6 ms·

I guess Tim Cook and Brendan Eich don't see eye to eye on some issues.

by kelvin0 12y ago

nailer 12y ago
I don't share Eich's views, but he's 58 - the cultural concepts that made it difficult for Tim Cook to be public about his sexuality may be the same thing that makes Eich against gay marriage. Edit: I can't comment due to rate limits, but a poster below hasn't read what I wrote above and is suggesting I am saying the men grew up in different times. I am suggesting the exact opposite: they grew up in the SAME period/culture.
- gergles 12y ago
  Tim Cook is 53. Are you suggesting there's some sort of swell change that occurred in 5 years?
  - codeoclock 12y ago
    Tim Cook is 53 and gay. Eich is 58 and straight. Very different backgrounds.
    - ted1961 12y ago
      Eich is also 53, the same age as Cook. Both were born in 1961 Where do you get you mistaken certitude from? And why would 5 years age difference matter even if it were true?
  - nailer 12y ago
    No, the opposite - I assume most people know Tim Cook is around the age most CEOs are. Both men grew up in a time where homosexuality was considered to be immoral. Growing up in such an environment ingrains those beliefs, hence gay people coming out in their 50s and other men in their 50s who are surrounded by people that accept gay relationships still not being comfortable with that. Off topic, it kind of bothers me that I got mischaracterised and couldn't reply for such a long time due to the silly HN rate limit.
facepalm 12y ago
Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. But they presumably don't see eye to eye on the subject of gay marriage.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- king_jester 12y ago
  > Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. How is that even possible? How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory?
  - facepalm 12y ago
    I am not saying that I am of that opinion, but it seems valid to me to be of the opinion that marriage should be for the protection of families with the potential to have children (for example). It's just an opinion - isn't that what democracies are for? Marriage comes with specific rights and obligations (like, presumably most controversial, adoption and "importing" spouses into the country). Somehow society makes rules for who gets those rights and obligations. Would you say for example everybody should have the right to import people into the country? For example why don't I get the right to bestow citizenship onto people whom I really like - do I need to fuck them to prove I love them? Isn't that discriminatory? Or why stop at gay marriage - what about polyarmory? I am not against polyarmory, but suppose I have 100 lovers all over the world and I want them all to become US citizens? Why can't I just marry them all? Maybe it would be fair if every citizen would get the license to bring n people into the country, no matter if married or not? Again, I am not against gay marriage, I just want to demonstrate that there can be aspects that can be argued about. I don't know enough about adoption to comment. Can everybody adopt children? Or do you have to prove you are a healthy couple, or wealthy enough, or whatever? Personally I think once you argue homosexuals are not fit to adopt, you would have to consider all other sorts of criterions as well (for example surely many heterosexual couples are not fit to have children, or less so than some homosexual couples). Adoption is complex, though.

I guess Tim Cook and Brendan Eich don't see eye to eye on some issues.

by kelvin0 12y ago

I guess Tim Cook and Brendan Eich don't see eye to eye on some issues.

I don't share Eich's views, but he's 58 - the cultural concepts that made it difficult for Tim Cook to be public about his sexuality may be the same thing that makes Eich against gay marriage. Edit: I can't comment due to rate limits, but a poster below hasn't read what I wrote above and is suggesting I am saying the men grew up in different times. I am suggesting the exact opposite: they grew up in the SAME period/culture.

gergles 12y ago
Tim Cook is 53. Are you suggesting there's some sort of swell change that occurred in 5 years?
- codeoclock 12y ago
  Tim Cook is 53 and gay. Eich is 58 and straight. Very different backgrounds.
  - ted1961 12y ago
    Eich is also 53, the same age as Cook. Both were born in 1961 Where do you get you mistaken certitude from? And why would 5 years age difference matter even if it were true?
- nailer 12y ago
  No, the opposite - I assume most people know Tim Cook is around the age most CEOs are. Both men grew up in a time where homosexuality was considered to be immoral. Growing up in such an environment ingrains those beliefs, hence gay people coming out in their 50s and other men in their 50s who are surrounded by people that accept gay relationships still not being comfortable with that. Off topic, it kind of bothers me that I got mischaracterised and couldn't reply for such a long time due to the silly HN rate limit.

facepalm 12y ago

Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. But they presumably don't see eye to eye on the subject of gay marriage.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
king_jester 12y ago
> Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. How is that even possible? How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory?
- facepalm 12y ago
  I am not saying that I am of that opinion, but it seems valid to me to be of the opinion that marriage should be for the protection of families with the potential to have children (for example). It's just an opinion - isn't that what democracies are for? Marriage comes with specific rights and obligations (like, presumably most controversial, adoption and "importing" spouses into the country). Somehow society makes rules for who gets those rights and obligations. Would you say for example everybody should have the right to import people into the country? For example why don't I get the right to bestow citizenship onto people whom I really like - do I need to fuck them to prove I love them? Isn't that discriminatory? Or why stop at gay marriage - what about polyarmory? I am not against polyarmory, but suppose I have 100 lovers all over the world and I want them all to become US citizens? Why can't I just marry them all? Maybe it would be fair if every citizen would get the license to bring n people into the country, no matter if married or not? Again, I am not against gay marriage, I just want to demonstrate that there can be aspects that can be argued about. I don't know enough about adoption to comment. Can everybody adopt children? Or do you have to prove you are a healthy couple, or wealthy enough, or whatever? Personally I think once you argue homosexuals are not fit to adopt, you would have to consider all other sorts of criterions as well (for example surely many heterosexual couples are not fit to have children, or less so than some homosexual couples). Adoption is complex, though.