297 replies to this topic

[Rmarsh]

Boxhead, on 23 June 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

How do you know it was against their will? Do you know their hearts? Maybe society just painted their true love and feelings (and actions) in a negative way. You are so closed minded. I hope you do save this thread, so your grandkids can throw it in your face about how bigoted you are against their older lovers. You either move ahead as a society or you stagnate, and apparently, stagnation is bad.

If Sandusky were molesting girls you would not even bring up the issue of consent. Would you say "did you know those little girls' hearts? maybe they wanted an old man to molest them" no, you wouldn't. We would all look at him as a Pedo that he is and sexual orientiation would not even enter into the argument. Apples and oranges. I understand you are making the "slippery slope" arguement, and it is a valid one, up to a point. But I personally don't think as a society we would ever grant consent to a 10 year old, or allow men to marry goats. Don't compare law abiding citizens (who happen to be military members AND consenting adults) with sick pedophiles and rapists. that comparison is simply unfair.

Edited by Rmarsh, 24 June 2012 - 11:54 PM.

[Vertigo]

day man, on 24 June 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Chris Hansen would disagree with you.

And what was their intent when Chris Hansen stopped the process?

[Shortbus]

Vertigo, on 25 June 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

And what was their intent when Chris Hansen stopped the process?

They're just there to hang out, isn't that what they all say?

[HerkFE]

Shortbus, on 25 June 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

They're just there to hang out.....

.....and drink "Mike's Hard Lemonade"....isn't that what they all bring. Well, Mike's and rubbers.

[Vertigo]

[Homestar]

Shortbus, on 25 June 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

They're just there to hang out, isn't that what they all say?

Four words you don't want to hear on a first date: "My name's Chris Hansen."

[M2]

Huggyu2, on 19 June 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

I like that quote.

"OUR FATHER, we yearn for a better understanding of spiritual things, that we may know surely what Thy will is for us and for our Nation. Give to us clear vision that we may know where to stand and what to stand for—because unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything. Remind us, 0 God, that Thou halt not resigned. Harassed and troubled by the difficulties and uncertainties of the hour, we rest our minds on Thee, who dost not change. May it ever be in our minds as upon our coins that in God we trust. For Jesus' sake. Amen."

~~Peter Marshall (1902–67) Senate chaplain, prayer offered at the opening of the session, April 18, 1947.—Prayers Offered by the Chaplain, the Rev. Peter Marshall … 1947–1948, p. 20 (1949). Senate Doc. 80–170

Some believe it is a spinoff of God's warning to the king of Judah to trust Him (Isaiah 7:1-9 (NIV), "If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all."

Although Rainman may just be quoting Malcolm X...

[Rainman A-10]

M2, on 25 June 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Although Rainman may just be quoting Malcolm X...

Spoiler.

[pcola]

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

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.

Agreed. I have been making this same argument since the repeal was first promised. Now that homosexuals (male and female) are allowed to serve openly, the practice of segregating mandatory living quarters by gender is obsolete and a discriminatory double standard. Especially in a deployed environment where GO #1 applies. Of course, there could be something I've overlooked as I formulated this idea - please prove me wrong if you are so inclined.

Edited for word choice.

Edited by pcola, 25 June 2012 - 05:38 PM.

[nsplayr]

M2, on 25 June 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

...unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything...

Equal rights is a pretty solid thing to stand for. Not that I agree with the moral certitidue.

Like someone else said this whole thing is about where as a society you draw the line on morality and what you're comfortable with. The facts are that over time that lines moves and on this issue the line has moved rather quickly. Younger people overwhelmingly support equal rights for homosexuals, older people tend not to. This pattern is not new nor unexpected, I'm not sure why we're even arguing about it here.

[Rmarsh]

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

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.

Actually been in this situation, and never once got propositioned. Turns out he just wanted to do his job same as me. Not saying that it doesn't happen, but didnt happen to me. I suppose now that DADT has been repealed if you felt uncomfortable about rooming with a homosexual, it could be handled proffessionally.

as for point 2), totally agree. It seems like this was from the top down, not bottom up.

nsplayr, on 25 June 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

Equal rights is a pretty solid thing to stand for. Not that I agree with the moral certitidue.

Like someone else said this whole thing is about where as a society you draw the line on morality and what you're comfortable with. The facts are that over time that lines moves and on this issue the line has moved rather quickly. Younger people overwhelmingly support equal rights for homosexuals, older people tend not to. This pattern is not new nor unexpected, I'm not sure why we're even arguing about it here.

This.

Edited by Rmarsh, 25 June 2012 - 08:51 PM.

[Prozac]

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

Um, no. Homosexuality is biologically nonviable.

So are blowjobs.

[Porkchop]

What about equal rights for consenting adult polygamists?

[day man]

Prozac, on 25 June 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

So are blowjobs.

Which is technically illegal according to the UCMJ.*

*I thought I heard about this getting changed recently, but couldn't find it.

[Rainman A-10]

nsplayr, on 25 June 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

Younger people overwhelmingly support equal rights for homosexuals, older people tend not to. This pattern is not new nor unexpected, I'm not sure why we're even arguing about it here.

Is that what you think the discussion is about?

That's not what I'm hearing.

[Vertigo]

Porkchop, on 25 June 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

What about equal rights for consenting adult polygamists?

I'm all for it.

day man, on 25 June 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Which is technically illegal according to the UCMJ.*

*I thought I heard about this getting changed recently, but couldn't find it.

It was in the NDAA that was passed Nov 2011. It repealed Art 125 on the UCMJ.

http://www.theblaze....e-u-s-military/

[FlyingBull]

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.

I'm not "picking and choosing". I've just not read enough on the subject of pedophilia to have an informed opinion on whether or not pedophiles are born that way or not. It is substantially different from the question of homosexuality for the following reason. Gay people are attracted to the sexually mature person of the same gender. Gay guys, like straight women, are attracted to pecks and six packs. Lesbians like big boobs and hour glass figures just like straight guys. Pedophiles on the other hand are sexually attracted to sexually immature people. Regardless of the gender association that is quite a different question. To me it seems a question of someone being sexually attracted to a non-sexual entity. But again I haven't read much specifically on the topic so I won't pontificate on it. It is not an inconsistency to admit ignorance of an unrelated topic.

Quote

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.

Cool.

Quote

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.

I don't get the direct relation to the repeal of DADT but that's not really important.

Quote

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.

I don't disagree. It does seem unfair. If two gay folks in the military are dating, get deployed to the same place at the same time, it would seem they aren't restricted to the same extent as a straight couple. Kind of ironic considering back home it's the reverse thanks to DOMA.

Quote

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.

I guess this is a matter of perspective. Not long ago I would have agreed. But after seeing some of the still seething homophobia in the military I support the DoD recognizing pride month. Not to single out gay service members, but rather to remind folks that they have been and are continuing to serve with gay peers whether they realize it or not. That reminder can help humanize gay people to ignorant folks who seem to buy into stereotypes. When someone with racist tendencies ends up serving with someone of another race, they can see quite plainly they are Black/Asian/whatever and the stereotype in their mind will start to dissolve. Quite commonly even people who are out, aren't so obviously out to their peers so a homophobic person may not even realize that the guy they fly with all the time who they have a good opinion of is in fact gay. A public reminder of that, I think, can do some good.

[day man]

Quote

Gay guys, like straight women, are attracted to pecks and six packs. Lesbians like big boobs and hour glass figures just like straight guys.

You can't be serious.

[nsplayr]

Rainman A-10, on 26 June 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

Is that what you think the discussion is about?

That's not what I'm hearing.

Yes, that's the big picture here. The "Pentagon Gay Pride Event" was only the catalyst for the same ole discussion for the most part.

There is a reasonable position of being ok with gays in the military and in general but thinking the Pentagon event is stupid (it seems you're taking that position among a few others), but like always there are quite a few people who have used the topic to rail against homosexuals in general (i.e. not biologically viable, it's gross, why fuck with what works, etc. etc. etc.). That part of the discussion is old hat and honestly no one's gonna change anyone's mind by in large.

Edited by nsplayr, 26 June 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[BattleRattle]

http://www.airforcet...kehurst-062412/

Looks like civil unions are now allowed on military installations (not sure if this is the first)--the article quotes a statement put out by the newlyweds saying, "We are so honored to be a part of this historic moment to be one of the first gay couples allowed to unite in a civil union on a military base."

Edited by BattleRattle, 27 June 2012 - 08:13 AM.