Apple CEO Tim Cook Says He is “Proud to Be Gay”

[ronchamblin]

Well thanks for viewing 'couples' or at least the 'queer' individuals who comprise them as 'much the same' chamblin.

Im sure that most of the (non) 'simple boys' appreciate it.

Its nice to be free of condescension.

You are quite welcome sir.  My use of the word "queer" was not meant to be derogatory, but only to project a term used in the past, as a curiosity one might suggest.  Some young folks might not know of the term.  So if you thought the term a dig at you or yours ... well, please don't think it.

And or course there are simple boys, and not so simple boys.  I fully admit that I was a simple boy, naive extremely, and even now I am unaware of many things known to so many others.  But I am happy in my ignorance.  I do as best I can with what I have. 

[I-10east]

Android isn't hiding it's pro-LGBT & liberal stance either with this commercial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRmgMe2STL0

[ronchamblin]

Another point or two ... which might be interesting to you sir Stephen.

The idea of being gay in the animal kingdom does not exist, or if it does, it exists only on a very small scale.  Humans seem unique in that they can engage sexual acts and pleasures outside of the range nature has given to the animals -- that is, sex in humans, at least certain forms of sex, can actually be between man and man, or woman and woman. And very important for the long term gay relationship, certainly there is much more to a relationship than sex.

I suspect that the ability of humans to engage in gay activity, as compared to the lowly animal, is a consequence of the increase in the human mind's ability to imagine and explore ... to experience an infinity of paths to satisfy needs, whether emotional or physical.

There you go sir Stephen.  We've become pioneers in the journey to greater understanding of the gay thing. 

[ronchamblin]

Interesting list of animals who can act gay ... sort of.

Of course, the human, as compared to the animal, can explore complete gay relationships, which can include most all the components of the normal man/woman relationship.

I used the quotation marks to accentuate that the gay individuals were not simply promiscuous sex persons, but were actually couples.  Of course, I didn't have to use the quotation marks.  I don't consider it significant.  Some sensitive readers might however.

I presume you mean the word "nigger".  Well ... the word was used often when I was a boy.  Its history.  Thank goodness its not used anymore.  And too, thank goodness the work "queer" is not used any more.  Both terms come from a past populated by ignorant, prejudiced, and abusive individuals.  And both terms are used now only on occasions illustrating history. 

I didn't mean to say that the acceptance of gay people will be a solution to overpopulation.  I meant to convey that "if" gay couples increase significantly throughout the world, that this increase could apply beneficial pressures to the reduction of the world population as a consequence of there being less families with three to seven kids.   

[ronchamblin]

That's an interesting piece about the apparent homosexual animals.

I suspect that one difference between the gay animal condition and the human is that there is little or no opposition or abuse from other animals.

The human psyche is so complex, I suspect there will always be some kind of pressure against gay relationships, whether from society in general, or from individuals inclined to bigotry.

[ronchamblin]

The idea of normal. 

It seems to me that as the human psyche become more complex ... as the ability to imagine expands ... then what is normal is less definable.  Or ... with the passage of time on the evolutionary journey, the number of things or conditions that can be termed "normal" decreases simply because the mind can do and imagine a greater number of possibilities.

One might consider comparing what is normal regarding the male/woman relationship to that of the man/man or woman/woman, by reflecting upon the reproductive process in the animal kingdom.  In order to ensure the survival of a species, nature has designed the greater percentage of animals so that they must pair in the sex act, one being male, the other female.  This union, in many animal species, and certainly the human species, extends to the long term emotional bonding relationship  This human condition would allow most people to suggest that it is more 'normal" at this time in the human evolutionary journey for the human relationship, in order to ultimately survive as a species, to be "man with woman", and not "man with man" or "woman with woman".

This is not to say that it is bad to be man with man, or woman with woman.  I'm saying that it is more normal for a union to be a man and a woman.  Therefore, there is some justification for many people to look upon the man/man relationship as a little odd -- the degree of oddity being dependent upon the observer's inclination or ability to be open to other's needs and wishes ... the idea of freedom.

Time will reduce the number of opinions selecting "odd' as a description of a man/man or woman/woman relationship.

[Gunnar]

Just looking at the issue from a "personal benefits" perspective, every gay guy is one less competitor, so what's not to like about that 

Now, in terms of lesbians I have been burned having worked in an environment with quite a few of the man hating kind (very unpleasant) , but that just means that I don't really care much for their company (not that this would be a reason not to be friends with a woman who  is).

The whole issue is: Why should I care if someone prefers men or women or both ? Won't change anything for me (except of the "less competition" advantage). A gay couple getting married does not make my marriage less good.

Different people make different relationship choices and love is love.

Not that it matters now, being married...

[ronchamblin]

The idea of normal. 

It seems to me that as the human psyche become more complex ... as the ability to imagine expands ... then what is normal is less definable.  Or ... with the passage of time on the evolutionary journey, the number of things or conditions that can be termed "normal" decreases simply because the mind can do and imagine a greater number of possibilities.

One might consider comparing what is normal regarding the male/woman relationship to that of the man/man or woman/woman, by reflecting upon the reproductive process in the animal kingdom.  In order to ensure the survival of a species, nature has designed the greater percentage of animals so that they must pair in the sex act, one being male, the other female.  This union, in many animal species, and certainly the human species, extends to the long term emotional bonding relationship  This human condition would allow most people to suggest that it is more 'normal" at this time in the human evolutionary journey for the human relationship, in order to ultimately survive as a species, to be "man with woman", and not "man with man" or "woman with woman".

This is not to say that it is bad to be man with man, or woman with woman.  I'm saying that it is more normal for a union to be a man and a woman.  Therefore, there is some justification for many people to look upon the man/man relationship as a little odd -- the degree of oddity being dependent upon the observer's inclination or ability to be open to other's needs and wishes ... the idea of freedom.

Time will reduce the number of opinions selecting "odd' as a description of a man/man or woman/woman relationship.

your post has little to do with reality, ron.

As I said, if you would like a few book recommendations, Id be glad to supply you with a few.

But you clearly need something besides the 'reproductive process in the animal kingdom' to base your arguments on.  As already demonstrated, your knowledge of sexual construction and behavior in other species is pretty out of date.

But even if it weren't, the same proportions of people are gay and bisexual as they have been throughout history, and yet our population keeps on doubling every generation or so.

In the process of doubling, the raising of offspring has little to do with sexual identity and construction.

Lots of homosexual men have raised children, lots of heterosexual women have left babies in dumpsters. Lots of otherwise lesbian women have had 10 children, and lots of heterosexual men died in prison, monasteries or just before losing their virginities.  If truth be known, somewhere in the region of 15% of American husbands firmly believe themselves to be the biological fathers of the children they are raising, when in fact they are not.  No amount of heterosexual relations gave them children.  Their wives simply got pregnant with someone else outside of their 'normal' relationship.

I know you don't mean to, but your post just sounds like nonsense.  But at least here is a starting point for further investigation and food for thought.

I really appreciate your perception of the realities about the gay in the animal kingdom ... in history and in the current.  And I must admit that I've read very little about the existence of gay activity in the animal kingdom.

Admittedly, I'm naive in many ways, but I enjoy meandering in my world of ignorance.  If my posts seem like nonsense ... well, I do as best I can with what I have.     

My comments so far on the gay issue illustrate my occasional inclination to offer ideas on an issue without researching it.  I sense that, in certain instances, lacking recent opinions of others as a consequence of avoiding reading on the issue, forces contemplation ... and to discover ideas that, because they were formed over decades, relate more to the fundamentals of the issue instead of current emotional heights.  I'm not suggesting that I do not read, as I read a lot.  Most will agree that one's voluminous reading should be cultivated and balanced with a good measure of contemplation, conversation, and writing, so as to arrive at the best understandings.  Conversation & writing = MJ.   

So, with the above in mind, I will ramble hopefully with greater clarity than above, with ideas about the gay issue as related to both animals and humans.

The very fact that animal species exist offers the clue that natural laws ... physical laws ... exist so as to encourage the perpetuation of that existence.  Given the reality that all living organisms deteriorate and die, there must have been, established eons ago by the design mechanisms in nature, a method to ensure the reproduction of all organisms.  Change and renewal apparently approach being two laws in the universe.  My use of the term "design" does not imply the existence of a designer ... that is, one of the many gods created by men throughout history.

The original mechanism for the continuation of a species, as a function of nature, has been to have a male and female of a species join at the points provided to produce offspring.  Although there are oddities or aberrations in nature, the most common method of species perpetuation is this process of male/female physical union.

The degree to which anything or anyone is considered by any reasonable individual to be an oddity or an aberration of nature, depends at times upon the individual having the opinion.  I think you will agree that decades ago, as compared to now, a greater percentage of the population would have the opinion that a gay person, and certainly a gay couple, would have been somewhat of an aberration or oddity -- that is, as compared to the apparent norm in nature, and apparently as judged by the then more powerful church.   

But, via whatever dynamics, the percentage of the population offering the opinion that the gay individual or the gay couple is an oddity or an aberration has decreased considerably -- thereby allowing a progression toward the idea that these very slight aberrations of nature will be considered less distanced from the "normal" with the passage of each decade. 

There seems to be a primary and a secondary as related to the gay issue. The straight or heterosexual individual, via a function of nature, addresses the primary, which is the perpetuation of the species, and the gay individual, perhaps by accident or choice, addresses the secondaries -- pleasure, love/companionship, and freedom.

Of course the heterosexual also addresses pleasure, love, companionship, and freedom, but as a consequence of these attentions, the species is assured perpetuation by adequate reproduction.

Although the gay individuals and couples do not offer the greatest pressure toward ensuring the perpetuation of the species -- as you've stated, they do offer some.

The issues we seem to have touched upon are -- freedom for the individual, the perpetuation of the species, the saving of the planet from overpopulation, and the satisfaction of the human needs of companionship, love, and sex.

The idea of "normal", as related to the gay issue, is perhaps related to the idea of how far a behavior deviates from the most common functions found in nature that have evolved to perpetuate the existence of the species.  Given the evolution of humans toward more psychic complexity ... with great expanses in abilities ... our opinions of what is normal is surely extended to greater limits.  The limits to which we extend our behavior however, could, if not reasonably contained, place our existence in jeopardy, and that of our home, the earth. 

As a coincidence, the small excerpt below, from an article released today relates somewhat to our discussion.

Would You Refrain From Having Children To Save the Planet?

The thought is repulsive to many people, especially among the religious. But experts acknowledge that cutting back on births is a sure-fire way to mitigate the consumption-fueled destruction of the environment. ... general physician Pippa Hayes, 56, said her profession should encourage people to have smaller families. "Doctors should be promoting replacement number of children; two per couple, one per single parent," she prescribed. "We don't need to do this by coercion, we just need to talk about it." ... (The Guardian & Truthdig)

[ronchamblin]

Oh.... Sorry.  Thought I'd try to make some sense.  I'll do better next time sir.  Just like to play with these things.  Good evening sir. Love.

[ronchamblin]

your points, such as they are, are irrational and rely on non existent causal relations between unrelated things.  Im sure it sounds good in your head, but its just not cricket when you come right down to it.

On second thought, I consider my post quite rational ... and the causal relations sound.

Would you sir, care to point out the particulars as to why you believe that I am irrational, and the specifics as to any lack of causal relations? 

From those who have the time, and the desire to help a fellow human, I am always open to assistance from any lay psychologists regarding my efforts to gain and maintain a reasonable level of sanity.