[11Series]

Originally Posted by MONSTER11

Exactly, so why do they feel need to fight DADT? Just go on about your buisness and don't promote your sexuality and everything would be fine. I think there are way more important things to worry about in this country than whether or not someone can openly serve.

Why fight DADT? Because there were thousands of people who were just going on about their business and weren't promoting their sexuality, and everything WASN'T fine.

They were dishonorably discharged, and had their lives ruined instead. They were forced to violate military code of conduct against lying. They were forced to hide legally married spouses and loved ones from the military, even when wounded and laying in a military hospital bed at the edge of death.



Defeating DADT now makes it so that these same people can re-join the military, go on about their busines, and now that DADT is gone, everything NOW will be fine.

"Support the Troops" means more than just "Support the Homophobic Straight Troops".

[wahoowa99]

I joined this website just to reply.

Laws like DADT and DOMA are what contribute to the stereotype – and subsequent inequality – that homosexual people experience. They single out people based on orientation - something which ONLY becomes relevant with sexual relations. Because sexual relations are something meant to be private and personal, I do not see how orientation is at all relevant in things such as the military and even legality of marriage. Why does the state care who you are getting it on with... they aren't going to be in there with you (I'd hope).

This stereotype of gay people being flamers - parading around with rainbow flags and cross dressing - it is what is holding back equality. YES some people act this way, but it is NOT because of their orientation, it is because of their personality. I know straight men who are MUCH more flamboyant and feminine than some of the gay men that I know. Orientation does not define a person, and certain legislation really needs to come around and realize that.

Many people are becoming much more open minded – the more people who encounter homosexuals without a flamboyant personality, the more they will judge people based on personality, rather than snapping to a pre-conceived judgment based on orientation. (I would ask for a world where there are no judgments, however this is not realistic. It is human nature to judge, what’s important is what you are basing your judgments upon.)

I myself am homosexual, and the majority of my friends are straight. They like cars and I like cars – they like sports and I like sports – we get along because of our interests. We are friends, and I they do not care who I’m going to be doing when they aren’t around because they aren’t going to be there. I hate that I’ve been at their weddings, even been one’s best man, and I cannot ask anything similar from them in return. They can’t celebrate in my joy (and even if I had a ‘ceremony’ it wouldn’t be the same, everyone knows its not the same.) And this is all solely because it is not legal.

The reason it’s not legal is this sentiment which, unfortunately, has become somewhat ‘American.’ Its as if its “cool” to be unaccepting of gays – that it will in a way make people more confirmed in their heterosexuality – removing the possibility that GOD FORBID anyone were to think they were gay. Something that should, if it were to happen, not be taken seriously anyway, as those assumptions would be formed by perceived stereotypes – sterotypes that do not accurately examine a person and that are at their core in no way related to sexuality.

Many people argue that ‘gays’ bring it on themselves, by living in gay communities or participating in gay parades or going on gay cruises. I personally have not been a member in any of these types of self-segregating things, nor do I wish to be, however I can understand why they exist. Gay people (not all, but most) have a sense that because they are gay, it HAS to affect their lives beyond just who they sleep with. There is no other option. Because other options, in their minds, are not accepting. This is the sentiment I grew up with, and resented it from the start. After gaining the confidence to eventually move past it, I realized just how false it is. I was truly astounded that my friends – college athletes, fraternity brothers, enlistees – none of them cared. Because they knew me long enough and well enough to know that I was me, no matter who I was sexually interested in. I just wonder if they would have taken the time to get to know me, were they to have known upfront that I was homosexual. I would like to think so.

I am not a skeptic – I think people are good and they have good intentions. The issue regarding homosexuality is luckily become less of one – less and less are partaking in the ‘sentiment’ that can at times seem to be so pervasive. I hope that one day it is not given a second thought. I feel like the more rallies and “gay pride” parades there are, the more people get sucked into that sentiment of “gays are weird we don’t want to associate with them.” I’m glad DADT has been repealed, I just hope that no one tries to pull anything “pro-gay movement” (there’s no such thing as a ‘straight’ movement… sexual orientations are not worthy of movements). The more people that realize that this issue is in fact a non issue, the less relevant it will come to the generations after us.

Sorry for the novel… didn’t mean to preach and didn’t mean to get off topic. Just thought I’d reflect my thoughts on the issue, I don’t due this much as I don’t necessarily see it worthy of discussion. Just thought some might appreciate the perspective of someone who is actually homosexual. Anyway, thanks for the time. Enjoy your bimmers – I’ve got an X5 on order that I cant WAIT to get my hands on

[1997gtx]

^ Perfectly said.

[X6M-adness]

Originally Posted by MONSTER11

Exactly... So what is the big deal??? Why do gay people find it necessary to let everyone know they are gay? If they just keep their mouth shut everything is A-okay...

They don't feel its necessary to tell everyone they are gay... they feel its necessary to be themselves. Do you realize every time you go "oh damn that girl's hot" you are telling someone you are straight. Why do gay people not get to act in a similar fashion...

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by X6M-adness

They don't feel its necessary to tell everyone they are gay... they feel its necessary to be themselves. Do you realize every time you go "oh damn that girl's hot" you are telling someone you are straight. Why do gay people not get to act in a similar fashion...

Perhaps because guy/girl relations are natural, hardwired and same-sex orientation is viewed as an aberration?

It does seem that the real agenda is to get others to not just accept but to approve of homosexuality. I think everyone should keep their personal business, well, personal. The military has had DADT for years and it has worked well for those who want to keep their business to themselves, not so well for those who want everyone else to acknowledge and approve of their choices.

[X6M-adness]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Perhaps because guy/girl relations are natural, hardwired and same-sex orientation is viewed as an aberration?

It does seem that the real agenda is to get others to not just accept but to approve of homosexuality. I think everyone should keep their personal business, well, personal. The military has had DADT for years and it has worked well for those who want to keep their business to themselves, not so well for those who want everyone else to acknowledge and approve of their choices.

...exactly. Everyone should keep their business personal.

So, in one sense, that would mean that no one should be publicly having sex, because thats their personal business. In this instance, gay people would be in exactly the same position as straight people... they are only going to have sex in private and w/ someone else who is interested. Considering that that person would not be straight, it would in no way be 'divulging information' to someone who does not already know it, as only them and their sexual partner are the ones engaging in this 'information.' No one would know except the two... because it is personal. Like you said.

If what, on the other hand, you are saying, (and this is probably more likely) is that that gay people should have to hide their sexuality, because it is their actual sexuality that is something "personal," then straight people would also not be able to publicly discuss: their wives, their girlfriends, what girls they think are hot, etc. Nor would they be able to state that they are straight. Because, with your logic, it would be considered "too personal."

I think you should read the long post above. It points out that sexuality applies only to what someone does behind the closed doors of a bedroom. Everything else is just stereotype. Not everyone that is gay acts like the stereotype, and therefore an organization such as the military should not assume that, nor discriminate because of it. Don't judge someone because of who they have sex with (thats just weird... you arent there, why do you care), do it because of the way they act

[X6M-adness]

I would also like to question what "hard-wired" means... You don't think that gay people are born gay?

...Why would they choose a path that includes so much discrimination and hardship if they didnt have to. "path" isnt necessarily the right work because it implies that one's sexuality defines their life. which it shouldnt. but, because of society, to some this is what ends up happening.

[1997gtx]

Originally Posted by OldArmy

Perhaps because guy/girl relations are natural, hardwired and same-sex orientation is viewed as an aberration?

What does "hardwired" mean? And viewed as an "aberration" by whom? Certainly not the law, which is all that matters in this case.

You certainly don't have to "approve" of anything as an enlisted person. You might not approve of the orders you get, but you still follow them. Don't like it? Don't join.

[Wizzle335]

Originally Posted by X6M-adness

I would also like to question what "hard-wired" means... You don't think that gay people are born gay?

...Why would they choose a path that includes so much discrimination and hardship if they didnt have to. "path" isnt necessarily the right work because it implies that one's sexuality defines their life. which it shouldnt. but, because of society, to some this is what ends up happening.

The debate over the "born gay" is a bit of a catch-22 it would seem.

To admit that gays are born that way would imply they were born without the drive to procreate, which would actually be considered an anomally or genetic defect. If a species is unable to procreate or do so in large enough numbers, it goes extinct, and that can't be argued. The human race has become large enough that it is no longer neccessary, but the fact still stands.

However, arguing that they aren't born gay makes it a social issue influenced by environment. The laws of this land (and more importantly God) were not meant to bend to social influence such as this. Using that logic, beastiality and other sexual preferences would have to be deemed appropriate (I am not comparing gays to that, so no flaming please, just an example).

On the military side of the argument. Our DOD is already stretched thin, and funding is being reduced. In order to properly divide the population, male, gay male, female and gay female latrines and quarters would have to be made. Allowing openly gay males to shower and live with straight males would be similar to allowing males to shower with females, someone or many someones will take big issue with that. The shear cost of doing that would be staggering. Also, having soldiers serve with openly gay members is a breach of the original contract, so how is that to be handled? I won't even touch on how many harrassment suits would come up.

Also, I agree with an earlier poster that took issue with forcing society to accept a lifestyle through legislation. I have no issue with my personal friends who are gay. They understand it is my personal choice to not accept that lifestlye, and so long as they do not attempt to force their views on me, I extend them the same courtesy. I will always be willing to tolerate, but accepting and deeming morally correct is a whole other story.

Just my opinion, but maybe I'm old fashioned...

[11Series]

Originally Posted by Wizzle335

The debate over the "born gay" is a bit of a catch-22 it would seem.

To admit that gays are born that way would imply they were born without the drive to procreate, which would actually be considered an anomally or genetic defect.

If you don't believe that people are born with a disposition for sexual preference, when exactly was it that you DECIDED to be attracted to people only of the opposite sex?

If sexual preference is nothing but a decision (with no biological or genetic factors) then you must have been sexually attracted to both males and females at one point in your life, before you made your decision.

Please tell us your story of when you made your personal decision to stop wanting to have sex with people of your same gender.

[Wizzle335]

Originally Posted by 11Series

If you don't believe that people are born with a disposition for sexual preference, when exactly was it that you DECIDED to be attracted to people only of the opposite sex?

If sexual preference is nothing but a decision (with no biological or genetic factors) then you must have been sexually attracted to both males and females at one point in your life, before you made your decision.

Please tell us your story of when you made your personal decision to stop wanting to have sex with people of your same gender.

When did I ever say which possibility I believed? Instead of actually arguing my logic with logic, you've attempted to belittle me by implying through your twisted perception I was somehow bisexual at one point. That is nowhere near what I was arguing. Do people actual listen to you when you speak, or simply dismiss it as nonsense? Again... The argument is either gays are born an anomaly or defective, or it's behavioral trait brought about by environment. The latter would, to me, imply they deserve no special treatment. Then again I doubt few would want to admit they are a defective member of the gene pool. Should we try this again?

[11Series]

Originally Posted by Wizzle335

When did I ever say which possibility I believed? Instead of actually arguing my logic with logic, you've attempted to belittle me by implying through your twisted perception I was somehow bisexual at one point. That is nowhere near what I was arguing. Do people actual listen to you when you speak, or simply dismiss it as nonsense? Again... The argument is either gays are born an anomaly or defective, or it's behavioral trait brought about by environment. The latter would, to me, imply they deserve no special treatment. Then again I doubt few would want to admit they are a defective member of the gene pool. Should we try this again?

I don't consider bisexuality to be an insult. In my opinion, openly bisexuallity is a sign of personal bravery and strength, standing against those who would use "bisexuality" to belittle them. If you feel insulted, it wasn't because I insulted you. The insult is purely a result of your own personal feelings that bisexuality is belittling. Stop taking it as an insult, and re-read it to understand how your own personal experience is illustrative of how people (just like yourself) do not "choose" their sexuality.


Back to the topic, you are presenting a false either-or fallacy.

Either:
1) Homosexuality is a defect.
OR
2) Homosexuality is a choice.

There is no "Catch-22", you are just wrong on both sides of a false either/or fallacy. The correct answer to your false either/or fallacy is "C", none of the above.

I have already explained to you why #2 is false, by explaining how your own personal experiences with your own sexuality invalidates this claim. You yourself are the proof you are wrong. People do NOT start with a neutral sexuality and equal attraction to both sexes (without preference for one sex or the other) and then choose. Remember your own experience so you can understand this.

Now I will defeat your claim #1 that:

Originally Posted by Wizzle335

To admit that gays are born that way would imply they were born without the drive to procreate, which would actually be considered an anomally or genetic defect.

This is so easy to prove to be a falsehood it isn't even funny. There is NO link between being gay and the drive to procreate. The proof is in all of the people who fall in the following groups:

1) Same-sex couples who adopt.
2) Male couples who get surrogates to bear a child using a mix of each parent's sperm for impregnation.
3) Female couples who use artificial insemination to have a child.
4) Closeted gays who marry a person of the opposite sex to satisfy their drive to procreate, while secretly maintaining a same-sex sexual preference.

Having defeated your completely false claim that gays were "born without the drive to procreate", the rest of your entire argument falls flat on it's face.

[X6M-adness]

Thought this would be a good place to post this.
...what was he thinking

[lkw15]

I think it was more a comment on not being able to celebrate Christmas than it was a dig at homosexuals in the military.

Either way, Perry is a dummy. He's done after next Tuesday - if not before.

[E90SoFlo]

I personally would not want to be in a shower with a guy that gets off with other guys. I would feel that I am being targeted.

Now I wouldn't mind being in a shower with a bunch of nude girls if it was the other way around.

So Im guessing that the gay men feel the same way?

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by E90SoFlo

I personally would not want to be in a shower with a guy that gets off with other guys. I would feel that I am being targeted.

Now I wouldn't mind being in a shower with a bunch of nude girls if it was the other way around.

So Im guessing that the gay men feel the same way?

You have just provided the textbook definition of a homophobe. What an ignorant dimwit.
It's people like you that reinforce my belief that I'm on the correct side politically.

[Templar]

Necro...

Anyway, ITT a bunch of people who don't understand the military trying to rationalize how the repeal of DADT will either hurt or be better for the military.

In reality, it's not going to change a damned thing. In my almost ten years of service, I've known plenty of gays and lesbians. Have known it for a fact too, even before DADT was repealed. Never bothered me or anyone else. It will be better for them as individuals, so they can release the burden of being scared of losing their jobs.

Sure, you have those who are completely ignorant, but they are few.

I don't care if you're white, black, yellow, gay, straight, whatever... As long as you're a good shot when it counts, that's all that matters.

[ghosthi32]

Originally Posted by Templar

I don't care if you're white, black, yellow, gay, straight, whatever... As long as you're a good shot when it counts, that's all that matters.

this

[lkw15]

Originally Posted by ghosthi32

this

+1

As Chris Rock says, "if they wanna fight, let them fight, 'cause l ain't fighting'!"