DADT Repealed

That wasn't a rhetorical question. What changes are you saying will take so much time and money? It's not like they're going to need "Gay Barracks". How does initial training change? You spouted a bunch of bullshit that made no logical sense.
I think it is a legitimate concern that open homosexuals would be housed with the same gender of their attraction. It's the same reasoning that you don't have men and women showering together in the same barracks. And if you say it's any different that's admitting that homosexual attraction is different than heterosexual. Nothing homophobic just logical sense. And initial entry training is huge on fraternization policies that attempt to completely eradicate romantic interaction. It is a huge wrench in the whole process of training. I wouldn't want to get roomed with someone that is attracted to me for the same reason that i don't want to be roomed with a woman. There will be a huge amount of regs rewritten to change fraternization policies and training mandates will have to be adjusted. But no wait that's all just bullshit.

And on a side note there is not a single shred of evidence that people are born gay. BULLSHIT. Your post is bullshit.
 
I think it is a legitimate concern that open homosexuals would be housed with the same gender of their attraction. It's the same reasoning that you don't have men and women showering together in the same barracks. And if you say it's any different that's admitting that homosexual attraction is different than heterosexual. Nothing homophobic just logical sense. And initial entry training is huge on fraternization policies that attempt to completely eradicate romantic interaction. It is a huge wrench in the whole process of training. I wouldn't want to get roomed with someone that is attracted to me for the same reason that i don't want to be roomed with a woman. There will be a huge amount of regs rewritten to change fraternization policies and training mandates will have to be adjusted. But no wait that's all just bullshit.

And on a side note there is not a single shred of evidence that people are born gay. BULLSHIT. Your post is bullshit.
There's an interesting wider point in relation to the first paragraph here; why do we separate male and female changing rooms at all, given that some men are attracted to men and some women are attracted to women. How would you police a further separation into straight men/straight women/gay men/gay women? Where, then, would bisexuals change? It's actually an interesting concept that hasn't been dealt with.

The subtle problem with your argument in the same paragraph, however, is that the situation you're describing can exist under the DADT system. Indeed, it surely already does. There are already straight men sharing rooms and barracks with gay men within the military; the straight men just don't know about it as a result of the DADT policy.

Also, of course there's no evidence of born-gay. Sexuality doesn't set in until puberty. What there is a lot of evidence for is that sexuality is not a choice (even if sexual lifestyle is; i.e. you could be gay and not pursue homosexual relationships to avoid discrimination, for example).
 
DeckKnight, I'm really glad editor of the Smog and all but how can you say such veiled bigoted stuff?
 
There's an interesting wider point in relation to the first paragraph here; why do we separate male and female changing rooms at all, given that some men are attracted to men and some women are attracted to women.
Two possible factors. One, most men are attracted to women. And two, the perception of women as weaker and men as stronger, meaning it's assumed a man could "fight off" unwanted advances from another man, while a woman is considered more vulnerable to unwanted advances from a man.
 

jrrrrrrr

wubwubwub
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
DeckKnight, I'm really glad editor of the Smog and all but how can you say such veiled bigoted stuff?
It's not exactly veiled, he literally said that homosexuals can never be equal to heterosexuals and that being gay is a health risk.

By which I will illustrate tangentially by saying the military has discriminated against me. I was asthmatic growing up so when the Coast Guard looked at my medical record I was pretty much shot from the get-go, despite having grown out of it. I wasn't about to lie to military recruiters.
The military requires intense physical conditioning. There is a perfectly good reason to not include asthmatic children in our armies. What reason is there to exclude homosexuals again? Give evidence.

Taking a clinical look at the various maladies and environmental conditions that afflict homosexuals as a group indicates they may be less desireable candidates for recruitment. These have been studied at great length by a great many people and controlled for any mitigating variables.
Can you please name some of the specific "maladies and environmental conditions that afflict homosexuals as a group" that would make us less desirable for military recruitment? You are being quite vague here for someone making such a bold claim with no evidence. I also love your word choice, "afflict", as if it were a disease.

In short sexuality is very much not just about bigotry as Morm seems to indiciate. There are real consequences to normalizing a behavior that has over many different times and cultures shown to have similar dysfunctional characteristics. This is not to say a person should be harmed, punished, or fired for it, merely that you can't make two unequal things equal without it causing harm.
What consequences would those be? What harm would be caused by teaching the fact that some people are gay? Be specific and give evidence.

This is where the "equality" measure fails because there will never be a point in time where a young child being taught that homosexuality is equally healthy way to live is being anything but misled. It is simply not the case empirically. No matter how "open" society becomes the culture that surrounds homosexual activity will always trend towards more dangerous activities than heterosexuality.
Maybe the reason why "homosexual activity will always trend towards more dangerous activities" is because kids who explore their sexuality get shunned by people like you instead of getting the guidance required to make intelligent choices? Normalizing homosexuality would literally eliminate every concern of yours, because people would know the potential risks of STDs beforehand.

I have known I am gay for quite a while now, and I am STD and AIDS free.
I have known many straight people who have gotten STDs from straight sex.
I have known a small handful of straight people who have gotten their lover pregnant at a time when neither of them could afford to support a baby. That sounds pretty damn dangerous to me.

The risks in sex have nothing to do with orientation and everything to do with preparation.

Remember they used to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. The United States Military was around at that time and long before and naturally it takes a lot longer for people whose lives are on the line to accept pandering and equivocation when they spend portions of their time being shot at. They know everyone in their unit with great detail because they must in order to survive. DADT for the most part kept them quiet about the sexuality issue because it was explicitly verbotten to bring up. Now it is not, and it will be brought up, and there will be consequences for that.
The only consequences will come from the soldiers who are too blinded with ignorance to realize that sexuality has nothing to do with military performance.

Your entire post is filled with reasons why homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals, but you didn't give any scientific evidence to back up your claims (probably because there is none). This is the definition of homophobia. I look forward to your response to this post, although you probably won't give one.
 
@Son of Disaster: Lol, there is plenty of evidence that neither people nor their post-natal environments determine sexual orientation, researchers just haven't been able to figure out whether the causes are genetic or epigenetic.

There are tribes in New Guinea in which homosexual behavior is required of all males before they marry (heterosexually). If anything would "turn someone gay", it would be fellating another dude, but somehow most of these men are heterosexuals, or the tribe would long have died out. Think about it.
 

cim

happiness is such hard work
is a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Deck Knight said:
This is where the "equality" measure fails because there will never be a point in time where a young child being taught that homosexuality is equally healthy way to live is being anything but misled. It is simply not the case empirically. No matter how "open" society becomes the culture that surrounds homosexual activity will always trend towards more dangerous activities than heterosexuality.
Just called my brother and he still doesn't do drugs, engage in nonmongamous casual sex (protected or otherwise), or do anything risky at all other than be himself in a world where bigoted fucks could jump him for being queer.
i actually did call him
And that's the case for nearly every LGBT I've ever met. I know more risky straights than gays.
 

Oglemi

Borf
is a Top Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis a Top Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
I can say as a sub-free homosexual, that homosexuals do not trend towards risky behavior. To insinuate that being homosexual leads to risky behavior is just ridiculous. The amount of risky behavior that you partake in greatly reflects your friend structure, moreso than most other factors.

DADT being repealed is a great leap forward to gay people being accepted into American society and to be less discriminated against, but I have a large suspicion that gay people will never be fully accepted until Chrisitianty disappears from our society.

Until that day, all we can hope for is that people start seeing people for who they are rather than what they are, (which it's very surprising this hasn't happened yet as every cartoon and kids show for the past 10 years has been spewing this message.)

I have a feeling this thread is simply divulging into a gay hate vs. gay love debacle, and I'd rather it'd be closed.

Thanks.
 
Two possible factors. One, most men are attracted to women. And two, the perception of women as weaker and men as stronger, meaning it's assumed a man could "fight off" unwanted advances from another man, while a woman is considered more vulnerable to unwanted advances from a man.
What about a woman fighting off an unwanted advance from another woman?

I think we have the system we do because a useful alternative is impossible to create and manage, but it is an interesting idea.
 
DADT being repealed is a great leap forward to gay people being accepted into American society and to be less discriminated against, but I have a large suspicion that gay people will never be fully accepted until Chrisitianty disappears from our society.
There are plenty of people who aren't Christians that are homophobic. This same pattern of using religion to validate discrimination has been happening for years, and it has never taken the complete disappearance of Christianity to move forward.

Regardless, I agree that it this a small step in the right direction (and apologies in advance if I wasn't suppose to reply, I wasn't sure if this topic is supposed to be closed or not...).
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top