297 replies to this topic

[HU&W]

Danger41, on 23 June 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

That seriously looks like something from The Onion.

It looks like a pretty accurate summary of a study conducted by Dr. Selma Dritz and published in the aforementioned journal.

[ThreeHoler]

HU&W, on 23 June 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

It looks like a pretty accurate summary of a study conducted by Dr. Selma Dritz and published in the aforementioned journal.

Looks like a study completed 32 years ago is no longer accurate:

Quote

Some older studies conducted before the epidemic of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) indicated that homosexual men were more likely than heterosexual men to have had a very large number of sexual partners¹⁴. More recent population-based studies have found this to be relatively uncommon. For instance, Fay et al.¹⁰ found that of men who had homosexual contact after the age of 20, almost all had 20 or fewer homosexual partners in their lifetimes. Of 1450 men in the sample, only 2 were reported to have had 100 or more same-sex partners¹⁰. The inconsistency in the data on the number of sexual partners of homosexual men probably reflects flaws in the sampling techniques of the earlier studies (e.g., recruiting subjects in gay bars) and their completion before the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic.

http://www.nejm.org/...199410063311407

[Vertigo]

The bottom line here is not what is or isn't natural; it's about whether or not we allow consenting adults to engage in the sexual activity of their choice. Even if homosexuality and pedophilia were bought about by similar causes, they cannot be discussed in similar tones as pedophilia is literally the act of engaging in sexual relations with someone below the age that society has dictated as being able to make coherent decisions about their sexual activity. To force someone into sex is in absolutely no way even remotely similar to engaging in a consensual activity that is only deemed inappropriate because of our inability to drop outdated religious idealisms from society's moral code; especially in the light of all the scientific evidence regarding homosexuality.

That being said all this was discussed in the now closed DADT thread so...




Which is pretty fuckin' gay.

Edited by Vertigo, 23 June 2012 - 11:24 PM.

[FlyingBull]

Rainman A-10, on 23 June 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

Wait, what? Yes or no?

Some could be offended by your sweeping generalization about blacks and gays all having the same interests.

Whoa, I didn't say blacks and gays have all the same interest. I was pointing out that a minority banding together politically to effect changes in their interests wasn't so strange a concept.

No: there is not one big monolithic gay group where all the gays get together and decide what they all believe

Yes: There is a political gay rights movement that is more or less aligned with the same goals

Quote

Constitutional republic. Driven by economics.

Within that Republic are many interests groups that lobby government and the people at large to effect changes that align with their interests.

Quote

Uh, you might want to do a little more research on this one.

I've been to a gay pride event, and it wasn't anything like the stereotypes. I'm sure they exist out there, but that would be like judging all parades with beads involved with them based on Mardi Gras.

Quote

Tolerance?

Being tolerant of intolerance kind of defeats the purpose. Should we also be tolerant of the KKK? Legally allow them to say what they want, sure. But not call them out on said bullshit? Not so much.

Quote

Like when someone goes off about a religious belief.

You aren't born with any religious beliefs. My point was that many young gay people have their lives made that much harder because their parents, ignorant of gays in general and of their own kid being gay, spout homophobic stuff all the time not realizing that they are taking a sledge hammer to their own kids self esteem.

Rainman A-10, on 23 June 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

But who is to say Sandusky's orientation wasn't to have sex with kids? Clearly, it was. Unfortunately today that is illegal, even if the little boys consent.

Let's say for the sake of argument he was born a pedophile (I don't think the evidence supports that but whatever) it would have no bearing on a discussion about the rights of consenting adults.

Seriously all this Sandusky crap is a red herring. Especially considering that 90% of pedophiles are straight.

ThreeHoler, on 23 June 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

Looks like a study completed 32 years ago is no longer accurate:



http://www.nejm.org/...199410063311407

Wait, someone wants to justify hatred and they use an obviously flawed study from decades ago to do it? No way!

Honestly though the pure hatred coming from some of these posts is a bit surprising. Just what is it about gay people some of you hate so much? And if you think it is a choice, I'd love for you to tell me the day you chose to be straight.

Also it is a perfect example of why something like a gay pride event would be a good idea. It raises awareness that gay people are serving just like straight people and they aren't made up of all those ridiculous stereotypes some people apparently still believe in.

Edited by FlyingBull, 23 June 2012 - 11:42 PM.

[HOSS]

joe1234, on 23 June 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

I want to save this thread on my computer, so that someday I could show my grandkids how ridiculous people were.

For the most part, the largest division of ideas on social issues is generational. Like you see on here, the older generation is against it. They use words like "Turd burglar" and "faggot." They pose questions like "Why fuck with what works?" They talk about the importance of "moral consistency." ....This is the crotchety old person's play book. It requires less mental effort to condemn than to think. It's nothing new. Homosexuals are simply their current favorite target.

My grandparent's generation had a favorite target too: Rock and Roll music. Elvis Presley swinging his hips on the Ed Sullivan show. "The whole country's going to hell!" they said. Delinquency, vulgarity, ....the decay of moral values right in front of their eyes. "...What's next?!" they asked.

...We shake our heads in amazement now, but at the time it was a very real concern to them. My grandparents were great Americans, they were just set in their ways. This is no different, ...and history repeatedly tells us which side wins.

[Rainman A-10]

Vertigo, on 23 June 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

Even if homosexuality and pedophilia were bought about by similar causes, they cannot be discussed in similar tones as pedophilia is literally the act of engaging in sexual relations with someone below the age that society has dictated as being able to make coherent decisions about their sexual activity

I used the example as a reference to orientation and changing social norms.

FlyingBull, on 23 June 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

Whoa, I didn't say blacks and gays have all the same interest. I was pointing out that a minority banding together politically to effect changes in their interests wasn't so strange a concept.

You lumped blacks together. And you lumped gays together. My point is ther are many who would be offended by your assumption that all blacks have the same interests or that all gays have the same interests.

FlyingBull, on 23 June 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

Within that Republic are many interests groups that lobby government and the people at large to effect changes that align with their interests.

You know that was my point, right?

FlyingBull, on 23 June 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

I've been to a gay pride event, and it wasn't anything like the stereotypes. I'm sure they exist out there, but that would be like judging all parades with beads involved with them based on Mardi Gras.

Don't mix parade and event. I was at an "event" yesterday. It was a very big event consisting of several different venues around the Twin Cities. Some venues were family oriented like the parts my family attended. Many were not. At all. The parade being one of them.

FlyingBull, on 23 June 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

Being tolerant of intolerance kind of defeats the purpose. Should we also be tolerant of the KKK? Legally allow them to say what they want, sure. But not call them out on said bullshit? Not so much.

The point is that what is tolerable changes and few things are tolerable to everyone. It is possible for a society to tolerate something today that was intolerable yesterday and not tolerate other things that were completely tolerable yesterday.

FlyingBull, on 23 June 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

You aren't born with any religious beliefs. My point was that many young gay people have their lives made that much harder because their parents, ignorant of gays in general and of their own kid being gay, spout homophobic stuff all the time not realizing that they are taking a sledge hammer to their own kids self esteem.

Some believe they were. Regardless, many hold their religious beliefs every bit as strongly as others hold their social beliefs.

The point is really that parents say things that destroy their children's self esteem all the time.

FlyingBull, on 23 June 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

Let's say for the sake of argument he was born a pedophile (I don't think the evidence supports that but whatever) it would have no bearing on a discussion about the rights of consenting adults.

You don't believe there is evidence to suggest people have a natural orientation in that way? Noted. My point was only to represent something that is outside social norms in this country that is acceptable in other culture. Not the rape, sex between two people when one of them is young.

FlyingBull, on 23 June 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

Honestly though the pure hatred coming from some of these posts is a bit surprising. Just what is it about gay people some of you hate so much?

No hate from me. I have no problem whatsoever with gays in the military. Never have.

FlyingBull, on 23 June 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

Also it is a perfect example of why something like a gay pride event would be a good idea. It raises awareness that gay people are serving just like straight people and they aren't made up of all those ridiculous stereotypes some people apparently still believe in.

Good point but do you really believe that is required? Do you think an event is going to change the way people think? The policy is clear. Follow it.

HOSS, on 24 June 2012 - 02:53 AM, said:

For the most part, the largest division of ideas on social issues is generational. Like you see on here, the older generation is against it. They use words like "Turd burglar" and "faggot." They pose questions like "Why fuck with what works?" They talk about the importance of "moral consistency." ....This is the crotchety old person's play book. It requires less mental effort to condemn than to think. It's nothing new. Homosexuals are simply their current favorite target.

I served under DADT and never did a thing about people I knew were gay (and there wer many) because their performance was outstanding and their sexual behavior was not relevant as far as I was concerned.

According to the DoD I was wrong for tolerating and was technically "at risk" for not enforcing the policy.

If there are other people here who have had an A prefix and knew people were gay but didn't do anything about it, speak up.

Otherwise, assuming all people of a certain generation (a couple years older than you) are filled with hate because they are wondering why we need to have a special event calling out people who have sex in a certain way fits into the laziness of condemning thought category.

[FlyingBull]

Rainman A-10, on 24 June 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

You lumped blacks together. And you lumped gays together. My point is ther are many who would be offended by your assumption that all blacks have the same interests or that all gays have the same interests.

Was it not in the interest of all Black Americans to end things like segregation? Is it not an all gay American's interest to have equal protection under the law, for instance for it to be illegal for someone to be fired just because they are gay?

Quote

Don't mix parade and event. I was at an "event" yesterday. It was a very big event consisting of several different venues around the Twin Cities. Some venues were family oriented like the parts my family attended. Many were not. At all. The parade being one of them.

My point was that some people's perception of any kind of "pride" related event/parade/whatever is full of very adult stuff when that is very much not the case.

Quote

The point is that what is tolerable changes and few things are tolerable to everyone. It is possible for a society to tolerate something today that was intolerable yesterday and not tolerate other things that were completely tolerable yesterday.

I don't disagree with that observation. Just saying that the definition of 'tolerable' gets moved because people move it. Accepting hate filled language like that which comes from certain religious and political leaders allows such hate to remain tolerable.

Quote

Some believe they were. Regardless, many hold their religious beliefs every bit as strongly as others hold their social beliefs.

Being gay or straight isn't a social belief, but a biological state of being.

Quote

You don't believe there is evidence to suggest people have a natural orientation in that way? Noted. My point was only to represent something that is outside social norms in this country that is acceptable in other culture. Not the rape, sex between two people when one of them is young.

I don't know if pedophiles are born that way or not. Either way what an adult does to a child, or what someone does to another person against their will is a different category than what consenting adults do. I get what you were getting at though, it was hijacked by other people in this thread.

Quote

No hate from me. I have no problem whatsoever with gays in the military. Never have.

Didn't mean to say you did. But others in this thread have posted stuff that is down right disturbing with the level of hate in it. Don't they know they're talking about people they serve with?

Quote

Good point but do you really believe that is required? Do you think an event is going to change the way people think? The policy is clear. Follow it.

You know what? Before this thread I didn't think it was required. Now I do. Hell if I was in DC I'd go to it.

Quote

I served under DADT and never did a thing about people I knew were gay (and there wer many) because their performance was outstanding and their sexual behavior was not relevant as far as I was concerned.

According to the DoD I was wrong for tolerating and was technically "at risk" for not enforcing the policy.

If there are other people here who have had an A prefix and knew people were gay but didn't do anything about it, speak up.

That was a great thing you did. I know people who weren't lucky enough to have commanders with your perspective.

Quote

Otherwise, assuming all people of a certain generation (a couple years older than you) are filled with hate because they are wondering why we need to have a special event calling out people who have sex in a certain way fits into the laziness of condemning thought category.

I was specifically talking about individuals displaying clear bigotry here on this board, not a generation or even the great state of TN. The TN thing was just a sarcastic joke. I'm a southerner myself, from Florida.

[Rainman A-10]

Fair enough.

[nsplayr]

lloyd christmas, on 23 June 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

...on average fellated 106 different men, swallowed 50 of their seminal ejaculations..."

Less than 50% swallow rate...that's bullshit.

[Rainman A-10]

Really? Interesting

Some of us will have to defer to your subject matter expertise and experience and just take your word for it.

[Shortbus]

ThreeHoler, on 23 June 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Joe, meet the ancient Greeks.

Or contemporary Afghans.

[Shortbus]

FlyingBull, on 24 June 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Being gay or straight isn't a social belief, but a biological state of being.

Um, no. Homosexuality is biologically nonviable. And yes, I am aware of examples of homosexual behavior in animals other than homo sapiens however on the basis of genetic selection, homosexuality is by definition a non-starter.

[day man]

Shortbus, on 24 June 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

Um, no. Homosexuality is biologically nonviable. And yes, I am aware of examples of homosexual behavior in animals other than homo sapiens however on the basis of genetic selection, homosexuality is by definition a non-starter.

So? There are lot's of conditions that are nonviable, doesn't mean they don't exist.

*I'm not saying being gay is a "condition"

[Rainman A-10]

Shortbus, on 24 June 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

And yes, I am aware of examples of homosexual behavior in animals other than homo sapiens

So is rape and "underage" sex. All these "but it happens in nature" arguments fail.

[Vertigo]

Rainman A-10, on 24 June 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

So is rape and "underage" sex. All these "but it happens in nature" arguments fail.

Not in the context of whether being gay is a choice or if it's nature.

[Rainman A-10]

Yes, in the context of trying to prove what is natural by comparing human and animal behavior, they all fail. All. Fail.

[Vertigo]

Rainman A-10, on 24 June 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Yes, in the context of trying to prove what is natural by comparing human and animal behavior, they all fail. All. Fail.

Again, one can be a homosexual and not act on the behavior. They are still a homosexual.

Whereas if one does not commit rape they are not a rapist. If one does not have sex with a child they are not a pedophile.

Edited by Vertigo, 24 June 2012 - 05:27 PM.

[HeloDude]

FlyingBull, on 24 June 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

I don't know if pedophiles are born that way or not.

So someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex is born that way, but yet someone who is sexually attracted to a child may or may not be born that way? You weaken your argument when you pick and choose 'born that way' for one form of attraction but not for another.

Commenting on the overall issue, as a conservative libertarian, I don't have a problem with people, who happen to be homosexual, serving in the military as long as it doesn't adversely impact the military's ability to affectively carry out its mission.

Having said this, I have 2 problems with what is currently going on with the military as it relates to the repeal of DAD and they both have to do with the DoD saying one thing and then doing something else.

1) The Air Force has said we're all professionals and that it's quite alright for an openly homosexual and an openly non homosexual person of the same gender to share a deployed room with each other, share shower areas together, share toilet areas together, etc, but that we're not professional enough to have women and men share rooms, showers, etc together. Also, last I checked, a male airman can have a male in his room after certain hours but it is still against policy for a male and female to be together after certain hours. Until this is fixed, it's a BS double standard.

2) Why does the DoD have to single out an entire group based on their sexuality by thanking them specifically for their service, speaking out in support of a certain 'pride' month based on someone's sexuality, etc? I'm fully aware that this all about politics as I'm sure many homosexuals serving do not want anything special or to be singled out, rather, they just want to be left alone. The argument for repeal was that homosexuals should not have to hide their sexuality for fear of discharge, however, homosexuals are now being singled out as a specific group.

[day man]

Vertigo, on 24 June 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

If one does not have sex with a child they are not a pedophile.

Chris Hansen would disagree with you.

[HerkFE]

HeloDude, on 24 June 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

So someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex is born that way, but yet someone who is sexually attracted to a child may or may not be born that way? You weaken your argument when you pick and choose 'born that way' for one form of attraction but not for another. Commenting on the overall issue, as a conservative libertarian, I don't have a problem with people, who happen to be homosexual, serving in the military as long as it doesn't adversely impact the military's ability to affectively carry out its mission. Having said this, I have 2 problems with what is currently going on with the military as it relates to the repeal of DAD and they both have to do with the DoD saying one thing and then doing something else. 1) The Air Force has said we're all professionals and that it's quite alright for an openly homosexual and an openly non homosexual person of the same gender to share a deployed room with each other, share shower areas together, share toilet areas together, etc, but that we're not professional enough to have women and men share rooms, showers, etc together. Also, last I checked, a male airman can have a male in his room after certain hours but it is still against policy for a male and female to be together after certain hours. Until this is fixed, it's a BS double standard. 2) Why does the DoD have to single out an entire group based on their sexuality by thanking them specifically for their service, speaking out in support of a certain 'pride' month based on someone's sexuality, etc? I'm fully aware that this all about politics as I'm sure many homosexuals serving do not want anything special or to be singled out, rather, they just want to be left alone. The argument for repeal was that homosexuals should not have to hide their sexuality for fear of discharge, however, homosexuals are now being singled out as a specific group.

2. This^^^. Shack. All that.