
Tim Cook Speaks Up - replicatorblog
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-30/tim-cook-im-proud-to-be-gay
======
ForrestN
I am incredibly grateful to Cook for this, not least because of how it will
affect young gay people.

When I was a child, I felt generally good about myself. I was reasonably
smart, well-spoken, curious, and so on, and I wanted to do something important
with my life. Some nagging part of me suspected I was gay from very early on,
but I resisted it intensely. I wasn't really afraid of being mistreated,
although I probably should have been. People were already calling me names so
I wasn't worried about that. More important for me was my sense that being gay
meant being marginal.

There hasn't been a gay President, and at least when I was a child there
weren't many gay people visible to me at all. The image of gay people
presented to me were not powerful, focused on frivolous things, and consumed
by attitude and lifestyle. If I wanted to do something important, I couldn't
possibly be gay. It just didn't fit.

Knowing that the CEO of not only the most powerful company, but also the most
admirable company, is gay would have helped me enormously. I always wanted
apple products even before I could afford them, and this would have meant a
clearly visible path forward. I can't imagine how happy this must be making
some confused young people, given how happy it's making me right now.

~~~
dwild
At first I didn't like the news. Tim Cook is gay, so what? I though 5 seconds
about it and then I realized how actually we still need this... we still need
to remind people that there's nothing wrong with being gay. That's sad that we
are still at this point.

~~~
angersock
Yep.

Now if only we could remind people that there's nothing wrong with having an
unpopular opinion.

After all, Brendan Eich has done more for computing than Cook ever will.

~~~
Tloewald
Brendan Eich is entitled to his opinion, and a large not for profit is
entitled not to want someone with that opinion as a figurehead.

As for who has done more for what — web browsers were going to have a
scripting language. Is Javascript so astoundingly good that we can only assume
any alternative would have been worse?

~~~
downandout
I don't believe in the cause that Eich donated to. But taking away someone's
job over a political donation is preposterous and disturbing. If he had
donated to a liberal cause and was forced out because conservative employees
had a problem with it, the entire media would have come down on Mozilla like a
ton of bricks. Instead his resignation was celebrated.

Chilling political discourse by threatening the livelihoods of those you
disagree with is a threat to democracy itself and should not ever be allowed
to happen. Eich's forced resignation was an offense against everything America
allegedly stands for.

~~~
smtddr
_> >I don't believe in the cause that Eich donated to. But taking away
someone's job over a political donation is preposterous and disturbing._

Let's keep in mind nobody legally kicked him out. He left because he couldn't
deal with the consequences of his actions. The law protects your free speech,
but does not protect you from the consequences of it.
[http://xkcd.com/1357/](http://xkcd.com/1357/)

Also, let's not forget how nasty the whole prop8 campaign was...
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_s...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html)
....Eich could have donated to prop- 2,147,483,647, to ban interracial
marriage. It would be his right, but I hope society would backlash at him the
same way as prop-8 donation caused.

~~~
downandout
He was forced out, as everyone is well aware. You are advocating for a society
where political intimidation is acceptable. There are many examples of such
countries around the world. None have worked out well.

~~~
smtddr
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 done discussing this with you.

~~~
scintill76
Since you linked xkcd: [https://xkcd.com/1431/](https://xkcd.com/1431/) It's
easy to look down on interracial marriage bans from our oh-so-enlightened
modern view, but it took a long time to even get there. You have to look at
these ideologies in the context that they were formed in. If the graph is
correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn't have majority
support. (Setting aside what California's specific numbers were.) This isn't
to say that "might makes right", but that Eich expressed his vision for how
society should be, and it's only fair to also consider how the rest of the
society felt about it.

In other words, how do you know views you hold today won't be considered the
vilest bigotry in 30 years? Is your moral compass so special, that you would
have fought for interracial marriage, even if you were born a white in the
southern US in the 1800's?

~~~
icebraining
_If the graph is correct, then when Eich donated, same-sex marriage didn 't
have majority support._

It did among the society composed of Mozilla supporters. This idea that
society is not people you interact and work with (and in this case, even
direct) but the random populace in your general geographic area was wrong
before the Internet, and it's completely wrong today.

If he didn't realize that, I'd say his out of touch with the people he was
supposed to work with.

 _Is your moral compass so special, that you would have fought for interracial
marriage, even if you were born a white in the southern US in the 1800 's?_

What's with this topic and strawmen? Nobody demanded he fought for gay rights.
Most people don't fight for gay rights, and you don't see them get criticized
(in this community). Just not to invest his time and money to fight against
it.

Regardless of either his ousting was justified or not (personally, I'm
conflicted), most arguments here are terrible.

~~~
waps
I find this extremely hypocritical. Does this justify obstructing his career
and publicly nailing him to the cross ? NO.

If you're a liberal : please explain why Mozillans don't have the right to
their own political opinion, right to do whatever they want with their money,
...

If I ever met anyone who expressed this opinion to me, you or anyone else, I'd
do the very best I can to remove them from my presence, company, sabotage
their career, whatever I can.

And I'll feel as smug about it as you. I'm defending freedom and democracy by
doing that.

~~~
icebraining
I specifically said that I'm divided on the issue and I haven't taken position
one way or the other, I just disagree with those particular arguments.

If you want to make me into the enemy, go ahead, but you're the Quixote here.

------
avinassh
Excellent news. I am from India where being gay is a crime in this country.
Leaders of this country believe that being gay is a disease and it can be
'cured'[0]. According to Indian Penal Code 377[1], if you are gay you can be
imprisoned for life. I had a friend and two years ago he committed suicide
because he was gay. In India it's not easy to be gay. Parents and societal
pressures can make anyones life living hell. His parents made his life
horrible, as if he had committed some crime and they never accepted him.
Everyone around him were mocking. After his suicide also, his parents behave
as if it was good riddance for them and they don't miss him at all. And rather
they are happy because now they don't have to answer society.

Just today morning I read a news[2] that a software engineer working in
Infosys was booked for Sec 377 and put in jail. In June 2014, seven people
were booked under Section 377 by the Bangalore Police [3]. So far 200 people
have been prosecuted under this law [4].

That's the reason I don't see any famous Indian, those who work in movies or
HNI, coming out and accepting they are gay. I really hope people in other
countries also encourage actions of Tim Cook so that people have freedom to
express their wishes and sexuality.

[0] - [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/india-health-
minist...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/india-health-minister-
ghulam-nabi-azad-homosexuality-a-disease_n_890143.html)

[1] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code)

[2] - [http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-
story/Sec-377...](http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-
story/Sec-377-slapped-on-Infosys-techie-after-wife-catches-his-gay-acts-on-
spycam/articleshow/44964745.cms)

[3] - [http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-story/Six-
mon...](http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-story/Six-months-after-
SC-verdict-seven-booked-under-homophobic-law/articleshow/36777540.cms)

[4] -
[http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41070](http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41070)

~~~
srean
While what you say is true, for the benefit of the readers not very familiar
with India I would like to add a few things for context. If from the name of
the politician linked by the parent comment you come to the conclusion that
homosexuality is frowned upon only by muslim politicians, you couldnt be more
wrong. India is an incredibly high variance country. In some metros you would
find gay pubs and bars, open kissing on the streets among gay partners with no
one bothered a bit (if your state is one of the right wing ones then YMMV).
Then again there are states (correlated with Hindi and Haryanvi speaking
regions) where parents and family would kill their children, subject them to
community sanctioned gang-rape because they married or proposed to marry
someone considered different. Note that these 'punishments' and 'corrective
measures' have popular sanction within the community and the perpetrators
often voluntarily surrender after the incident.

It is as if India remains frozen in different centuries in different regions,
ranging from the modern to the grotesquely medieval. If you ask your local
hindu rightwinger, its of course all the muslim invaders fault that they have
to keep continuing these practices. Hinduism of course has done nobody no
wrong, just been stabbed in the back (this should sound familiar).

Anal sex (in fact anything apart from missionary position) continues to be a
crime according to law but it is not something that gets enforced unless the
enforcer has some specific axe to grind. That law certainly does not represent
practice. Indian legal system is another weird thing. Most of the laws were
set down by the colonizers, not to set a framework for justice but to
facilitate control. We as Indians have done little to dispose that baggage,
rather it has been actively embraced by those in power to exercise similar
control, often with a lot of popular support.

Quite interestingly, a marginalized community would see nothing wrong in cruel
treatment of another marginalized community, often happily taking the lead in
the harassment. A low caste person in a caste'ist state would see nothing
wrong in hounding someone just because he is muslim, or belongs to a caste
that is even lower. A gay person in such a state may see nothing wrong in
persecuting other minorities.

~~~
avinassh
> In metros you would find gay pubs and bars, open kissing on the streets
> among gay partners with no one bothered a bit

I really doubt this. Kissing in public is highly frowned upon for
heterosexuals only and there will be a shitstorm if gay couple found openly
kissing. Take this incident, happened in September 2014 in Mumbai/Bombay, two
couples were harassed by police just because they hugged publicly[0]. Police
harass couples all the time if they found indulging in PDA. Read this BBC news
report for instance[1].

Wiki [2] says: "Public display of affection is regarded as unacceptable in
India. Kissing and hugging are taboo."

[0] - [http://www.mid-day.com/articles/mumbai-couple-harassed-
fined...](http://www.mid-day.com/articles/mumbai-couple-harassed-fined-for-
hugging-outside-mall/15609152)

[1] -
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7871304.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7871304.stm)

[2] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_display_of_affection#Ind...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_display_of_affection#India)

~~~
srean
> I really doubt this.

You have not been frequenting the right places then. Come to Bombay, come to
Delhi, its a frequent sight outside the gay bars, more so in Bombay than
Delhi. Have to admit that the first time I saw it I was indeed caught by
surprise.

In some places you might get beaten up (yeah even possibly by the cops), or
have acid thrown at your face (this punishment is reserved exclusive for women
and applied mainly when they cut across caste or religious boundaries).
According to many in the the current ruling political party, such acts of
violence are eminently condonable and justified.

As I said, it is very high variance place, I am firmly in my thirties now and
yet I never stop learning / experiencing something new about my country as I
travel. The key is to cut across those invisible boundaries. Come to the North
East its a whole different country, different value system different culture.

Given that you posted about Bangalore current events, I am sure you know of
that sri ram sene idiot
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Ram_Sena](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Ram_Sena)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramod_Muthalik](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramod_Muthalik)

EDIT: Yep!! some downvotes on all of my comments on this thread. Those took a
while to come, I am expecting more. The belief system that I am complaining
about does have their champions, and at politically significant levels.

~~~
argonaut
> EDIT: Yep!! some downvotes on all of my comments on this thread.

I downvoted you because mentioning how you've been downvoted is quite possibly
one of the most dull things you can say on HN.

~~~
zorbo
Downvotes on all your comments is rather rare, and usually an indication of
downvote brigading. Nothing wrong with pointing it out, IMHO.

~~~
snogglethorpe
... and the mention of downvoting was a small part of an otherwise excellent
comment anyway!

------
broodbucket
Being in such a progressive community (i.e. young nerdy people), it's easy to
forget that this is an enormous deal for some people. A friend of mine
recently came out as transgender and the general response was "oh, cool, good
for you". It's hard to fathom what it's like for people who aren't in such a
supportive environment.

There are undoubtedly many people who will no longer purchase Apple products
because of this, and I don't know society can fix this with anything but time.

~~~
efaref
If they won't buy Apple products because the CEO is gay, they probably
shouldn't buy any computers at all, seeing as the entire field is built on the
work of a gay man.

~~~
_pmf_
Konrad Zuse was not gay.

~~~
aikah
hmm ,i guess he is talking about Alan Turing who was literaly sentenced to a
horrible treatment for being gay.

That's one of the greatest shame of UK,it symbolizes bigotery in its purest
form.

~~~
oracuk
It was one of our (many) great failings and as a nation we have accepted that:

Prime Ministers Apology: [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-
apology-to-a...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-
alan-turing)

Royal Pardon: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-
two/10536246/Al...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-
two/10536246/Alan-Turing-granted-Royal-pardon-by-the-Queen.html)

~~~
natch
Is it possible to knight someone posthumously? Has this happened?

~~~
crazypyro
No. No. In fact, in past times ( of kings and queens), one man was killed in a
battle and his brother was given a much higher title because you cannot give
the honorable title to a deceased individual.

~~~
codeoclock
Not only can you not knight deceased people, but when knights die they lose
their title. #QuiteInteresting. #whenwillhnsupporthashtags.

------
kshatrea
This made me well up inside. Being from a country that considers homosexuality
to be illegal (India) and having a close friend who left that country as well
as his religion (Islam) solely due to being gay, I applaud this man's spirit.
It is not only the government that must accept equality of different ways, but
so must society. Religion, culture and political climates are no reason to
deny fundamental human freedoms - the right to have consensual sex with the
people of your choice being one of them. Amazing that the one thing that we
hold up as a pinnacle of political theory - democracy - is the one that keeps
many minorities from exercising their rights. I am sure, for example, that a
referendum on Article 377 would fail in most small Indian towns. Someone
correct me if I am wrong. I hope that prominent Indians take this up as well
(there are at least a couple of Bollywood directors who are rumoured to be gay
as well as at least one business tycoon) and come out of the closet.

~~~
aragot
Tim Cook faces 2 years in jail in Singapore if he has activity even in a
private room.

Three days ago, the Court of Appeal has just judged the law was conform to the
constitution, because everyone is guaranteed equal rights no matter their sex,
race or religion, and this doesn't include sexuality.

The Straits Times: [http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-
crime/stor...](http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-
crime/story/court-appeal-rules-section-377a-criminalises-sex-between-men-
const)

The original judgement:
[https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1348...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1348608/singapore-
judgment-for-377a-29-10-14.pdf)

~~~
cookiecaper
Performing a sexual act is a conscious behavior, wilfully chosen by the
participants (except in cases of rape, which is not relevant to this
discussion). Law is meant to regulate behaviors. It's valid to make sexual
acts illegal. It doesn't violate non-discrimination rights because wilful
participation by _any person_ is just as illegal as participation by _any
other person_. Laws that say "this is legal for people with this involuntary
attribute but illegal for people with a different involuntary attribute" are
discriminatory. If they say "sexual activity with a person of the same sex is
illegal", it's equally illegal for everyone, regardless of that person's
unchangeable, involuntarily physical attributes. Saying some people can do
something (like "only white people can engage in sexual activity with a person
of the same sex") while others can't is discriminatory. Making something
illegal _for everyone_ is not. It's just normal lawmaking.

We may disagree with Singapore and think that most sexual acts shouldn't be
illegal. But how can we go around saying law can't regulate behavior? This is
one of my big problems with the gay "rights" lobby of today -- they're trying
to make it illegal to legislate _basically anything_. If you disagree with the
law, change the law, don't codify sweeping generalizations that set a
precedent of "I was born this way and I can't control it" as an excuse for any
illegal behavior.

Only the most basic principles are protected by things like the American Bill
of Rights, and the specific behavior must be tested by the courts to see if it
conforms to the principles enshrined as fundamental rights.

~~~
courtf
I think your logic is good, but your application is lacking. Same-sex "sexual
activity" is not what has been outlawed in Singapore. There is no law that
fits the description you have outlined and it is essentially a straw-man
argument.

The law that exists states explicitly that anal and oral sex, only between
members of the same sex, is illegal. Both of these acts have been
_specifically_ made legal for a heterosexual pair.

The only difference between these two scenarios? The gender of one
participant. A woman may receive anal sex from a man, but a man may not.
Discrimination based on gender.

~~~
aragot
> Same sex sexual activity is not what has been outlawed in Singapore

Besides that I generally approve your comment, let's quote the section that
was judged by the Court of Appeal 3 days ago as conform to the constitution:

""" Article 377A

Any male person who, in public or in private, commits, or abets the commission
of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of,
any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

"""

------
Jedd
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.

~~~
dodyg
Tim Cook is a Christian. This is a message to the Church.

~~~
blktiger
I have a hard time thinking of anyone as Christian if they ignore the basic
tenants of what the Bible says. Homosexuality is very clearly spelled out as
wrong. So are plenty of other things of course and the Bible doesn't specify
homosexual behavior as any more or less wrong than any other sinful act.
Christians shouldn't be treating homosexuals any different than anyone else,
but that includes letting people know that God views that behavior as sin.

~~~
arnarbi
Millions of Christians don't take the Bible as the literal word of God.
Several Christian churches have no problem with blessing the marriage of gay
couples.

A Christian is just someone who believes in Jesus Christ as a messiah. You are
referring to something much more specific.

~~~
code4life
A christian is someone that believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ, namely
salvation and sanctification. We come to salvation by believing Jesus Christ
is God and his teachings are absolute, and that he is the Word of God, the
Bible. We come to sanctification by striving daily to know God more, which
happens through the indwelling Holy Spirit we receive during salvation and
happens by reading and applying the Word of God in our soul, and then
outwardly through our body.

Being homosexual or lusting after a women in your mind are equally damning,
but rejecting these thoughts and actions and leaving them at the Cross is the
message of the Bible.

~~~
lotsofmangos
Lots, possibly most Christians, consider the bible to be a heavily edited
political work containing aspects of revelation. Some Christians explicitly
deny the bible as a historical work and even go as far as to refuse to base
their beliefs on the idea that Jesus had to exist, Jefferson being a notable
example. For my money, I am in agreement with him that Paul's stuff shouldn't
be trusted as far as you could throw it, but then I am not a Christian.

------
colinramsay
Strangely enough I'd see pictures of him at some gay pride thing and it never
even occurred to me he might be gay. I think, more accurately, it didn't
trigger anything in my brain that thought it mattered either way. Obviously
this is the way it should be!

It seems like Tim Cook isn't under any pressure to publicly announce this, so
it seems he's doing it as a way of leveraging his position to help others who
are experiencing adversity. Some will say this is a stunt for Apple, and no
doubt it does draw attention to Apple in a way, but I think you'd have to be
pretty cynical to say that this is anything more nefarious than an admirable
gesture.

~~~
computerjunkie
_> >> it didn't trigger anything in my brain that thought it mattered either
way_

This. It doesn't matter at all. Its great that people are embracing their
sexuality, but there was no need to come out to the press about it. It doesn't
change the way I see Apple as a company or even Tim Cook. He is still the same
person before and after this article.

~~~
steve-benjamins
>> there was no need to come out to the press about it

Sure there was. Here's Cook on why it was worth caming out to the press about
it:

"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."

------
Bud
In case you think this is no big deal, here's the updated list of Fortune 500
CEOs who are openly gay:

Tim Cook

~~~
adventured
What does being openly gay mean exactly? And how do you know there aren't
others on the list?

About 2% of people self-identify as gay. So 10 people on that 500 list are
likely to be gay, give or take.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2014...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2014/07/15/what-percentage-of-the-u-s-population-is-gay-lesbian-
or-bisexual/)

Is your theory that the remaining nine should issue press releases? How do you
know others aren't openly gay with the only people that matter: friends,
family, loved ones; as opposed to feeling the need to broadcast it to the
media.

Straight people don't go around declaring their sexuality, nor ever feel the
need to. Gay people shouldn't feel the need to either. That is a critical
hallmark of equality.

Do I have to email the press to declare that I'm openly gay and running a
Fortune 500 company?

Should I declare that I'm openly straight and running a Fortune 500 company?

It's an absurd premise, and it presumes that we all need to be declaring our
sexuality. That another person has a right to know my sexual orientation. It's
not only false but disgusting.

~~~
mdavidn
About 50% of people self-identify as female. Why are there only 26 female CEOs
in the 500?

~~~
WorldWideWayne
Women are 97 percent of preschool and kindergarten teachers, 80 percent of
social workers, 82 percent of librarians and 92 percent of dietitians and
nutritionists and registered nurses.

Is that a problem too?

~~~
alexbecker
The usual answer is "yes", but am I correct in assuming you think it's "no"?

~~~
WorldWideWayne
I don't know. I don't _think_ so ~ what's the rationale? How do you know that
perfect equality presents as perfectly equal percentages of any given
profession?

I wonder what the ratio of male/female food servers is? If they are roughly
equal, would you say we have true equality among food servers or is something
else going on?

~~~
exodust
Exactly. Stepping back a bit, in nature there are all sorts of variation and
swings in numbers from one characteristic to another.

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.

~~~
alexbecker
> It was simply how the cards fell for that class due to most girls in the
> school NOT being interested in electronics.

It seems likely that the fact that so few girls expressed an interest in
electronics is a result of differences in the way society treats men and
women. Whether or not this is inherently a bad thing is something I think can
be reasonably debated (and at great length), but ultimately I think it is.

------
s_q_b
While everyone already knew, the act of public announcement is one of great
meaning and catharsis. Coming out is an important event for a gay person, and
for a prominent person such as Tim Cook, for our society as well. As an ally,
congratulations for having the courage to be who you are.

~~~
flexie
Everyone except me, apparently :-)

~~~
goatforce5
You subscription to Out magazine must have lapsed. He was their #1 most
powerful gay man or woman in American last year:

[http://www.out.com/out-
exclusives/power-50/2013/04/10/power-...](http://www.out.com/out-
exclusives/power-50/2013/04/10/power-list-2013?page=0,4)

I think it was one of those things where everyone knew it, but no one talked
about it because it just wasn't that big a deal.

~~~
mikestew
As a man who is straighter than most measuring rulers, you'll forgive me if I
missed that issue. :-) Myself, I had heard murmuring, but I never cared enough
to confirm. Just kind of "meh, ya gotta figure there's at least _one_ Fortune
500 CEO who's gay. Now to the issue at hand: how's my AAPL stock doing?"

Now, I'm not saying that isn't an important announcement. I have to admit that
even Mr. Straighter-than-Straight over here found his eyes kind of welling up
while reading Tim's words. Powerful stuff, and a great example for those
coming of age while dealing with who they are. But as a person whose portfolio
is weighted way too heavily in AAPL, and an owner of lots of stuff with apples
on them, I no more care about who Tim Cook shares his bed with than I do about
what sports team he favors. That's his own business, and doesn't affect me in
the slightest.

In summary, not everyone knew it if only because some of us don't care enough
one way or the other to find out.

~~~
goatforce5
I went and checked the stock price after I read the headline about Cook coming
out, but before I read his statement. I'm a bad person.

"His truest loyalty, beyond even Apple, may be to the Auburn Tigers football
team, whose memorabilia is said to stud his home and office."

...says Gawker. So now you know that too.

------
scragg
I am a white male married to a black female with 2 mixed kids living in Texas.
While we haven't experienced much bigotry our way, it has happened. The first
time I was filled with disbelief and shortly after rage while my wife (then
gf) cried.

Our lives would be different if we were born a generation ago. Thank you MLK
and Tim Cook.

~~~
dwild
Have you experienced that only from older people? We can only hope that this
kind of bigotry go away with new generations.

~~~
scragg
Older. Negative experiences with younger people were just ignorant and
probably did not intend harm. Some older folks will say things with pure hate
and complete disregard to our feelings. I understand when Cook mentions the
empathy you gain when being a part of a minority. I get anxious when walking
into a restaurant that I am unfamiliar with. I think to myself... are we are
going to be welcome here, is someone going to say something, what should I do
if that happens etc. I've never had these feelings the first 25 years of my
life.

On the other hand, there were occasions complete strangers (usually older)
have said very nice things to us in public. These positive experiences greatly
out number the negative.

~~~
dwild
We still have hope then, thanks!

------
praptak
I found this one very striking: _" Still, there are laws on the books in a
majority of states that allow employers to fire people based solely on their
sexual orientation."_

Could anyone provide details? I wonder whether it is an explicit "Being gay is
grounds for firing" or rather just plain lack of protection from firing for
being gay?

~~~
GI_Josh
I'm no expert, but I suspect this is just referring to work "at will" states,
where you can be fired without being given a reason. Thus, it could actually
be for anything: Your orientation, your work performance, that ugly shirt you
wore yesterday. Doesn't matter.

~~~
chrisBob
The issue is that there _are_ specific protections for things like age, race
and religion, but not sexual orientation. I consider orientation, like race,
to be something that you are born with that deserves the same protections.

~~~
wtbob
Of course, there's a huge difference between orientation and behaviour. One
can't help how one's born, but one can help how one behaves.

~~~
mkr-hn
There's no good reason for an employer to require me to be celibate and single
for life.

------
dsjoerg
The shocking news here is that Tim Cook is religious.

~~~
mikeash
Indeed. Oh, he's gay, we all knew that. Wait, the CEO of Apple is a Christian?
That I did not know. Judging by the comment thread here, it seems to be new to
a lot of people. It's not a big deal, but it did surprise me. It's easy to
assume that a gay man living in the Bay Area is going to be an atheist.

~~~
jshevek
He is gay, white, male, lives in the bay area, is a brilliant CEO of a tech
company...

Yes, a lot of reasons to think he would most likely be completely non-
religious, if not atheist.

I didn't know he grew up in the south, though.

~~~
refurb
Stop putting people in convenient boxes!

~~~
mikeash
But it's so convenient!

------
bobcostas55
>I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God
has given me.

Americans are so weird.

~~~
Fastidious
One of the things my father told me when I was very young was, you should not
be proud of things you cannot control (birthplace, sex, race, etc.). He also
told me that God (or gods) do not exist. I have not found a reason to discard
those two.

~~~
acangiano
Some people take issue with the word 'pride', because you can't really say
'I'm proud to be straight'. When Tim Cook says, 'I'm proud to be gay' however,
what he's really saying is, 'Contrary to what society expects, I am not
ashamed of being gay, because there isn't anything shameful about it.'

~~~
wicker
I completely agree with this interpretation. I'm gay and I don't find it
something to be proud of -- same as how I don't find my brown hair or blue
eyes things to be particularly 'proud' of. Unfortunately, saying "I'm not
ashamed to be gay" may be more accurate but it also feels like I'm agreeing to
frame the conversation in terms of whether being gay is something to feel
ashamed about. I don't even want that idea tied to it so, in the absence of
other options, I'll err on the side of gay pride.

I didn't think it would matter to read this from Tim Cook but it turns out I
feel very encouraged by his words. When he says "engineer" among his
attributes, well, I'm also an engineer and it gives me a sense of possibility.

~~~
acangiano
Role models are hugely important. I never found Joan Rivers particularly
funny, but I noticed on Twitter how her passing truly upset many female
comedians. It turns out that funny or not, she was a pioneer as a female
comedian and in turn managed to inspire a whole new generation of female
comedians who felt, as you aptly put it, a sense of possibility.

That's why if we want to be successful in diversifying the world of
programming we need Tim Cook to come out, we need successful women and
minorities to be vocal about their passion and work in our field (much more so
than the usual narrative of "tech discriminating against X").

------
Mahn
I wish we lived in a society where people weren't pressured into "publically
acknowledge" their sexual orientation just because it's different than the
norm. You don't see heterosexual CEOs publically acknowledging they are
banging their wife, why should it be different for other sexual orientations?
Just let everyone be.

~~~
adrianb
Heterosexual CEOs have wives...

~~~
simonrobb
Um. Women can be CEOs too.

~~~
adrianb
My point was: heterosexuals can be married. They don't need to make
statements, they can just bring their husband/wife to the company party.

------
tomasien
Warning: for the sake of your faith in HN and in humanity, do not read this
thread, especially not from the bottom up. I did - big mistake, day ruined.

~~~
general_failure
I was going to close the tab until I saw your comment. So much entertainment
below. Don't miss it!

~~~
tomasien
OMG please miss it

------
unknownBits
I am hetero, and I always asked myself: why all that fuzz about people being
gay or anything else. I don't need to be proud to be gay or hetero or
whatever, I just don't get it.. I have gay friends and never had anything
against people with other sexuality, but I truly hate the Gay Pride in our
country. I think it is pathetic to be proud of your sexual orientation and
feeling a need to show that off.

This will definitely cost me some points, I know, not being gay and not
promoting them is just dreadful.

~~~
potatolicious
You don't need to be proud of being straight because being straight is the
default - and society doesn't give you any shit for being straight.

Pride - in race, in sexuality, in gender, in whatever else - comes from
ostracism and marginalization. You band together, develop a group identity,
form communities, etc, because the world treats you poorly. Gay Pride is a
development out of necessity, not just for parade floats.

This goes beyond sexuality - there is a massive "geek" community out there
that gathers for conventions, concerts, and whatever else you can think of.
Much of this community formed as a result of ostracism, both real and
perceived.

Ditto race. Blacks, Asians, and Latinos band together - both formally in
organizations, or informally in communities - to combat the racism its members
experience, and support its victims.

When you find any description of people marginalized, odds are you will find
communities and organizations that have formed around it. Pride is a natural
response - a collective "there is nothing wrong with being us!" is a natural
response to a society that tells you that what you are is wrong.

Now, to address your context of your comment - you're incredibly lucky if you
don't "get" gay pride. I think most marginalized people would like to live
like you - never having to belong to a collective to defend your being, or
having society treat you like an individual instead of a constant outsider. To
be in a position where this marginalization is invisible to you is a fortunate
circumstance indeed.

So it's particularly annoying to those of us who are still marginalized in
society - in whatever ways - that you've turned this around to play the
victim. You live an enviable life, where you don't need to band together with
other marginalized people out of desperation or necessity, yet you have the
gall to turn it around as if you're being punished for it.

~~~
byEngineer
I'm Proud Catholic. Now let's see how many down votes I will get. Probably
voted by the same people who apparently don't care about your sex orientation.
Or religion...

Most gays _hate_ Catholic Church. Do they believe in freedoms that they demand
then?

------
wuschel
The "skin of a rhinoceros" \- I liked that the most, as it reflects the
development one makes when being part of a minority, no matter if it is
sexual, financial ethnical or political nature.

------
DonHopkins
I hope he brings back the old Apple logo:
[http://cdn3.pcadvisor.co.uk/cmsdata/features/3343143/Apple_l...](http://cdn3.pcadvisor.co.uk/cmsdata/features/3343143/Apple_logo.jpg)

------
Gigablah
I'd like a world where announcements like this are considered utterly mundane.

~~~
coldtea
We'll first have to pass from the stage were announcement like this are not
that courageous (sure might annoy some BS far right minority who nobody cares
about), and are actually the in vogue thing to say for kudos and hi-fives.

Which I think is were we are now.

The people who really had the guts, "came out" when it really mattered and
made a difference, back in the seventies and eighties.

~~~
matthewmacleod
That's a pretty offensive accusation.

Like Cook points out, the US is still country in which gay people are subject
to life-altering discrimination all the time. Most other countries are even
worse.

I suspect you're overestimating how accepted homosexuality is outside of your
bubble.

~~~
kelvin0
How is that offensive? Clearly homosexuality is much closer to being
mainstream as 20-30 or 50 years ago. TV Shows and movies and music trends all
make it much more acceptable in the mainstream. All he is saying is that it
was much more difficult for people back then to come out, much more than
today. That being said, there is clearly some distance to go until it becomes
egalitarian. That's how I interpreted the comment. Some people could also use
that 'coming out' nowadays to gain some type of social sympathy to their
advantage, which was not the case 50 years ago where they would have been
ostracized or even killed...

~~~
mkr-hn
> _TV Shows and movies and music trends all make it much more acceptable in
> the mainstream._

What you see in mainstream media is the mainstream-approved version, but it's
nowhere close to representative. Queer As Folk had more diversity in
representation in a few seasons than the decade of culture that followed it.

------
darrellsilver
Why do you think he chose to come out now?

~~~
tux3
Perhaps because everyone who cares/matters already knew, there isn't really a
point in denying or hiding it anymore.

A month or two ago some journalist accidentally said it on air if I remember
correctly.

~~~
aikah
Yep on CNBC i believe( I hate that channel,it's just ridiculous). What was
stupid is that one journalist said T.Cook was gay,others insisted he
wasnt.Like "noooooooooooo he's not!" multiple times.

That sums up the whole NBC network for me.

Frankly,nobody cared about Jobs sexual life,and he did a good job at shielding
his family from the media frenzy.

~~~
calvin_c
I'm pretty sure the reporter said that Tim Cook was open about being guy,
which led to everyone reminding him that he isn't, in fact, open about it.

------
mkr-hn
Someone isn't out until they out themselves. Until then, it's gossip and
speculation from second-hand (or worse) sources.

I'm glad the culture around him reached the point where he felt comfortable
and safe being out. Hopefully this will be a kick in the pants to the culture
around me. It's hard to date when most people are in the closet.

------
antirez
Well played, this surely can help because even many of the homophobic idiots
recognize in Tim Cook a role model, and can start questioning their ideas
about diversity.

~~~
DrJokepu
Sadly, that's not how cognitive dissonance works. When people receive new
information that conflicts with their existing beliefs they very rarely update
their beliefs. Instead, they tend to either question the credibility of the
new information or downplay its significance.

~~~
antirez
Well I hope that there is at least a small percentage that can recognize in
their homophobic believes a huge limit and improve. What is otherwise the
thing to do for somebody as regarded as Tim Cook, to remain very private about
their sexuality?

------
kelvin0
I guess Tim Cook and Brendan Eich don't see eye to eye on some issues.

~~~
facepalm
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.

~~~
king_jester
> 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?

~~~
wtbob
> How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not
> inherently discriminatory?

That's begging the question: you're assuming that failure to recognise a
homosexual relationship is a legal restriction, which really doesn't make
sense. I can declare myself King of England, no-one in America will recognise
me as such, but that doesn't impose any legal restriction on me.

There's the side issue of all the other things which 'marriage' acts as a
legal shorthand for, but that is a side issue.

You're also assuming that discrimination is an inherently bad thing; it is, of
course, not. Discriminating between a green and a red light is a pretty useful
survival skill whilst driving, for example. Discriminating between
reproductive and non-reproductive relationships is also useful; there's a
difference.

My own personal view is that marriage is a religious matter, and that the
State should no longer recognise it at all. If two men want to say that
they're married, that's their right, just as it is mine to declare myself
Grand Vizier of the Martian Republic—and no-one should be compelled by
violence (which is what the law ultimately is) to heed either them or me.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
That's a cool view, but not how it works. The 'side issue' you dismiss is
really the center of it: the government denies full participation to a class
of people based on a questionable moral stance. Anything less that recognition
is a 'back of the bus' argument: if the bus goes to the same place, why do you
care if you have to sit in the back?

~~~
facepalm
Well married homosexuals get the right to adopt children (I assume). I don't
think it's just a moral stance. Maybe some people really are convinced that
having two dads is bad for children psychologically. They would probably be
wrong, but it's not a question of morals (unless you dismiss the protection of
children's wellbeing as a goal). I am not sure if science has really shown
it's not bad for children. I personally don't think so, but I can't blame
other people for thinking so.

How does adoption in general work? For example it can happen through "natural
causes" that a child has only one dad and no mother. It seems likely that
having two dads would be better than just one. But if somebody wants to adopt,
they might have to be "better than average"? Like would a single dad have a
good chance of adopting? Or does some office consider the likelihood of a
child's wellbeing in a family - so presumably they would try to find two
parents, not just one, which is discriminatory against singles? And then if
the "adoption office" (or whoever is responsible) has the choice between a
heterosexual and a homosexual couple, things become difficult?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
All that is government meddling in someone else's affairs in the most
egregious way possible. Its not as far as taking kids from single parents etc.
because they don't fit someone's model of a perfect family, but nearly there.

My cousin has 4 kids, and is married to the love of her life Lisa. Their kids
are certifiably the kindest, most considerate kids I know. There's been no
psychological damage, at least not at their hands. Ignorant outsiders may say
mean things but to blame that on these excellent parents would be twisted
logic.

Anywho, the decision about adoption is so far down the road from marriage as
to be a red herring.

~~~
facepalm
Sure, that is what I said in another comment: if you argue homosexual couples
are somehow unfit to raise children, you would also have to question other
people's fitness.

But I think you are wrong about adoption. I think it's one of the main
concerns opponents of gay marriage have. What other rights would people be
concerned about? The other one I can think of is the right to bring your
spouse into your country.

Are people going to the barricades because they don't want gays to be able to
visit their partners in hospital? I rather doubt it. Adoption is one of the
big issues.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Adoption rules are covered under different laws. Why not attack those rules,
instead of marriage? It seems indirect. As you suggest, why not arrest, or
execute, or lobotomize as well? Unmarried people can adopt - so what's the
connection then?

I think, because the argument is thrown up semi-randomly - See! They might
adopt! That would be awful! Just another red herring, saying anything at all
that might convince a voter to strike down the right to marry.

------
leejoramo
> When I arrive in my office each morning, I’m greeted by framed photos of Dr.
> King and Robert F. Kennedy.

Personally, I was struck as much or more by this statement. This certainly
does not follow the standard political & business script that we are force
feed in the USA. I look forward to hearing more from Cook speaking to social
issues.

------
steven2012
This was pretty well known ever since Tim Cook took reins as CEO. I think
Felix Salmon "outed" him at the time, although I don't think Tim Cook ever hid
it, or was ashamed in any respect. He, however, never addressed it publicly
until now.

It's great that he has gone on record to officially address this. I'm curious
though if there will be any repercussions from much less tolerant countries
around the world. Hopefully not, and hopefully this opens up a new era of
acceptance, although some countries that outlaw homosexuality might do stupid
things. Thank goodness they are small and insignificant for the most part,
although the reaction from countries like China and Indonesia worry me.

------
lukeqsee
What struck me about this piece is how effectively and with such clarity it
was crafted: I could hear Tim saying every single one of these words in my
head. To make the written word as convincing and powerful as the well-crafted
spoken word is truly genius.

------
sarciszewski
This thread is growing faster than I can read it. Yeah, Tim Cook coming out as
gay is a positive thing, but it's not particularly novel or revolutionary.

If I were a young closeted gay person and someone said, "Apple's CEO, Tim
Cook, just came out as gay," I wouldn't jump for joy for the future of gay
people in technology. I'd instead make damn sure I didn't carry any Apple
products in public for fear of some stranger connecting the dots and bullying
me. But, hell, I grew up in a very oppressive town. (I also don't own any
Apple products.)

What matters more is that Tim Cook is not the only one to speak up about this.
I'd like to hear more CEOs come out without fear.

~~~
yourad_io
> I'd instead make damn sure I didn't carry any Apple products in public for
> fear of some stranger connecting the dots and bullying me.

This makes little sense in a world where every second device you see is an
iDevice.

~~~
sarciszewski
The key word in my sentence that I believe you overlooked is fear. Fear is
often irrational.

I can guarantee, however, that there's some bully somewhere using the fact
that some poor kid owns an iPod as today's premise for insinuating that his
victim is [insert homophobic slur here]. More than likely, this is happening
in my home town. (Fuck that place.)

------
webXL
Good for him. At first my reaction was "meh", but I think this is a net win
for gays and Apple. Homophobes probably weren't buying many Apple products to
begin with, and potential/reasonable homophobes now see another successful
leader who just so happens to be gay. The message to those people is pretty
clear: better not mistreat people because of their sexual preference; not only
will you look like an ass, but you run the risk of pissing off the person who
might be signing your paycheck one day. Not to mention designing some cool
piece of tech that you brag about owning.

------
tempodox
Props for speaking up like this. My sister is gay and I know what she's been
going through. I still hold out hope that mankind will see the day where
things like that won't matter any more.

------
stevewilhelm
Apple will go to great lengths to steal Microsoft's thunder.

I jest. This is a momentous announcement. But, I look forward to the day when
being a gay CEO (politician, sports figure, etc.) is not newsworthy.

~~~
Shivetya
No, this is because there is a midterm election in a few days.

It has nothing to do with Microsoft or Apple. It is identity politics pure and
simple.

~~~
forgotpasswd3x
Ridiculous. "I wasn't going to vote, but now that Tim Cook came out as gay, I
think I just might!" \- said no one ever.

------
rudeboy347
Big up to Tim Cook for making this move. So many people struggle with issues
of identity and live with or in fear of discrimination. Equal rights and
justice for all.

------
jjoe
Is this submission supposed to remain on the front page of HN? I was confident
the mods would have killed it very early on.

------
eyeareque
It's heart warming to see the world become a better place. I'm glad Tim did
this; While it is a small article, it will be remembered and it will change
some people's live. Just as others have done before him, and will after him,
it will lead us to a more accepting culture that we need to continue to
striving to be.

------
gioioso
I'm happy for not being gay.

Of course, this is not politically correct (because only gays are allowed to
make such a statement).

Did you note anything?

------
zoba
Congrats to Tim! I've been waiting for this for a while. I've wondered though
if he will have any problems traveling to foreign countries now. I don't know
how much he travels, but, Russia has some bad anti-gay propaganda laws so
there's at least one semi-important country to avoid.

~~~
bruceb
He will have no problems. He is the head of one of the most high profile
companies on the planet.

------
_navaneethan
This is the point I admire him irrespective of his sexuality:

 _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._

------
scrumper
This is good, well done Tim Cook. A good event for gay people everywhere, like
any other prominent figure coming out publicly.

"It’s also given me the skin of a rhinoceros"

And doubly well done for rejecting the skincare regime stereotypically
associated with his sexual orientation.

------
danieldelouya
Good for him. Must be a relief.

------
sgt
I mostly agree with the sentiment that this is hardly news-worthy. But I am
sure it does a lot to the self confidence of this minority group (particularly
children, as Cook pointed out), and that can only be a good thing.

------
Wintamute
"I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."

I'm 100% behind this, it's a great article with a great motive but this struck
me as a curious note. What do you think he's getting at?

------
rouma7
one of the many things i appreciate the most about this essay is his sense of
responsibility. its easy to see the leader of a large organization as an
extraordinarily powerful individual, but he notes the seeming smallness of
this announcement. he doesn't aim to change the world, but simply do his part.
the last paragraph is so poignant because we all witness injustices and often
act as bystanders. this is not a new phenomenon, but its important to remember
to look at ourselves first and what we're each doing in our everyday lives

------
paulojreis
"(...) and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me". I
can only imagine the reactions if the same was said by a heterosexual person,
about heterosexual orientation... :)

~~~
ghshephard
That's the entire point being made here though - being straight isn't a
particularly large challenge in today's society. What Tim is saying here, is
that much of his empathy, and ability to appreciate minorities, and the
oppressed, derives directly from being a member of a heretofore marginalized
group. And, his ability to appreciate the importance of diversity, and to
truly understand Dr. King and his message, is a result of that, "gift from
god."

~~~
paulojreis
I understand that point. The impact of something such as this on your shaping
is incommensurable; I can only imagine how much being part of a minority
(particularly, one which is prejudiced, mocked and even attacked) shaped his
way of understanding and appreciating difference.

However, I can't agree with putting it in "that" way ("among the greatest
gifts God has given me"). Even taking into account how much such a thing will
shape a person, it seems exaggerated (to me). It sounds like he is who (and
where) he is because of his sexual orientation. He was, however, born in a
developed (and rich country); he had food, parents and housing; he also
education (and a good one, in great schools) and the privilege of working at
IBM and Apple.

~~~
ghshephard
I was responding to your comment about why this statement would have been
controversial if it had been "being heterosexual among the greatest gifts God
has given me", and explaining why taking pride in being in the
Majority/Dominant group (I am proud to be White, I am proud to be Straight, I
am Proud to be a Man) is so different than taking pride in being a member of a
marginalized group.

Clearly there were a lot of things that put Tim Cook in the position that he
is, far, far, far more important than his orientation; I.E. the fact that he
is on earth, that he is human, born after 2000 BC, etc... are all more
significant, but now we're going down a different rabbit hole than your
original comment.

------
davesque
Excellent news. For someone who has often been described as very private and
opaque, I feel like I understand him a lot better now. Not to mention the
positive social impact this will probably have.

------
brudgers
_Still, there are laws on the books in a majority of states that allow
employers to fire people based solely on their sexual orientation._

That includes Alabama where Tim Cook was born and attended university.

------
redguava
This is great. Well done!

------
equoid
I don't think it is an original observation but Steve Jobs chose a very
capable and worthy successor. Tim Cook gets more impressive each time you hear
anything about him.

------
danatkinson
Way to go, Tim! It's a shame that he had to 'come out', but I hope that being
the CEO of one of the world's biggest companies will help the LGBT cause.

~~~
Artemis2
It's a shame that this is so exceptional.

------
ulfw
Kudos to Tim!

------
andrewthornton
What kind of chair is he sitting on in the first image?

~~~
quux
It's a Freedom Chair by Humanscale

------
barking
"I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."

I don't like that statement.

Replace gay with one of white, male or straight and see how it sounds.

------
vayarajesh
Never expected that! but still lot of respect for him.. it takes lot of guts
to speak up being the CEO of the worlds biggest company!..

------
Throwaway1224
I'm prepared to get negative points for this, but who really cares if he is
gay or straight?

~~~
castis
There are a lot of people that care, in both directions. One day in humanity's
future, sexual orientation will be a non-issue. However, this day and age,
there is still a fight to be fought.

I don't care that he's gay, and it's nice that people can be who they are and
not be persecuted for it. However, other countries do far worse than vent
their frustrations about the morality and social pioneering of it all on
messageboards. You're not wrong for asking who really cares in the least bit.
It's actually kind of nice that you don't care. Not from an apathetic
standpoint, but that it's so little of a deal to you that you remain wholly
unaffected.

As weird as this may sound, I wish more people were like you.

------
ngcazz
Wasn't this public knowledge?

------
kphild
It is so extremely sad that society is so evil that this makes a big news.

------
cryowaffle
Good on him, nice work Tim.

------
deepuj
Had he come out earlier, would he still have become CEO?

------
sidcool
Greatness is not a slave to sexual orientation.

------
return0
This shouldn't be even news. Some guy says he's gay? Big whoop, it's 2014
guys.

~~~
mkr-hn
2014: still can't get married, can be fired for what I am, can't donate blood,
still deal with homophobic comments online and in person, still don't see any
non-stereotypical gay characters outside written fiction.

What's so special about 2014?

------
Istof
Who cares, make an iImplant for the Apple fans

------
MrZongle2
This is going to sound callous, but my reaction is: _big deal_.

And this should be everybody's reaction, IMO. I'll explain momentarily.

Being gay isn't easy if you aren't in a supportive environment. Hell, being
gay will get you _killed_ in some cultures and countries. In some places
you'll merely be shunned and disowned by your family and friends. As a
straight guy, I know this. How?

Because for the last 20 years or so, I've heard this again and again. The LGBT
movement is nothing if not vocal and persistent, even to the point of being
heavy-handed. I'm not saying I'm unsympathetic, I'm just saying that if
there's a target demographic for "awareness", I haven't classified to be in
that group for _years_.

So when Tim Cook officially announces his sexuality, I'm well aware that this
isn't something as casually mentioned as being left-handed, having AB- blood
type or a peanut allergy, preferring cats over dogs, or liking the color
yellow. I'm also aware that for LGBT folks who _haven 't_ come out, seeing a
successful person do so can be encouraging and inspiring.

Now regarding my "big deal" reaction...

While civilization will never be without bigots of one form or another, if we
as a society are ever going to get past racial/gender/sexual issues, then
disclosures like Cook's _need_ to be unremarkable. Comparing America's
reaction to Billy Crystal simply _playing_ a gay man on "Soap" in the 80s to
today, it seems like we've come a long way in a relatively short time compared
to other social movements.

By the same token, an incident earlier this year demonstrated that the tech
industry is probably the one of most gay- _friendly_ business sectors to be
in. Ironically, Brendan Eich was attacked, ostracized and shunned for his
beliefs because they _weren 't_ gay-friendly. As an outsider, it does not
appear that being a gay CEO in the California high-tech industry is as much of
a burden as, say, a restaurant owner in Istanbul.

Finally, Tim Cook is worth upwards of $400 million. Like all wealthy
individuals, he is generally insulated from contact with the rest of us simply
because of his lifestyle: he doesn't take the bus, doesn't live in an
apartment or typical suburban neighborhood, and certainly doesn't work in a
cubicle. He likely won't encounter _hate_ unless he tries to personally
negotiate the opening of an Apple store in Moscow or Tehran. He's not a
monster because he's rich (as far as I know he might be a really nice guy),
but he's hardly an "everyman". For what it's worth, I had a similar reaction
when many people were showering Mark Zuckerberg with praise for learning
Chinese: hell, if I was that rich, _I 'd_ have time (and money) to learn
Chinese from the best tutors.

In short, _anyone_ announcing that they're gay _should_ garner a "so what?"
reaction because as a society we _should_ be moving towards a person's actions
being more important than their appearance, beliefs, or sexual orientation.
And a multimillionaire making such an announcement today should elicit yawns
because he is not representative of a typical person.

Edit: Not surprised by the downvote without explanation. Congratulations, sir
or ma'am: _you 're part of the problem._

------
greenpinguin
Go Tim!

------
chenster
Did Steve Jobs know about it?

------
venomsnake
That's weird ... I though he had come out. I remember reading in Nytimes and
Reuters why it was a big deal that Apple will have openly gay CEO a couple of
years ago.

Anyway good for him.

------
notastartup
I had a boss who was gay. Actually lot of gay people in that company. It was
actually the best company I had ever worked for.

------
igay_timcook
Strange, all this debate about homosexuality. I wonder what the conversation
would be like if the truth was known about it...

Epigenetics is the science of how our genes express themselves. They can be
altered by many factors. Environmental, even certain strains of bacteria.

So being gay is actually not the intent of genetics, but an error in the
expression on the sexual orientation gene. This will become very public and
irrifutable in the next decade.

There will literally be a pill that will turn a gay person straight. Where
will the debate lead then? It doesn't really matter. Within two generations,
there will no longer be gay individuals (from erring epigenetics) in first
world countries.

There is a second means of being gay. Neurol pathways are formed which
redirect certain thoughts and impulses in a different way. These are strictly
experience based anomalies, usually caused by trama or
desperation/rationalization. These comprise only a very minor number of the
homosexual population.

Does this change your opinion on anything?

------
rrobbins04
uh..

------
Ad_Nauseam
Practically everybody knew that Tim Cook is gay, that's why they said that
Apple users are faggot and only faggot use Apple products.

~~~
szatkus
Well, people called it gayphone before Cook became CEO.

------
EdSharkey
Who cares about Tim Cook's personal life and preferences? Answer: no one
should care.

Tim Cook is a exceedingly boring man talking about the most
boring/banal/useless topic there is: sex preferences. Get out of my face
identity pols!

------
socceroos
I'm not sure why this is on Hacker News? I didn't think this was the place for
these types of articles. Perhaps I'm wrong in that assumption, but I'm unsure
how HN differs from Reddit if this is the case.

------
gchokov
$AAPL down 1% pre-market :)

~~~
rjtavares
That would value a CEO's sexuality at 6 billion dollars. I sincerely hope that
has nothing to do with this news.

~~~
eloisant
Well, shareholders may fear that some conservative consumers will want to
boycott Apple because of that announce. Not completely illogical.

Or they think that other shareholders will think that and lead to a drop in
the share value.

~~~
atonse
Apple, among other tech companies, has been championing gay rights pretty
publicly for a few years now. Also they've had quite a stance on renewable
energy and rebuffed investors that were climate-change deniers.

I think the type of people that would boycott Apple over this, have already
boycotted apple over the other things.

------
general_failure
While this is already known, this does show us the world is not black and
white. Tricky the whole thing.

Mozilla as a company fights for privacy and creates a lot of free software for
the general good. But people couldn't stand it's CEO being anti-gay. Now we
have the most dangerous (imo) company of all time whose CEO is gay.

Ah, good times.

~~~
stephenr
The most dangerous company of all time?

~~~
general_failure
Yes, dangerous because of it's reach. I am not very excited to live in a
walled garden. A massive one as that.

~~~
oldmanjay
Do you fear that the world gov't will pass the "everyone must use apple act"
soon?

------
emcrazyone
I simply don't get why he has to mix this article along with Apple's view of
"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 in general, I think it's inappropriate to mix personal views with business
matters. No body fucking cares if your gay or what color you are. If they do,
then they are not people I would want to associate to begin with. What we do
care about, are your products the company produces, support, what you're doing
to fix bugs, etc...

Stop bringing personal BS to the business tables. Cook is way out of line for
using his position at Apple (iPhone6 in the background) as a stage to push
some personal gay message about himself.

~~~
ArtDev
Why does it matter? Because of intolerance.

The tech community needs a good hard look in the mirror. Most of us are white,
straight and male.

~~~
P4u1
I work in a tech company and most of our men are gay, seriously. Take a look
around man, it might come as a surprise for you but gays are everywhere, IT
included. By the way since when is this news(for hacker news)? Did anyone here
not know he's gay(honest question)?

------
_pmf_
Is it OK to be proud to be a gay man?

Is it OK to be proud to be a gay white man?

If you answer one question with yes and one with no, there might be a problem.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
(Assuming you're talking about in the Western world)

Do you not see a difference between being gay and being white? Really? Is it
not obvious that one group has been historically repressed, attacked,
discriminated against, etc. by its 'counter group', whilst the other has been
the oppressor? These are about the most simplistic facts in social history, so
I find it very difficult to believe you unaware of them; it seems more likely
that you're choosing to ignore them in order to push some bizarre agenda. Just
be honest and state the point you're actually trying to make.

~~~
meowface
I actually think he makes a reasonable point, if you read his last sentence
carefully.

Realistically, it doesn't make much sense to be "proud" of being gay, just
like it doesn't make sense to be "proud" of being white.

It makes sense to be proud for staying strong in the face of discrimination
and hate speech, but being gay itself is not worthy of any pride.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
In this context, when someone says they are "proud to be gay", I think they
are strongly inferring the "staying strong in the face of discrimination"
aspect since, unfortunately, that's pretty much a given. Also, historically,
people have thought being gay is something to be 'ashamed' of, and I think
this use of 'proud' is in contrast to that - cf. gay pride marches. No one
ever thought being white was something to be ashamed of.

~~~
V-2

        No one ever thought being white was something to be ashamed of.
    

Really? Quite a lot of people think so.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
Maybe, but only out of guilt, as a reaction to what has occurred throughout
history. Not 'just because' they're white.

~~~
wuliwong
It is not only out of guilt. In sports or music, many people are ashamed of
being white. In the U.S. it is nearly a foregone conclusion that you will not
be a good musician or athlete if you are white. White kids who desire to
pursue those things definitely can feel shame which has no feeling of guilt
attached to it. I'm not trying to make some grand statement about racism or
the effects, just giving a pretty cut and dry counter point to the idea that
white people never feel shame about their skin color aside from guilt.

~~~
V-2
I think the notion that "no one ever thought being white was something to be
ashamed of [for reason other than guilt]" does not stem from observaton or
experience as much as it is an _ideological_ construct - ie. it is needed to
fit nicely into a preassumed political theory

------
wozniacki
One has to wonder how - in this world filled with anonymity enabling services
like Tor or even Pastebin - it is still possible to hide a secret, out in the
open.

This is old news. Felix Salmon spelled it out in no uncertain terms when
Mr.Cook was first named CEO, in 2011. [1]

The best place to hide something - not that Mr.Cook himself wanted his
sexuality hidden; he merely did not want it to grab all the attention, away
from Apple - is still in plain sight.[2]

This also begs the question, if enough vested interests or powerful people
want something not to be talked about, is the fact still worthy of its truth
value?

This applies to the trivial case at hand - of Mr. Cook's sexuality - as it
does to the countless secrets of great gravity that were largely ignored -
concerning at least a dozen nations not including the U.S. - that Wikileaks
exposed.

[1] Don’t ignore Tim Cook’s sexuality

[http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/25/dont-
ignore...](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/25/dont-ignore-tim-
cooks-sexuality/)

[2] The Purloined Letter

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Purloined_Letter#Plot_summa...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Purloined_Letter#Plot_summary)

~~~
wozniacki
Huh!

What reason would you have to find even this observation disagreeable?

~~~
Karunamon
Probably because you bring Wikileaks to an unrelated Apple article. There is a
time and a place for discussing the failings of the world's governments. A
thread discussing a CEO who is able to come out of the closet is not that time
or place.

