Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's always nice to see the armchair experts with no relevant experience debating the finer points.

If you haven't been in the military, knowingly serving with homsexuals, then really you don't have much basis for an opinion about how it is handled in the military at all, do you? Oh, you can certainly HAVE an opinion, and welcome to it, but if you haven't been there and seen how things work then you have an uninformed opinion at best. Which is pretty well worthless to those who have.

I can understand why some people would be uncomfortable, but I simply cannot imagine flamer-pants Mcweiner making it all that far in the army. Another thing is that the army is not meant (as far as I know) to be a place to hook up. Like most other jobs/careers, sex is simply not part of the contract...

endless wrote:@jeb, so why does it need to be a compromise? There isn't another side to the debate, prejudice is prejudice.

Just because one disagrees with homosexuals and their lifestyle doesn't mean its prejudice.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think it's more the 'we find out and you're out on your arse' that's the problem. As I said in my original post, I actually back the sentiment of Don't Ask Don't Tell for precisely the reasons you just gave.

As for the second bit where you quoted me, quite the opposite. If you just find homosexuals not to your liking, then ok, avoid them all you like. But if you're view is coloured by expecting them all to jump you first chance they get, then you are being homophobic.

Agreed

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I find some of the Gay men I have met to be highly irritating, as that's all they are to the world. Gay. They allow it to define them, and everything they do is conforming to a stereotype. Thus, I try not to associate with them wherever possible. Although it's their behavior linked to their sexuality I find objectionable, it's not their sexuality I'm objecting to. Just their behaviour.

Hope that makes sense. Nasty habit of confusing the hell out of people me.

I agree with most of what you say, but for religious reasons I also disagree with their sexuality. That doesn't stop me from having gay friends though...

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Remember people, a phobia is an irrational fear of something. So Homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuals.

I see no reason to use "phobia" correctly, if you're going to completely ignore what "homo" means.

It's Latin for same I think? Hetero certainly means different to my knowledge. I'll Google it.

Nope, it appears it's Latin for 'man'

Wrexasaur wrote:I can understand why some people would be uncomfortable, but I simply cannot imagine flamer-pants Mcweiner making it all that far in the army. Another thing is that the army is not meant (as far as I know) to be a place to hook up. Like most other jobs/careers, sex is simply not part of the contract...

Good point Wrex, and that is why I support DADT...at least that is one reason...

jp400 wrote:
Yeah, guess spending 5 years active duty and 25 months in Iraq as part of said combat unit I wouldnt know anything about what the first hand concerns are in the unit. And their is a difference between walking by an open shower and "takeing it all in" and walking into the shower and getting your kicks.

You know, now that I think of it, it was strange to see Steve masturbate every time we showered after football...

You're describing unit cohesion, and morale. Whether or not you know that is simply a function of your own intelligence. There's a reason for the barrier between the enlisted, and the commissioned.

jp400 wrote:
And by all means, if your so happy with them they you can be his battle buddy and share everything. Me... Ill stick with a FM 22-102 to deal with this problem.

Have you ever ogled a woman?

It's Greek for "the same" or "similar".

Latin is where Homo Sapiens comes from, though.

In neither case do I consider it a good substitute for homosexual. It's like using "literally" to just denote emphasis. ("I'm literally really happy!" No, that's not how you're supposed to use the word.)

Oh. I'm with you now.

Thought you were having a pop/messing around with me. All is good!

Quick question as an addendum to the subject. With Don't Ask Don't Tell, does anyone know if Service People have been blackmailed through this? As in they're on the other Bus, someone finds out, and demands money to keep schtum?

I am having a pop.

I'm drinking A&W right now!

Dear lord that is sexy... showering with this root beer float may have been a bad idea... must. not. have. sex. with. ice cream....

DADT was a step in the direction of not banning gays from the military, but it was still illegal to be gay and if outed in whatever way, you got discharged.

Obama is saying it should be legal to be gay and a soldier. That doesn't mean all the gay soldiers will parade wearing a pink tutu from tomorrow morning. It just means if someone finds out a soldier is gay, they won't get sacked just for being gay.

This is a change which has gradually been coming to the rest of society, along with rights for black people, women, the disabled, and so on. It is only logical progression that the military should do the same. Being naturally conservative, it just takes them longer.

Kilkrazy wrote:This is a change which has gradually been coming to the rest of society, along with rights for black people, women, the disabled, and so on.

I am not angry or anything, but please don't associate the homosexual movement to racial discrimination in this country. I find it very offensive because I think it demeans what many of my family had to go through, and I know many others who feel the same way. And yes, I am being dead serious...

But it's an accurate comparisson.

Homosexuals do not share the same rights and privileges as Heterosexuals, simply because a proportion of soceity says they shouldn't. How is this diferent to the segregation of blacks and whites in spirit?

Not meaning to pick a fight, but I do see it as exactly the same. People have been murdered for being Gay, just as people have been murdered for being Black/Hispanic/Jewish/whatever.

IF anything, the only difference is that you can generally hide/mask your sexuality. Kind of hard to do that with skin colour/distinguishing racial features.

Any discrimination is bad, and I support equality on all levels. For me at least, I feel that people will discriminate no matter what. Pick something, and someone out there hates it for no reason at all. On the other side of the coin, there are things that should not be socially acceptable, but those are very clear; being gay is simply not one of these things though... at all.

If someone is gay and perverted... they are gay and perverted, not perverted because they are gay.

I would like to note again, that people have been murdered for an awful lot of things, and it is simply in poor taste to play with statistics in this manner. It does seem like people feel they benefit (if only morally or w/e) from discrimination, and in some cases that can be true in a few ways. When it comes to any job, there is a bit of evolution going on. After all, if you can't get a job for reason A.) B.) C.), but not because you are not the best person for that job (theoretically at least); that is an act of evolution. I am not saying that this is good, by any means, but it is clear that "job security" does translate into a form of evolution.

I doubt there will be a day when we are all gray or something, but there sure as hell will be a day when people just don't have a "reason" to discriminate. BTW, how do other countries such as the U.K. treat this same issue? That is, if it is even considered an issue.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Homosexuals do not share the same rights and privileges as Heterosexuals, simply because a proportion of soceity says they shouldn't. How is this diferent to the segregation of blacks and whites in spirit?

That depends on the notion that homosexuality is not a choice. Granted it can't be a choice in the same sense as choosing between rum and vodka, but it certainly carries many of the same issues as alcoholism, and other such 'diseases' insofar as choice is considered.

Society is coming to grips with ramification of scientific determinism, and its going to be a very bumpy, social Darwinist ride.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not meaning to pick a fight, but I do see it as exactly the same. People have been murdered for being Gay, just as people have been murdered for being Black/Hispanic/Jewish/whatever.

IF anything, the only difference is that you can generally hide/mask your sexuality. Kind of hard to do that with skin colour/distinguishing racial features.

Is you predilection for a given type of food comparable to race?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But it's an accurate comparisson.

No it isn't.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Homosexuals do not share the same rights and privileges as Heterosexuals, simply because a proportion of society says they shouldn't. How is this different to the segregation of blacks and whites in spirit

Uh, what? Do they not have the right to vote? Do they not have the right to assemble? What rights are they denied? As far as I can tell they have all the rights that are guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Not meaning to pick a fight, but I do see it as exactly the same. People have been murdered for being Gay, just as people have been murdered for being Black/Hispanic/Jewish/whatever.

I am not talking about being murdered for whatever reason. I already despise hate laws because of their basic flaw. The flaw being that the intent behind a murder makes it worse then any other murder. Murder is murder is murder, it shouldn't matter why any person did it. That creates a different form of discrimination, and yes it is sanctioned by the government. I think the creators of South Park are right on the money in this regard. Gays aren't segregated in to different schools, neighborhoods, denied voting rights, etc. To me that already creates enough of a difference to eliminate mutual alignment.

Wrexasaur wrote:Any discrimination is bad,

This pedantic, but I feel like it needs to be said.

We all discriminate, and we aren't all bad. I discriminate when I choose to buy The Balvenie instead of Glenlivet. I also discriminate when I choose to sleep with girl X instead of girl Y. Neither of these choices is bad in the colloquial sense.

In short, either we acknowledge that all actions are inherently neutral, or we find a new way to evaluate 'bad'.

Homosexuals are not allowed to Marry. They therefore do not share many of the possible tax benefits commited heterosexual couples have on offer.

Therefore, they do not have equality.

And all because somebody decided they shouldn't. And no, saying that 'they can marry the opposite sex' is not an equal right. Blacks were allowed to ride the Bus after all, as long as they sat where they were told to.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Homosexuals are not allowed to Marry. They therefore do not share many of the possible tax benefits commited heterosexual couples have on offer.

Marriage isn't a right.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Therefore, they do not have equality.

They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they please. They have the same rights as anyone else. Homosexuality isn't necessarily a legitimate category.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And all because somebody decided they shouldn't. And no, saying that 'they can marry the opposite sex' is not an equal right. Blacks were allowed to ride the Bus after all, as long as they sat where they were told to.

Again, categorical legitimacy.

So in order to be a 'right' it has to be on the Constitution? Or is that the 'Bill of Rights'

As a non-US bloke, I'm a bit hazy on such things.

A homosexual person cannot marry their long term partner. A heterosexual person can. That IS an inequality.

dogma wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Any discrimination is bad,

This pedantic, but I feel like it needs to be said.

We all discriminate, and we aren't all bad. I discriminate when I choose to buy The Balvenie instead of Glenlivet. I also discriminate when I choose to sleep with girl X instead of girl Y. Neither of these choices is bad in the colloquial sense.

In short, either we acknowledge that all actions are inherently neutral, or we find a new way to evaluate 'bad'.

I am of the frame of mind that humans are naturally nasty little creatures (at least on the most basic of levels), and this is not to say that I hate humanity at all.

I dislike humanity, and wish our social evolution would move a bit faster, but you are clearly right in saying that discrimination does not inherently "mean" bad. My disdain or what have you, is a form of discrimination as well, and in that sense a function of social evolution.

The difference here is that when I go out to get some mustard, I may comment on how I hate this mustard, or I love that mustard; but none of that mustard is hurt in the process... unless I am just that angry at the mustard, in which case, the mustard should probably be armed.

In all honesty, I could care less what people think, as long as they don't enact their ideals in negative ways. The main part of this involves real education about the issues. It could all be summarized very neatly in a mandatory civil rights class, in middle school most likely. When I hear about what passes for an -ism these days, I do get a bit peeved. When there is an issue, it needs to be addressed (and has been as history shows overall), but getting up in arms about what someone said is over the top for me. It matters, but ignoring that ignorance, while confronting the real obstacles in our societies is extremely important.

For its slight relevance:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

dogma wrote: I discriminate when I choose to buy The Balvenie instead of Glenlivet.

Actually that is just called good taste....

dogma wrote:In short, either we acknowledge that all actions are inherently neutral, or we find a new way to evaluate 'bad'.

Maybe, but that might require the acceptance of some religious values once you consider how religious the US is. Would you be prepared to accept that?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Homosexuals are not allowed to Marry. They therefore do not share many of the possible tax benefits committed heterosexual couples have on offer.

Same as unmarried hetero couples...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Therefore, they do not have equality.

And all because somebody decided they shouldn't.

Well since marriage isn't a right, they haven't lost any rights. Marriage is a privilege, and most states allow some sort of civil union that does confer the tax benefits to a joined gay couple. And let us not forget that marriage was first and still primarily is a religious institution, which is overwhelmingly at odds with the homosexual lifestyle...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So in order to be a 'right' it has to be on the Constitution? Or is that the 'Bill of Rights'

It has to be socially accepted. If you think you have natural rights you should attempt to debate with Bengal Tiger.

.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
A homosexual person cannot marry their long term partner. A heterosexual person can. That IS an inequality.

Sure they can. You don't have to love someone in order to consider them a long term partner. I hate my frequent co-author, but he's still a partner.

dogma wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Any discrimination is bad,

This pedantic, but I feel like it needs to be said.

We all discriminate, and we aren't all bad. I discriminate when I choose to buy The Balvenie instead of Glenlivet. I also discriminate when I choose to sleep with girl X instead of girl Y. Neither of these choices is bad in the colloquial sense.

In short, either we acknowledge that all actions are inherently neutral, or we find a new way to evaluate 'bad'.

I'd call that 'making a choice'.

Discrimination would only come into it if say, you picked Ketchup A over Ketchup B, because you once had a Jelly made by the manufacturers of Ketchup B that you didn't enjoy. Ultimately, the Jelly being rubbish has nothing to do with the Ketchups, but it has coloured your decision making process none the less. Thus you are basing your choice on largely illogical conclusions.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Maybe, but that might require the acceptance of some religious values once you consider how religious the US is. Would you be prepared to accept that?

No, but I don't think its necessary. Bad can simply refer to that which requires additional justification. For example, killing is bad, but occasionally necessary. You can't do it without reason, but with good reason the 'badness' is offset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I'd call that 'making a choice'.

Discrimination would only come into it if say, you picked Ketchup A over Ketchup B, because you once had a Jelly made by the manufacturers of Ketchup B that you didn't enjoy. Ultimately, the Jelly being rubbish has nothing to do with the Ketchups, but it has coloured your decision making process none the less. Thus you are basing your choice on largely illogical conclusions.

Yeah, that is a better example. Very good point.

grizgrin wrote:It's always nice to see the armchair experts with no relevant experience debating the finer points.

If you haven't been in the military, knowingly serving with homsexuals, then really you don't have much basis for an opinion about how it is handled in the military at all, do you? Oh, you can certainly HAVE an opinion, and welcome to it, but if you haven't been there and seen how things work then you have an uninformed opinion at best. Which is pretty well worthless to those who have.

Pretty much sums it up.

grizgrin wrote: knowingly serving with homsexuals,

jp400 wrote:
Pretty much sums it up.

Yep.



Edit: for quote

jp400 wrote:

grizgrin wrote:It's always nice to see the armchair experts with no relevant experience debating the finer points.

And it is always nice to see over-zealous militants who think that if they served some time they know everything. Especially ones that assume the person they are arguing with never served either. It is great to assume knowledge.

Ahtman wrote:
And it is always nice to see over-zealous militants who think that if they served some time they know everything. Especially ones that assume the person they are arguing with never served either. It is great to assume knowledge.

So he is an Over-Zealous Militant cause he doesnt want to serve while wondering why Kent is eyeballing his balls?