297 replies to this topic

[Huggyu2]

Toro, on 18 June 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

we don't care who you bang, just keep that shit out of the workplace.

Sorry,... I do care.
"keep that shit out of the workplace" sounds like you have an opinion too, whether you want to admit it or not.
And you and I both know that, especially in the military,... "that shit" doesn't stay "out of the workplace". That's the problem.

How about farm animals? Domestic animals?
Don't laugh... this may be closer to "acceptable" than you think.
And... "age discrimination" is a mantra of the NAMBLA crowd.

How about 13 year old Thai hookers?
How about one of your friend's wives (but her husband doesn't know it)? Hey, she's got rights too. She's a "consenting adult", right? I've seen that scenario too many times, and it never turned out well. And it definitely affected the workplace. Especially when everyone involved was in the squadron.

Or how about if Col X is banging SrA Y,... but she's (or he's) not in his (or her) chain of command?

There is a standard.
There is a limit.

At some point, it doesn't make the cut.

And when you make "unlimited statements" like "we don't care",... expect to it be raised to the next level.

Oh.. and by the way... it NEVER remains "out of the workplace" in the military. This isn't IBM. I worked at IBM. (And BTW, it didn't remain out of the workplace there either).

And while I accept that DoD says it's "OK" from a legal standpoint to be in a homosexual relationship,.. it doesn't mean that I don't care "who you bang".

Your limits may be more liberal than mine... but it does "matter".

Character matters.
And I do care.

Edited by Huggyu2, 19 June 2012 - 01:30 AM.

[Rainman A-10]

Wait, what? Gay pride! C'mon Huggy, get with the times.

You're acting like if a man doesn't stand for something he will fall for anything.

Edited by Rainman A-10, 19 June 2012 - 07:06 AM.

[FlyingBull]

Magnum, on 14 June 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Any bets on what would happen if we tried to commemorate straight pride?

That would be the other 364 days of the year, if life were an RPG then "Straight white male" would be the easiest class to play as. Less than a year ago you would be kicked out if it was found out you were gay, even today gay servicemembers can't get married on base. Even if married in a state that allows it their spouses get zero benefits. How would you like to get PCS'd and have the Air Force tell you that your wife is on her own as far as moving goes. Oh and no health care for her either. Now the Sec Def is making a statement in support of gay military members, almost all of whom served at least some time under DADT which was a pretty damn oppressive policy for gay members of the military. And as just pointed out equality is still a few steps away....specifically repeal of DOMA.

This doesn't affect your life, it's just the Sec Def saying something nice and holding a little event for gay servicemembers. I have no idea why there is so much emotion about this.

As far as 'keep your sexuality to yourself', tell me the last time you went a full day at work and no one mentioned banging chicks or how hot so and so is. Straight people shove their sexuality in everyone's face all the time.

[di1630]

FlyingBull, on 19 June 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

As far as 'keep your sexuality to yourself', tell me the last time you went a full day at work and no one mentioned banging chicks or how hot so and so is. Straight people shove their sexuality in everyone's face all the time.

If a lesbo were to bring up hot chicks I'd be game to hear about it...especially if she were hot.

[Huggyu2]

Rainman A-10, on 19 June 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

You're acting like if a man doesn't stand for something he will fall for anything.

I like that quote.

[Ram]

Two girlfriend fighter pilots giving Friday academics would be ok with me. I would like to hear about the rolling scissors.

(Too bad you can't bring a video camera into the vault...)

[HOSS]

Huggyu2, on 19 June 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

- Farm
- NAMBLA
- Hookers
- Friend's wives
- Col X is banging SrA Y

Beastiality: Illegal
Pedophelia: Illegal
Solicitation of prostitution: Illegal
Adultry: Illegal
Fraternization: Illegal

Homosexuality: ...Legal

Huggyu2, on 19 June 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

There is a standard. There is a limit.

Correct, and that limit is called the law. People continually ask "Where do we draw the line?" "Where will it end?" It's simple: The rule of law. That's where. You acknowledge this later in your post, but the problem is how you then propose we just disregard it.....

Huggyu2, on 19 June 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

And while I accept that DoD says it's "OK" from a legal standpoint to be in a homosexual relationship,.. it doesn't mean that I don't care "who you bang".

Don't you see the precedent you're setting when you say something like that? If you care who another individual legally bangs, I turn it back to you to answer what the "standard" or "limit" is and how you think we should define it. If "character matters," will you protest equally the relationship between a 50 yr old and a 22 yr old? How about the Amn whose boyfriend is a tatted up goth freak-of-nature that worships the devil? ...And what about the Lt who's got a thing for fat chicks and brings his 400# fuck-buddy (BQ's Mom) to First Friday? ....Do any of them "make the cut?"

There are millions of unconventional and/or controversial relationships and weird sexual practices out there. Homosexuals didn't invent this shit. Lots of people in society maintain relationships that are offensive or bizarre to others. It's the byproduct of living in a free society. It's in large part what we fight to defend.

Seeing offensive people and being absolutely powerless to change them is fucking great. I love it. I love it because the reverse becomes immediately evident: that no one can change the things they find offensive about me or my lifestyle either. That's liberty.

The problem is that lots of people clearly don't want liberty for all. They want liberty for themselves and conformity for others. They want submission and obedience to orthodoxy and traditionalism at any price. Ironically, this is precisely how other civilizations, whose ideals we generally despise (and who we actively fight against), operate. ....It's an incredibly distorted and frightening worldview for an American to have. My opinion only.

[day man]

:slow golf clap:

Well said.

[Huggyu2]

That's fine, Hoss. I simply said "I care". It matters to me.
If it doesn't matter to you,... then copy all. That's your right.

I never said to disregard the law.
I pointed out the if you "don't care", then expect the bar to be changed so that another level is reached.
You call it "ok"... others may call it "deviant behavior".
Prior to last September, homosexual behavior wasn't protected.
The laws can be changed.
I'll respect "the law". But, no,... I do not "fight for the right of folks to engage in sexually deviant practices". If you do, that's your call.

The ever-changing law does not define my personal morals. Hopefully, they stay consistent.

Edited by Huggyu2, 19 June 2012 - 09:14 PM.

[Rainman A-10]

HOSS, on 19 June 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Blah blah blah... My opinion only.

Noted.

[HOSS]

Huggyu2, on 19 June 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

If it doesn't matter to you,... then copy all. That's your right.

It may matter to me or it may not. My point is that it’s irrelevant because matter or not, my aim is never to impede, alter, or deny rights to anyone else simply based on my personal idea of morality.

Huggyu2, on 19 June 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

You call it "ok"... others may call it "deviant behavior".

So what? Who cares what they call it? What exactly is “deviant behavior?” Only homosexuality? ...Or are there things that you enjoy that others might consider "deviant?" Drinking alcohol? Pre-marital sex? Gambling? ....Imagine if someone was telling you that they "care," and that "that shit causes nothing but problems in the workplace." ....It would make for a pretty shitty TDY to Nellis, no?

You're looking at this through the lens of someone who finds homosexuality detestable/wrong. That's not the problem. I think it's fine that you think it's detestable/wrong, I just worry about what you think you're entitled to do about it. There are plenty of things that some people consider “deviant behavior” while others consider them to be perfectly normal. This is why it’s dangerous to try to combine morality and the law (or morality and "caring" if that's the phrase you want to use to BFM the concept....sounds kind of gay to me though!). "Caring" is harmless. Judge, despise, protest....condemn them all you want. Just don't deprive them of liberty. Realize and appreciate that there are people out there that judge and despise your lifestyle too. There are people that hate your notion of marriage, your job, the way you raise your kids, what religion you practice, etc. How raging pissed off would you be if they tried to infringe upon those things and deny them to you simply because it was against their personal code?

Rainman A-10, on 19 June 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Blah blah blah…holy shit, for the first time ever I can’t think of a way to spin this thread to use fighter jargon to lecture young guys, recycle a tired war story, or tell everyone how awesome I once was before I retired and started spending every waking hour clinging to the past on Baseops. ....I'll just write 'Noted' instead and hopefully they'll think I'm clever.

Noted.

Edited by HOSS, 20 June 2012 - 08:09 AM.

[Rainman A-10]

Dude, you've got issues.

[nsplayr]

Huggyu2, on 19 June 2012 - 09:11 PM, said:

Prior to last September, homosexual behavior wasn't protected.

Untrue, as long as no one found out about it you were GTG.

Well played on all this by Hoss.

[lloyd christmas]

HOSS, on 19 June 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

How raging pissed off would you be if they tried to infringe upon those things and deny them to you simply because it was against their personal code?

Like using the words Merry Christmas, or flying a flag or saying the pledge of allegiance in school? Liberals/progressives do it all the time.

[brickhistory]

Quote

Realize and appreciate that there are people out there that judge and despise your lifestyle too. There are people that hate your notion of marriage, your job, the way you raise your kids, what religion you practice, etc. How raging pissed off would you be if they tried to infringe upon those things and deny them to you simply because it was against their personal code?

Say, isn't this exactly why we are around the world strafing, rocketing, mortaring, bombing, surveilling, a set of fanatics that think and act exactly this way?

And I have no problem saying that we are on the right/correct side of this fight.

Marriage between a man and woman, with all the property and familial rights pertaining, seems to have been a pretty good set-up for humanity for several thousand years.

Why fcuk with what works?

[dream big]

brickhistory, on 21 June 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Say, isn't this exactly why we are around the world strafing, rocketing, mortaring, bombing, surveilling, a set of fanatics that think and act exactly this way?

And I have no problem saying that we are on the right/correct side of this fight.

Marriage between a man and woman, with all the property and familial rights pertaining, seems to have been a pretty good set-up for humanity for several thousand years.

Why fcuk with what works?

Because .69% of the population banging their own sex is not going to mess with human population output.

[nsplayr]

brickhistory, on 21 June 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Why fcuk with what works?

You're free to do that at your own discretion. No one is gonna make you marry a guy. But if you did want to do so, why deny you all the "property and familial rights pertaining?"

[Vertigo]

brickhistory, on 21 June 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Why fcuk with what works?

What works for you maybe. Those on the other side... it's not working for them.

[HOSS]

lloyd christmas, on 21 June 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

Like using the words Merry Christmas, or flying a flag or saying the pledge of allegiance in school? Liberals/progressives do it all the time.

Shack. I agree 100%. Shame on them. So let's not stoop to their level, right? Let's not fuel the hipocrisy fire by calling foul on them while simultaneously petitioning to deny freedom to others.

It's also great that you mention the pledge of allegiance here. What an awesome thing to teach our kids. Just keep it mind that it reads: "....with liberty and justice for all," not "....with liberty and justice for all, except homos."

brickhistory, on 21 June 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Say, isn't this exactly why we are around the world strafing, rocketing, mortaring, bombing, surveilling, a set of fanatics that think and act exactly this way?

Yes. Exaclty. This is why I mentioned it in my first post. You seem to have missed my point though.

We fight against this shit. We risk our lives to defend and preserve liberty. How outrageous does it then become to witness Americans who are eager to emulate the enemy's type of intolerance here at home?

brickhistory, on 21 June 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

....seems to have been a pretty good set-up for humanity for several thousand years.

Why fcuk with what works?

The same was once said about slavery.

This goes back to something Huggy said about his morality staying consistent. Why do people act like morals can only be virtuous if they're unchanging? Society has a long history of sanctioning wicked things because they were seen as important to morality at the time. Society has an equally long history of then jettisoning those things once we developed an understanding of how oppressive they were and how much better we all fared under the principles of freedom instead.

[gearpig]

Hoss, your argument is one of the most rational and well-spoken from your side of the debate. However, it’s so much easier to be a moral absolutist and paint with broad strokes under the overarching deontological ideals of liberty and freedom for everyone, for anything. It makes you feel good, makes it seem as though you have the moral high ground, and often doesn’t require you to make difficult choices because the decision is simplified. You simply make the choice that adheres to a set of idealistic rules and let the chips fall where they may (but attribute any negative outcomes to some other reason).

What about the consequences? Consequentialists believe there should be a pragmatic examination of the choices, and the outcome is that which is most important rather than a blind adherence to a rule of ethics. Inclusion is the easy choice. Where to draw the line of exclusion is the difficult one.
You may argue the principles of Liberty and Freedom are what made our country great. But that’s misleading, because we do not have total freedom or total liberty, nor should we. What made it great are the people who better defined the boundaries of freedom and liberty than anyone before. Sometimes more is better, sometimes it isn’t and the lines must occassionally be redrawn. I’m not 100% where the lines should be, but I believe history has shown there is a razor thin line between social advance and social decay. We shall see.