Prozac Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 You might not consider yourself a homophobe but you are. If simply talking to a person who has a lisp and shakes his head when he talks makes you uncomfortable then you are pretty far down the road of homophobia. You claim you aren't close minded yet you state multiple times that you are uncomfortable even being around a gay person. He didn't hit on you, you admit he did his job very well and you admit you really weren't bothered by the uniform violations. The only thing that actually bothered you is that he is gay. That is pretty much the definition of bigotry. So to answer your other question, yes. In fact it won't take 40 year, people today are more than willing to let you know that you sound exactly like your grandfather. Depends. Was the OP uncomfortable because the troop was gay? Or was he uncomfortable because, along with the uniform violations, many would consider the over the top effeminateness to be inconsistent with acceptable military bearing? I don't have any problem whatsoever with gay troops. I have a huge problem if any group is going to be held to a different standard (and yes, this includes different PT standards for women). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 You might not consider yourself a homophobe but you are. If simply talking to a person who has a lisp and shakes his head when he talks makes you uncomfortable then you are pretty far down the road of homophobia. You claim you aren't close minded yet you state multiple times that you are uncomfortable even being around a gay person. He didn't hit on you, you admit he did his job very well and you admit you really weren't bothered by the uniform violations. The only thing that actually bothered you is that he is gay. That is pretty much the definition of bigotry. So to answer your other question, yes. In fact it won't take 40 year, people today are more than willing to let you know that you sound exactly like your grandfather. I haven't ran into this, yet..... But I can be as unconfortable as is want to be if I am, homophobic or not. I can be offended or not at my choosing, I can be disgusted or not at my choosing. If they can be, I can be, that is equal rights....this cannot be a one way street. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KState_Poke22 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 You might not consider yourself a homophobe but you are. If simply talking to a person who has a lisp and shakes his head when he talks makes you uncomfortable then you are pretty far down the road of homophobia. You claim you aren't close minded yet you state multiple times that you are uncomfortable even being around a gay person. He didn't hit on you, you admit he did his job very well and you admit you really weren't bothered by the uniform violations. The only thing that actually bothered you is that he is gay. That is pretty much the definition of bigotry. So to answer your other question, yes. In fact it won't take 40 year, people today are more than willing to let you know that you sound exactly like your grandfather. ...what? That makes no sense. I am 100% for gay people to have the same rights as everyone else and I would never discriminate against anybody because they're gay. That being said, being in San Francisco during gay pride week makes me pretty uncomfortable. It's not something I'm used to or around on a day to day basis, that doesn't make me a homophobe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catbox Posted June 28, 2013 Author Share Posted June 28, 2013 Depends. Was the OP uncomfortable because the troop was gay? Or was he uncomfortable because, along with the uniform violations, many would consider the over the top effeminateness to be inconsistent with acceptable military bearing? I don't have any problem whatsoever with gay troops. I have a huge problem if any group is going to be held to a different standard (and yes, this includes different PT standards for women). This is absolutely the case. I'm not uncomfortable around gay people at all, in fact if this kid would have helped me at a bank as opposed to a military finance section I wouldn't have given it any thought. There was just something incredibly unmilitary about the way he acted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rmarsh Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) I find your post to be humorous by the irony of its message and the use of the word bigotry (noun: intolerance toward those that hold different opinions from oneself). Name calling is a poor way to argue a cause and is a cheap way to stymie debate. Irrespective of one's own beliefs, consider this question- is it possible for someone to accuse someone else of being a bigot without succumbing to the irony of being one? I don't know, but I think its kind of a circular argument (and just as ironic) for two people of apposing viewpoints to accuse each other of being intolerant of the other's stance. I support equal rights and gay rights, but the bottom line is that I shouldn't have to know, nor do I care to know about someone's sexuality. That's their own business and they are entitled to it. I agree with Catbox and K State that acting flamboyantly gay does not present a military image just the same as a morbidly obese dude doesn't. Both are wrong. Keep it professional at work and lewd at the bar, and the Air Force will continue to function as it always has. No big deal. Edited June 28, 2013 by Rmarsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 I haven't ran into this, yet..... But I can be as unconfortable as is want to be if I am, homophobic or not. I can be offended or not at my choosing, I can be disgusted or not at my choosing. If they can be, I can be, that is equal rights....this cannot be a one way street. Just like grandad had the right to be offended and disgusted by integration, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osulax05 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 They most definitely had the right to be offended by integration. It's acting out on those beliefs in a discriminatory way that crosses the line. Like the man said, equal rights is a two way street and people seem to forget that. If you want to be gay have at it, but I don't have to like it nor should I be forced to "see" it. Kinda like non-Christians being offended by Christmas trees, crosses, etc and getting those items removed from public areas. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravedigger Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 They most definitely had the right to be offended by integration. It's acting out on those beliefs in a discriminatory way that crosses the line. Exactly. I saw two dudes kiss in the airport the other day and I felt disgusted. That's just how my body reacted. It wasn't some massive assault on PDA, it was just a kiss that I wouldn't have thought twice about if I saw a man and woman instead. That reaction doesn't make me a homophobe, it makes me straight. That said, I firmly believe that if those two dudes love each other and want to get married, they should have that right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spur38 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Just wait until the new Viagra commercials come out of the closet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Just wait until the new Viagra commercials come out of the closet! As long as they're at the age of knowing how to get things done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 Just like grandad had the right to be offended and disgusted by integration, right? So you are calling me a racist? I expected more out of you. People with more pigment in their skin can't help it, they will carry that their entire lives. You do not have to sleep with the same sex to exist, but maybe thats where we disagree. Just because I disagree with you, are you telling me I cannot have my opinion? I would call that narrow minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troublemaker Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 Exactly. I saw two dudes kiss in the airport the other day and I felt disgusted. That's just how my body reacted. It wasn't some massive assault on PDA, it was just a kiss that I wouldn't have thought twice about if I saw a man and woman instead. That reaction doesn't make me a homophobe, it makes me straight. That said, I firmly believe that if those two dudes love each other and want to get married, they should have that right. What some factions of our society are unwilling to acknowledge is that there are clearly defined areas of right and wrong. Just because something feels good, is the path of least resistance or is just what someone wants to do no matter what doesn’t make it right. They can still do it if they want, but we as a society don’t have to support them. If you are a Christian (which I am), you know the bible says same-sex unions are wrong. If you’re not, then just look at nature. Same sex stuff isn’t happening with animals. Our reproductive process doesn’t support same sex. It's an unnatural aberration. We feel disgusted when we see two guys kiss because it’s unnatural and our normal instincts to be attracted to a woman are in control. So, there’s obviously some genetic or mental issue going on with a gay person to give them this same-sex attraction. They don’t just decide to deviate from the natural norm on a whim. For whatever reason, God made them that way and it’s a cross they have to bear. I see them as no different than someone with an alcohol or drug addiction. The main difference is that some people can justify accepting gays and all that comes with it because it’s about something socially acceptable like love instead of addiction. There’s no one standing up fighting for addicts rights because most of society has acknowledged that their behavior is destructive and they have a problem they need help with. A larger portion of our society has acknowledged the same thing about same sex unions but you wouldn’t know it thanks to political correctness and the media. The mere suggestion that there might actually be something physically, genetically or mentally wrong to cause same sex attraction makes those on the other side of the argument lose their minds. Forget suggesting that someone in that situation might be helped to move past it or that they may just have to deal with a life of abstinence (like recovering addicts). Oh no! Everyone deserves love, right? If two men or two women want to be a couple, live together, etc. I could care less. Just like I really don’t care if someone wants to drink themselves to death or stick a needle in their arm every day. It’s their right to choose to do that. However, they shouldn’t expect society to pat them on the back and tell them we all think what they’re doing is just fine by allowing official marriages, adoptions, tax filing status, etc. No innocent child should be thrown into a situation via adoption where they are denied a father or mother because of the selfish desires of two misguided people. I don’t care if they serve in our military but, I will have a problem with some guy being a “dependent” of another male service member because they think they’re married. Do we give addicts tax breaks because they can’t work or encourage their destructive, unnatural behavior? No. We offer them help to stop and support and encourage them to turn their lives around. There’s no way this situation can be compared to racial integration. There’s nothing unnatural or deviant about someone’s heritage or race. Just because the gay movement, Hollywood and a bunch of feel-good liberal politicians are trying to force this issue into the mainstream and make everyone believe it’s the “new normal” doesn’t mean it has to be so. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/ OK, Beck, but the links are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zach braff Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 If you are a Christian (which I am), you know the bible says same-sex unions are wrong. If you’re not, then just look at nature. Same sex stuff isn’t happening with animals. I dunno man. I have a girl dog and I catch her humping the sh-t out of our couch pillows (she plays the dude) all the time. zb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 Yeah, he shouldn't have said that. The difference between us and animals is we can decide to say no, they are instinctual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prozac Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 If you’re not, then just look at nature. Same sex stuff isn’t happening with animals. Suggest you check your facts bro. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAG Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 Suggest you check your facts bro. Reductio ad absurdum arguments. The fact that thousands of creatures eat their own species does not give humans the moral ground to engage in cannibalism. Taking moral cues from the animal kingdom is absurd. That goes for both sides of the debate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prozac Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 Reductio ad absurdum arguments. The fact that thousands of creatures eat their own species does not give humans the moral ground to engage in cannibalism. Taking moral cues from the animal kingdom is absurd. That goes for both sides of the debate. Not even close man. Troublemaker is the one making the flawed argument that homosexual activity does not occur in nature therefore shouldn't occur in humans. Simply refuting that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAG Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 (edited) Not even close man. Troublemaker is the one making the flawed argument that homosexual activity does not occur in nature therefore shouldn't occur in humans. Simply refuting that point. Relax. I said, "That goes for both sides of the debate." Edited June 30, 2013 by WAG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEVIL Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 If you are a Christian (which I am), you know the bible says same-sex unions are wrong. If you’re not, then just look at nature. Same sex stuff isn’t happening with animals. Our reproductive process doesn’t support same sex. It's an unnatural aberration. Getting nature lessons from someone who uses the bible to define their entire life, and expect that from others who might not feel the same way is pretty comical. (Creationism vs science segway that I'm too drunk and lazy to continue with...you get the point) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 Relax. I said, "That goes for both sides of the debate." No, troublemaker said same sex stuff wasn't happening with animals. Prozac said check your facts. You said eating your own shit doesn't make cannibalism okay. Total non sequitur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaco Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 No, troublemaker said same sex stuff wasn't happening with animals. Prozac said check your facts. You said eating your own shit doesn't make cannibalism okay. Total non sequitur. No, WAG said many animals engage in eating their own species, not feces. Animals do both and a bunch of other weird shit that humans wouldn't/shouldn't do. I do find it entertaining to see animal behavior used by the gay lobby to justify the morality of homosexuality when on the other hand the same people would probably argue all day that humans are the result of thousands of years of animal evolution of the monkey-fish-frog. Soooooo along the way we dropped eating our own shit and each other, but we kept homosexuality. Copy. Has anyone seen my cherry picker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 No, WAG said many animals engage in eating their own species, not feces. Valid - reading comprehension fail on my part. However, my point stands (which had nothing to do with this argument). Somebody said animals don't do the gay, and that point was refuted correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 No, WAG said many animals engage in eating their own species, not feces. Animals do both and a bunch of other weird shit that humans wouldn't/shouldn't do. I do find it entertaining to see animal behavior used by the gay lobby to justify the morality of homosexuality when on the other hand the same people would probably argue all day that humans are the result of thousands of years of animal evolution of the monkey-fish-frog. Soooooo along the way we dropped eating our own shit and each other, but we kept homosexuality. Copy. Has anyone seen my cherry picker? I'm not sure how the two are even that separate. And usually, I don't see people saying "animals do it, so people should to". Usually, it is a response to the anti-gay argument that "it isn't natural". Clearly, it is natural. So you are calling me a racist? I expected more out of you. People with more pigment in their skin can't help it, they will carry that their entire lives. You do not have to sleep with the same sex to exist, but maybe thats where we disagree. Just because I disagree with you, are you telling me I cannot have my opinion? I would call that narrow minded. Calling people out for their prejudices is now narrow minded? Fine. I'm narrow minded. Doesn't change the fact that a growing body of evidence now points to the conclusion that homosexuality is in-born...just like race. I suppose we could tell them all they have to be celibate for their entire lives. Seems a little unfair to me. You can hold on to that idea if you want, but you are probably not going to win any new legal battles, and in 20 years, you're going to look just as silly as grandpa looked when he condemned inter-racial couples. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaco Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 I'm not sure how the two are even that separate. And usually, I don't see people saying "animals do it, so people should to". Usually, it is a response to the anti-gay argument that "it isn't natural". Clearly, it is natural. I agree. It is as natural as animals eating their feces and each other. We are on the same page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now