WTF? (**NSFW**)

[Guest nsplayr]

55 minutes ago, bfargin said:

I have to temper myself big time to not verbally bash on homos and trans.

Ok this is exactly what I was talking about.

There are folks who sincerely think being gay is bad and have thinly veiled disgust toward and contempt for gay people, beyond any minor annoyances over pushy pride month videos or whatever. As demonstrated by comments like this.

I sincerely hope you don’t lead any LGBTQ troops.

And I apologize for lumping some others who are just annoyed at pride stuff in with dudes like this, but at least now y’all can’t say they don’t exist…

[bfargin]

5 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Ok this is exactly what I was talking about.

There are folks who sincerely think being gay is bad and have thinly veiled disgust toward and contempt for gay people, beyond any minor annoyances over pushy pride month videos or whatever. As demonstrated by comments like this.

I sincerely hope you don’t lead any LGBTQ troops.

And I apologize for lumping some others who are just annoyed at pride stuff in with dudes like this, but at least now y’all can’t say they don’t exist…

No troops, been out for a while. I teach at a university and have never told anyone my personal thoughts on the subject. I teach with homosexuals, teach homosexuals as students (some actively proclaim it, others don't) and treat them all as fellow humans worthy of respect as fellow citizens of earth. But yeah, personally the actions disgust me. I'd argue for most people it's pretty gross even with the past decade of attempted forced acceptance. There are probably other actions that disgust me too.

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Ok this is exactly what I was talking about.

There are folks who sincerely think being gay is bad and have thinly veiled disgust toward and contempt for gay people, beyond any minor annoyances over pushy pride month videos or whatever. As demonstrated by comments like this.

I sincerely hope you don’t lead any LGBTQ troops.

And I apologize for lumping some others who are just annoyed at pride stuff in with dudes like this, but at least now y’all can’t say they don’t exist…

People are allowed to have their own opinions, and you should be able to work and function within a society where people fundamentally disagree with you.  

Always amusing to watch liberals struggle grasping this fact: your opinions are no more valid than his.  The law provides equal protection and nondiscrimination, and that is good. I agree with that.  Beyond that, live and let live is what conservative say, but you guys (sorry, xe people) just can’t do it, can you?  

In your example above, you hope he does not lead any trans troops because he privately disagrees with the morality of the queer lifestyle. Do you also hope no trans commanders lead Muslim troops?  Are gays incapable of leading Catholics?  Ridiculous.

 I hope we can all lead and follow each other united by our love of America and dedication to the mission, and live and let live on personal items where we disagree.  I don’t care if gay people put up pictures of their spouses or trans people tell me about the trans party they attended.  Men have the right to call themselves women, but they do not have the right to compel my participation in their personal worldview, just as I do not have the right to impose my beliefs on them.  People are allowed to have their own opinions in this country, as much as that irks you, and demanding ideological obedience with your opinions is fanaticism.

[Standby]

Speaking of homosexuality and world views: https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/gay-football-fans-death-sex-qatar-world-cup-20220621.amp.html

Anybody that has spent time in the ME is laughing at the public messaging hypocrisy…not surprising though. Someone should send them our diversity training, and a recent copy of the Tongue and Quill for pronoun etiquette in electronic mail. 

[Guest nsplayr]

@tac airlifter I mean sure, but would you want your boss/CC/professor to say (sic), "I have to temper myself big time to not verbally bash on men?" Or "blacks?" Or "jews?" Or "Italians?" Or "tacairlifters?"

I believe that being gay is an immutable characteristic that deserves no more discrimination than skin color, ancestry, disability or gender. Obv some good-natured joking around on all these topics among friends is fine and I do it myself, but I would venture approx. 96.9% of us would agree it's not good to "verbally bash" black/asian/latino/white people, men/women, or jews/muslims/christians/hindus, especially when most of us are active or retired USAF officers or NCOs.

I am fine with people disagreeing about choices made in life, including religious practices, sexual practices, lifestyle choices, etc., but again, disagreeing and "verbally bashing" is not the same thing. I disagree with honor killings; I would not "verbally bash" even a very conservative Muslim I might be talking to, supervising, teaching, etc.

In the most favorable interpretation possible, my own religion teaches to love gay people and accept them but to condemn their out-of-wedlock & same-sex sexual choices. I disagree with that distinction and basically accept it all as fine, as do the majority of Catholics, but I am versed enough in the Catholic tradition to see the Church's POV that there is a difference between the sinner and the sin and that gay sex itself is a sin. I still go to mass and write checks each week despite that disagreement. However if a pastor started "verbally bashing" gay people from the alter, I'd walk out of that parish and never return.

I think the big disconnect between where I'm at and maybe what @bfargin believes is a lot of folks who don't like gayness believe it's a choice and an immoral and/or disgusting one at that. I only need refer them to any gay person about when they "chose" to be gay, or to ask themselves when they "chose" to be straight. Every gay person I know says it's an immutable characteristic they were born with and many fought for years against actually admitting it even to themselves, and personally I can tell you I didn't "choose" to be straight, I just am.

The fact that these debates are still being had in 2022 show just how young and fragile gay rights are, especially in light of what some other societies in the world still do to gay people who happen to be born there.

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by nsplayr

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

People are allowed to have their own opinions, and you should be able to work and function within a society where people fundamentally disagree with you.

Sorry, but not all opinions are created equal. Example: There is still a sizable number of people on this planet that hold the ‘opinion’ that women are chattel. While they certainly are entitled to hold that opinion, holding those views mean that most of us are going to consider them backwards thinking Neanderthals. This train of thought may have been far more prevalent a couple centuries ago but the world has moved on. You can refuse to move with it, but don’t be surprised when your offensive worldview is challenged. Sometimes that means there isn’t a place for you anymore in our institutions that have seen the light. 

[ClearedHot]

12 hours ago, bfargin said:

I have to temper myself big time to not verbally bash on homos and trans. They deserve mutual respect as humans but earn no respect from anyone for their personal moral choices.

Dude - this is one of the worst things I've ever read on this forum in almost 20 years.  You honestly think homosexuality is a personal morale choice?

[brickhistory]

Wrong think.

 

You will be assimilated.

[brabus]

8 hours ago, Negatory said:

the issue is being passive in the face of fucked up opinions also causes harm.

“Fucked up opinions”…in your opinion. There’s plenty of people who think your opinions are “fucked up.” So I guess you’re wrong because they think that? I think plenty of people have all kinds of stupid opinions, but as long as they aren’t actively forcing those opinions/the “fruits” of those opinions on others, then there’s really not a problem…unless you are self-absorbed to such a degree that you can’t abide by others believing differently than you. 
 

If a catholic believes being gay is a sin, and you don’t…well nobody is more right/wrong. But if one of you attempts to coerce/compel the other into their viewpoint (or the catholic person actively pursues action against gay people’s “standard rights” as a human/American), that’s when one of you becomes more clearly in the wrong. Liberty - get some.

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

Wait, you guys don't remember when you chose to be straight? Or any of your other sexual preferences/kinks? (This is sarcastic).

[ViperMan]

17 hours ago, Negatory said:

My whole argument was that it wasn’t just active actions that are bad, though, the issue is being passive in the face of fucked up opinions also causes harm. I know you read it.

People are known by their actions, not their thoughts. Your desire to control what is in someone else's head is tyrannical.

17 hours ago, Negatory said:

Also, your argument about marriage doesn’t stand up to other specific examples when you use basically any other immutable trait. The flaws abound, and you’ll see that “thought police” is just an alarmist buzzword. Some thoughts are actually so fucked that they should be not allowed:

Yes, it does actually. Being handicapped is an immutable trait - only handicapped people are allowed to park in handicapped spaces. See, there are rules and laws that apply to certain subsets of people based on certain characteristics. Marriage, like it or not, was crafted to support relationships between men and women (i.e. child rearers) for the express purpose of providing economic benefits for those people who had children so their bank accounts wouldn't be broken and their families left destitute if someone happened to die.

And to address your statement re the thought police: "some thoughts are actually so fucked that they should not be allowed." Let's just say I rest my case.

17 hours ago, Negatory said:

Let’s apply your final argument to 1865:

”I, personally, don’t and would never own slaves. But I ask you, good sir, why should someone who does be forced to give up their slaves that they paid for and rightfully own? It’s not even a moral position in [this] case - it’s a legal/financial one.”

Took over 100+ years for society to fully get on board, but sounds pretty fucked up to argue like this today, doesn’t it? It will be like this for LGBT rights after you all die out - just check Gen Z’s opinions.

BL: Harmful effects of discrimination against those with immutable characteristics isn’t limited to just those who actively fight against them. That’s been my whole point. It’s also those that implicitly support those that fight against them. Enabling fucked up opinions is bad.

Your comparison is invalid. To address this, you need to come up with an a priori reason why some people should be enslaved but not others. I don't think you or I or anyone else could ever make that convincing argument. I have provided a reason why marriage was previously defined as such - why society defined it as such - but no such reason has been provided as to why it should be extended to a separate class of relationships for which it was never designed. That's the point. Handicapped laws apply to handicapped people. Marriage laws apply to men and women - or so they did. Having that position isn't necessarily bigoted, though it certainly can be depending, even though you would have us believe it is.

[pawnman]

18 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

People are known by their actions, not their thoughts. Your desire to control what is in someone else's head is tyrannical.

Yes, it does actually. Being handicapped is an immutable trait - only handicapped people are allowed to park in handicapped spaces. See, there are rules and laws that apply to certain subsets of people based on certain characteristics. Marriage, like it or not, was crafted to support relationships between men and women (i.e. child rearers) for the express purpose of providing economic benefits for those people who had children so their bank accounts wouldn't be broken and their families left destitute if someone happened to die.

And to address your statement re the thought police: "some thoughts are actually so fucked that they should not be allowed." Let's just say I rest my case.

Your comparison is invalid. To address this, you need to come up with an a priori reason why some people should be enslaved but not others. I don't think you or I or anyone else could ever make that convincing argument. I have provided a reason why marriage was previously defined as such - why society defined it as such - but no such reason has been provided as to why it should be extended to a separate class of relationships for which it was never designed. That's the point. Handicapped laws apply to handicapped people. Marriage laws apply to men and women - or so they did. Having that position isn't necessarily bigoted, though it certainly can be depending, even though you would have us believe it is.

Yeah, we should stick to biblical marriage between a man and a woman. Or a man and a dozen women. Or a man and the sex slaves he conquers at war.  Or a man and his dead brother's wife. Or a man, his dozens of wives, and his concubines...

[Prozac]

16 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Marriage, like it or not, was crafted to support relationships between men and women (i.e. child rearers) for the express purpose of providing economic benefits for those people who had children so their bank accounts wouldn't be broken and their families left destitute if someone happened to die.

Uh, so your position is gay couples can’t rear children/act as a family? There are thousands of gay couples (not to mention their children) who would strongly disagree with you. Why should spouses and children be denied benefits afforded to others just because of their sexual orientation? That sounds like the very definition of bigotry. 

[Smokin]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Or a man, his dozens of wives, and his concubines...

Sounds good to me!

[HossHarris]

10 hours ago, LumberjackAxe said:

Wait, you guys don't remember when you chose to be straight? Or any of your other sexual preferences/kinks? (This is sarcastic).

I remember exactly when many … so many…of my wonderful kinks revealed themselves to me. 
 

good times. 
good times. 

[M2]

On 6/22/2022 at 6:46 PM, Lord Ratner said:

That's fucking rich.

Seriously, do you pause for even a second before stabbing your justice boner straight through your keyboard?

Pathetic

You obviously don't understand how much ego masturbation nsplayr derives from being "woke!"

[Guest nsplayr]

12 minutes ago, M2 said:

You obviously don't understand how much ego masturbation nsplayr derives from being "woke!"

I’ll stick to regular masturbation please and thank you 🍆💦 maybe a mutual with BQZip’s mom now and again for some variety.

Seriously…I’m not super woke. I’m a fairly center of mass neoliberal democrat and I spend plenty of time rolling my eyes at the true social justice warriors on the left in texts with likeminded friends. Just like a lot of run of the mill conservatives don’t love the insane rabid radicals on their side, I don’t like the left wing ones on my side either!

You may just not have a very representative circle if you really think what I say here is representative of some pronoun-pushing trans communist or whatever.

What I first started saying in this thread is that I felt that gay rights were backsliding and that there were truly anti-gay people out there who think it’s all a choice and a disgusting one at that and who once again have started openly discriminating against gay people…and was proven correct fairly quickly.

It does seem like most folks here want the forced wokeness to stop but are fine with a diverse team in the military and accepting of gay teammates, to which I say amen. 🇺🇸

Edited June 24, 2022 by nsplayr

[brabus]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

but are fine with a diverse team in the military and accepting of gay teammates, to which I say amen. 🇺🇸

I think that’s far more of America than you think. Of course there are extreme groups of people, but I’m still optimistic 80% of the country is not on an extreme and generally does not give a fuck what others do in their private lives. Sure opinions may differ, but 80% aren’t trying to actively stop others from living their life. We should all focus our energy on shutting up the 10% on each side rather than lumping everyone on the other side of center into that “10% category.”

[dream big]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’ll stick to regular masturbation please and thank you 🍆💦 maybe a mutual with BQZip’s mom now and again for some variety.

Seriously…I’m not super woke. I’m a fairly center of mass neoliberal democrat and I spend plenty of time rolling my eyes at the true social justice warriors on the left in texts with likeminded friends. Just like a lot of run of the mill conservatives don’t love the insane rabid radicals on their side, I don’t like the left wing ones on my side either!

You may just not have a very representative circle if you really think what I say here is representative of some pronoun-pushing trans communist or whatever.

What I first started saying in this thread is that I felt that gay rights were backsliding and that there were truly anti-gay people out there who think it’s all a choice and a disgusting one at that and who once again have started openly discriminating against gay people…and was proven correct fairly quickly.

It does seem like most folks here want the forced wokeness to stop but are fine with a diverse team in the military and accepting of gay teammates, to which I say amen. 🇺🇸

How about this? I would say the points below are pretty mainstream for most of my conservative friends, I don’t speak for the extreme:

-People don’t chose to be gay

-Homosexuals are human beings and should be treated as such 

-Homosexuals should receive the same rights in the eyes of the government as heterosexuals, to include the benefits of a Civil Union…to that point I don’t think government should be in the business of marriage, period.  

-Churches should never be forced to marry homosexuals.  To your earlier point on Catholics, gays would be welcome in any Catholic Church, it’s only their lifestyle that wouldn’t be approved or validated - I’ll bet you any money on that.

-Homosexuals are welcome in the military, I couldn’t care less who you bang. Bring your same sex spouse to work events, you should not be treated any different because of your sexual preferences.

-Have your pride parades off base, don’t care, it does not belong in the military and Nellis AFB should not be having drag shows or drag queen reading hours to kids. In fact, just leave kids out of this discussion until they are old enough.  All they need to know is treat everyone with respect. 

-Not everyone is going to approve of your lifestyle, that does not give you the right to bully, intimidate or cancel.  The gays who are still bullying the Christian bakers are the worst of people. 

-There are two genders, you cannot change genders.  That’s basic science. Transgenders are still people and should be treated as such, those with gender dysphoria should seek mental help, and with no negative stigma just like any other disease. 

-No, the military shouldn’t have to pay for gender hormone treatment or transition surgery.  I as a commander have better things to do than teach transgender awareness training. 

-BL, whether you are gay or straight, don’t be an asshole, and we can get a long just fine. 
 

 

[brickhistory]

11 hours ago, pawnman said:

Yeah, we should stick to biblical marriage between a man and a woman. Or a man and a dozen women. Or a man and the sex slaves he conquers at war.  Or a man and his dead brother's wife. Or a man, his dozens of wives, and his concubines...

As long as he's got his Kung flu 'vaccines,'...

[pawnman]

6 hours ago, brabus said:

I think that’s far more of America than you think. Of course there are extreme groups of people, but I’m still optimistic 80% of the country is not on an extreme and generally does not give a fuck what others do in their private lives. Sure opinions may differ, but 80% aren’t trying to actively stop others from living their life. We should all focus our energy on shutting up the 10% on each side rather than lumping everyone on the other side of center into that “10% category.”

Agreed. If that 80% ignored the other 20%, we wouldn't have any of this cancel culture BS.  Companies go where the money is.

[ClearedHot]

8 hours ago, HossHarris said:

I remember exactly when many … so many…of my wonderful kinks revealed themselves to me. 
 

good times. 
good times. 

This one time at band camp...

[ViperMan]

23 hours ago, pawnman said:

Yeah, we should stick to biblical marriage between a man and a woman. Or a man and a dozen women. Or a man and the sex slaves he conquers at war.  Or a man and his dead brother's wife. Or a man, his dozens of wives, and his concubines...

Who said anything about the bible? Jesus. You guys have a hard time absorbing (or even recognizing) any view that deviates from your own, narrow, predefined narrative about what constitutes "the other sides'" opinion.

Islamic, Hindu, European, African, Asian, Japanese, Polynesian, and Indian cultures all conceived as marriage as between a man and woman. You're listening skills are akin to the kid hammering a square peg into the round hole: if it doesn't fit into something I think I heard, pound on it harder. My point is simply that the court had/has no business altering the definition of a bygone human tradition.

23 hours ago, Prozac said:

Uh, so your position is gay couples can’t rear children/act as a family? There are thousands of gay couples (not to mention their children) who would strongly disagree with you. Why should spouses and children be denied benefits afforded to others just because of their sexual orientation? That sounds like the very definition of bigotry. 

Nope. Of course they can and do. So no one need disagree, nor should they be denied benefits. The real solution from my perspective is to remove tax benefits from marriage. If kids become involved, then this can be adjudicated with the use of child tax credits or something along those lines. I got nothing against gay people. Thanks.

[pawnman]

10 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Who said anything about the bible? Jesus. You guys have a hard time absorbing (or even recognizing) any view that deviates from your own, narrow, predefined narrative about what constitutes "the other sides'" opinion.

Islamic, Hindu, European, African, Asian, Japanese, Polynesian, and Indian cultures all conceived as marriage as between a man and woman. You're listening skills are akin to the kid hammering a square peg into the round hole: if it doesn't fit into something I think I heard, pound on it harder. My point is simply that the court had/has no business altering the definition of a bygone human tradition.

Nope. Of course they can and do. So no one need disagree, nor should they be denied benefits. The real solution from my perspective is to remove tax benefits from marriage. If kids become involved, then this can be adjudicated with the use of child tax credits or something along those lines. I got nothing against gay people. Thanks.

Almost all of them recognize polygamy. Looking to enshrine that in federal law? Not that I'm opposed... consenting adults should be able to sign up for any legally binding agreements they want. 

[Guest nsplayr]

30 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

The real solution from my perspective is to remove tax benefits from marriage. If kids become involved, then this can be adjudicated with the use of child tax credits or something along those lines. I got nothing against gay people. Thanks.

I used to think as you do, that the government should have just created a civil union that all couples would need to apply for and enter into if they wanted benefits from the government for being legally together, and then let churches/temples/mosques/etc. do whatever they wanted with "marriages."

Then I came to realize that there was already this thing "one weird trick" elegant solution in existence: it is called "marriage." Everyday people know what that means and implies and all laws and benefits were already setup to apply certain benefits to married couples. No need to invent some new government thing and change all the laws.

Furthermore, it was mostly the religious institutions I was most familiar with (Catholic & conservative protestants/jews/muslims) that didn't accept gay marriage pre-Obergefell, there were plenty of other denominations of christianity and other religions that already did. There's no reason why one church-recognized marriage should be less valid than another in the eyes of the government.

So honestly the small government, small-c conservative thing to do was just say look marriage is for everyone now rather than continuing to uphold legal discrimination from an important human institution. The new status quo post-Obergefell keeps the government out of religious matters (i.e. no church is forced by the government to conduct gay marriages), and keeps some of the more conservative churches out of government matters (i.e. no government can now withhold benefits to couples just because certain churches don't approve of their choices).

And big surprise - now 70%+ of Americans support this outcome because honestly I think it's plainly fair without burdening anyone - if you don't like gay marriage don't get one!