in highschool (20 years ago), only 2 girls were in my electronics class. Those 2 girls were not given any special treatment, or picked on, or anything. It was simply how the cards fell for that class due to most girls in the school NOT being interested in electronics.

I suppose we could've started a campaign designed to attract more "women in electronics". Okay, but they were never unwelcome in the first place. They simply didn't enrol in that course.

This is the tricky thing about this debate. I don't equate such benefits with marriage. That's a detail for the country and state. I prefer to argue for equivalent or largely similar benefits for gay couples. That in my mind would be the more appropriate way to achieve equality.

The analogy I outlined was about having an opposing opinion on something that is "owned" by the gay community, such as mardi gras, and expressing that opinion without being labelled a bigot. That's all I was doing there. Society's current obsession with political correctness prevents opposing expression of views from attracting accusations of deeper animosity.

I find the racism debates equally stifling. I could list a lot of admirable qualities about Chinese people and their culture. But can I list things I don't like without being called racist? These days you end up accused of being the "I'm not racist but..." guy if you happen to mention anything that isn't tightly wrapped in political correctness, or bundled in skilful parody and comedic wit - which is out of reach for most of us. So we end up just sounding racist if we say we don't like X, Y or Z about this or that country or this or that community.

I didn't read into it that at all. I don't know which intended meaning Disney had when they adapted the story into a script and animation; but it seems to resonate with different people differently (as is often the case with movies).

I saw it in staunch contrast to the historical Disney "Princess" narrative, where happily-ever-after doesn't mean marriage, remarking how they openly mocked the idea of falling in love with someone and marrying them after a single day.

I'd have to ask him directly, but he could have easily seen the movie from Elsa's perspective, the woman imbued with a gift, or curse. Both perspectives are presented in the movie, if memory serves me, and it entirely depends on the person speaking at the time. The parents thought it was a curse. The trolls saw it differently. Whatever the reality of her situation, she fled, and then accepted who she was, and eventually defeated the parts of her gift that had made it so sad to have.

Perhaps, then, it is both. It was a movie that was a push away from the 'True Love's Kiss' story of Disney olde, as much as it was a story about accepting who you are. And the whole story is bound together by the very real presence of the two sister's familial love for one another.

[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Neighbourly_Love,_F...