SCOTUS scraps DOMA

[pitts2112]

Hey, I've acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling. It is the law of the land. It is something that must be dealt with in both society and in a practical manner in the military.

But why is not just as applicable for the other scenarios described? Polygamy, consenting incest, other combinations still TBD? I'm not arguing for any of these, far from it.

But those that would, and they will (already are, I'm sure), can take this finding and run with it.

Why are they wrong?

And you think the SC's ruling on marriage equality opened that huge torrential floodgate? I'd argue the Suffragette movement introduced the thought that people have equal rights under the Constitution and sometimes have to fight against prejudices to get those rights. Blacks followed suit 40 years later with the civil rights movement. That floodgate has been open for a long time.

I can't, and won't here, argue about the rightness or wrongness of bigamy or incest. That's another discussion all in itself. Supporters of those may be emboldened by the SC's decision, but I don't think they're going to get an automatic free pass from the SC because of it. Your logic is still false.

As for the floodgate on sexual rights of all kinds now being open, I also think it's highly unlikely that you're going to see Inter-species sexual rights marches in your town in your lifetime.

edited to get my "tra" and "ter" sorted out.

Edited July 1, 2013 by pitts2112

[Flaco]

Being homosexual is uncommon but part is a part of the human condition.

So is pedophilia, at roughly the same rate.

Homosexuality isn't a chosen lifestyle.

Nor is pedophilia.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Flaco

[pitts2112]

So you know for a fact that being homosexual isn't a choice? I haven't seen that "mythology" proven yet. Did you miss the recruit story above?

Here's some reading...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/13/new-insight-into-the-epigenetic-roots-of-homosexuality/

So is pedophilia, at roughly the same rate.

Nor is pedophilia.

Nice diversion. Now we're comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, to make sure the discussion gets hijacked. We've really raised the bar on our discussion now.

[lloyd christmas]

Here's some reading...

Sorry, you've got to share an article with proof. An article with "may" in the title isn't going to cut it.

[Flaco]

Nice diversion. Now we're comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, to make sure the discussion gets hijacked. We've really raised the bar on our discussion now.

Why do you have a problem with the comparison? They are both natural behaviors because they occur in the human condition, right? Here, look, you said so yourself:

Being homosexual is uncommon but part is a part of the human condition.

[pitts2112]

Sorry, you've got to share an article with proof. An article with "may" in the title isn't going to cut it.

Did you read the articles? Sure, research continues, but there's still a lot more evidence to support it than religion-based arguments.

Why do you have a problem with the comparison? They are both natural behaviors because they occur in the human condition, right? Here, look, you said so yourself:

You're right, but the purpose of the post was to compare the two, not to point out statistics.

[brickhistory]

Allow myself to quote myself:

Hey, I've acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling. It is the law of the land. It is something that must be dealt with in both society and in a practical manner in the military.

But why is not just as applicable for the other scenarios described? Polygamy, consenting incest, other combinations still TBD? I'm not arguing for any of these, far from it.

But those that would, and they will (already are, I'm sure), can take this finding and run with it.

Why are they wrong?

Still looking to see the logic explained on why others seeking their position as valid are wrong.

[pitts2112]

Allow myself to quote myself:

Still looking to see the logic explained on why others seeking their position as valid are wrong.

The right of anyone to argue their case isn't wrong, but their case may be.

[WAG]

The right of anyone to argue their case isn't wrong, but their case may be.

HUH?

[Flaco]

You're right, but the purpose of the post was to compare the two, not to point out statistics.

So pedophilia and homosexuality are natural human behaviors because they are part of the "human condition". Copy.

Why is one listed as a psychiatric disorder according to DSM-IV-TR and the other is not?

Edited July 1, 2013 by Flaco

[pitts2112]

Sorry, mate, you've completely lost me now.

So pedophilia and homosexuality are natural human behaviors because they are part of the "human condition". Copy.

Why is one listed as a psychiatric disorder according to DSM-IV-TR and the other is not?

[Flaco]

Sorry, mate, you've completely lost me now.

You said homosexuality was natural because it was "part of the human condition". So you must also believe that pedophilia is natural as well, since it also occurs at roughly the same prevalence in the US population. Correct?

[ram02]

Why is one listed as a psychiatric disorder according to DSM-IV-TR and the other is not?

Why was homosexuality removed as a psychiatric disorder from the DSM in 1973?

[Flaco]

Why was homosexuality removed as a psychiatric disorder from the DSM in 1973?

From http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html:

"In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM)."

[Day Man]

From http://psychology.uc...tal_health.html:

"In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM)."

So as we learn more, our currently accepted idea of something could change based on new evidence. You don't say...and people just knew the earth was flat!

[GovernmentMan]

The comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia are idiotic. I contend that yes, both occur in nature. ...So what's your point? ....Why do we allow/advocate for one but not the other? Pedophilia victimizes someone, in horrible ways. Consensual homosexuality among adults victimizes no one. Is that hard to figure out?

Even in the US, this concept is not as timeless as a lot of people think. Biology advocates "if there's grass on the field, play ball." We choose to override that for a number of valid, practical reasons. Not too terribly long ago some states *cough, cough* Arkansas *cough* placed the age of consent at 10. I don't see many respectable people beating down the courthouse doors to restore that particular aspect of "traditional values".

[Rmarsh]

Even in the US, this concept is not as timeless as a lot of people think. Biology advocates "if there's grass on the field, play ball." We choose to override that for a number of valid, practical reasons. Not too terribly long ago some states *cough, cough* Arkansas *cough* placed the age of consent at 10. I don't see many respectable people beating down the courthouse doors to restore that particular aspect of "traditional values".

Exactly. without going into the detail that Hoss did, I'll say that if everyone can agree that homosexuality and incest and pedophilia are all part of the human condition, you have to fall back on other standards. There are pedo's who predate on members of both sexes, same with inbreeders. Comparing a heterosexual pedo to an otherwise law-abiding gay dude holds about as much water as comparing a gay pedo to an otherwise law-abiding straight dude. That particular argument isn't really defensible.

[brickhistory]

Does it ever get old, regurgitating the same exact argument over and over as if it were a new idea each time? We get it, the repeal of DOMA will cause droves of polygamists and people in incestuous relationships to come out of the woodwork (and also to want to join the military.) ....Don't worry, that doesn't sound delusional at all.

Does it get old never addressing the argument directly? Ad hominem attacks are the equivalent of, what do you whippersnappers call it? - chaff/flare but can still be defeated by the good old-fashioned gun.

Other than to point out my retired status - out of touch, couldn't/can't lead, and am "haughty (fabulous word choice!) - your post did nothing to counter my basic argument of equality. Is my opinion therefore irrelevant because I am retired? That seems a little close-minded which seems to counter your position here. Surely you aren't claiming that only one viewpoint is tolerated?

The personal characterizations may or may not be accurate, but I'm still waiting on you or anyone else to demonstrate to me the difference in logic between homosexuals obtaining what is due them under this SCOTUS ruling and others who are 'different.'

Congratulations, through absolutely no accomplishments of your own, you happened to serve at a time when gays were forced to remain closeted and you didn't have to confront the issue.

Other than the implementation of DADT, you are absolutely correct. No changes/adjustments/PC minefields for that. Same for the addition of women in combat flying squadrons. That was just done with the stroke of a pen and no upheavals/changes required.

Sure do look back on my 'hetero white guys only' time with great fondness. (Paula Deen, get me a sam'mich...)

No LL applicable for what to do or, as importantly, not do when a major Big Blue societal change is imposed upon the folks that have to make it work.

How sitting on the sidelines and lecturing active duty guys on the internet from behind your retirement certificate can be so gratifying now is what I don't understand.

Lectured? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

1. An exposition of a given subject delivered before an audience or a class, as for the purpose of instruction.

2. An earnest admonition or reproof; a reprimand.

Please to point out where I have instructed anyone on what or how to do anything, let alone related to this thread.

If you're posing the question for the sake of discussion, fine, but you're not.

I had hope that you were getting it when I read this sentence, but then I continued reading and it was simply more of the "you are old, bigoted, and late for the early bird special at Denny's." I have asked how commanders will deal with the issues of this ruling or of folks who will be commanders and most likely will have to deal with some weird sh1t due to this ruling as well as others as the boundaries continue to shift.

Finance Guy's reference on BAH was but one example (and I am not bringing him on my side, for or against. Merely pointing out that the rules were written for the 'normal' situations). You (thank God ((religious reference admittedly so there's me nullified as to reason and objectivity)) and others still and to serve will have to handle these situations. Which, I believe, mere mortals will have to devote extra time and attention to instead of running a military organization focused on killing people and breaking their stuff. That 100% effort dedicated to being the best at being a warrior won't suffer dealing with social science effects at all. I'm sure you can handle it however. You've already said you would.

"Freedom of religion" either is a valid concept or it is not. The polygamy crowd is entirely faith-based and polygamists who argue for rights usually do so on the basis of religious freedom. ...How you can espouse the importance of religion and religious freedom but deny it when you don't like the examples given is what's ironic to me.

I believe you are conflating my posts/arguments with those of some others who don't see things the same way as you. I don't recall basing my argument on religion. I will acknowledge my error if you find I did so in this thread. My point in bringing in polygamists and any other weird combination that might want to get married is that they now have a Supreme Court ruling setting precedent for their argument about "marriage equality." Therefore the rest of your paragraphs regarding religion as it relates to my argument are moot.

Now you're free to ponder the incest ID card leadership conundrum while breathing through a paper bag while the rest of us take care of the real issues that are actually occurring.

Copy, I'm dismissed. But before I go, what are those "real issues" and how will you and Big Blue "take care of them?"

As a comparison, homosexuality has never been illegal (unless you count sodemy laws which are long gone) and even then, look how long it's taking to secure marriage rights. .....Return to the land of reality, your argument is simply inflated and unrealistic.

As to the illegality of homosexuality in the past, I refer you to Lawrence v. Texas where the great state of Texas had, indeed, enshrined in their legal code that two men fukcing was illegal. SCOTUS eventually overturned that law. So there's one example which seemingly pokes a hole in your thinking (no sts).

If my argument is "inflated and unrealistic" is it invalid? I've yet to see you address the logic of why one group that has been considered "abnormal" until recently is any different that other groups that are currently "abnormal." You seemed to try with the "freedom of religion" paragraphs; a religious belief over sexual preference, but for this ruling, by this Supreme Court, I don't see the difference. Folks are free to marry who they want, providing it's consensual, or they aren't.

Gotta go; commissary got a shipment of Lucky Strikes in and the electric fat bastard carts go quick if you aren't at the front of the line.

Edited July 1, 2013 by brickhistory

[pawnman]

Hey, I've acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling. It is the law of the land. It is something that must be dealt with in both society and in a practical manner in the military.

But why is not just as applicable for the other scenarios described? Polygamy, consenting incest, other combinations still TBD? I'm not arguing for any of these, far from it.

But those that would, and they will (already are, I'm sure), can take this finding and run with it.

Why are they wrong?

Why didn't heterosexual marriage open the door for these things? Inter-racial marriage? Why is gay marriage your line in the sand where society will collapse?

So you know for a fact that being homosexual isn't a choice? I haven't seen that "mythology" proven yet. Did you miss the recruit story above?

The research seems to weigh much more heavily on the side of it being in-born, not a choice.

Tell me Lloyd...what age did you decide to be straight?

[Flaco]

So as we learn more, our currently accepted idea of something could change based on new evidence. You don't say...and people just knew the earth was flat!

I figured someone would grab for the first part of the quote without giving any recognition to the latter two reasons. Here is the real reason it was removed:

"The young turks were all psychiatrists, all members of the APA and all liberal-minded easterners who had decided to reform the American Psychiatric Association from the inside. Specifically they had decided to replace all the grey-haired conservatives who ran the organization with a new breed of psychiatrist; more sensitive to the social issues of the day with liberal opinions on Kent State, Vietnam, feminism. They figured that once they got this new breed into office they could fundamentally transform American psychiatry. And one of the things this group was keen to transform was American psychiatry’s approach to homosexuality."

http://www.mindofmodernity.com/not-sick-the-1973-removal-of-homosexuality-from-the-dsm

C'mon dude, do you really think that science exists in a vacuum? You don't think that statistics and "empirical studies" can be used to support either side of an argument? It was political pressure and gay activism, plain and simple that "normalized" homosexual behavior in the minds of many Americans.

The comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia are idiotic. I contend that yes, both occur in nature. ...So what's your point? ....Why do we allow/advocate for one but not the other? Pedophilia victimizes someone, in horrible ways. Consensual homosexuality among adults victimizes no one. Is that hard to figure out?

Is the comparison idiotic? They are both abnormal, unnatural sexual behaviors that have the same prevalence in the US population.

We agree that pedophilia is illegal because it victimizes a child.

I'm not contending that homosexuality should be illegal between consensual adults. But it is not without cost. That is why I don't believe we should sanction and encourage it. The victim here is one of the basic units of society, the family. The redefinition of "family" and "marriage" to be inclusive of homosexual behavior will have long-run societal costs associated with it. You won't agree, and thats fine. I'm OK with that because I know that history repeats itself, and eventually we will return to some sanity and realize that we don't have to sanction every unnatural behavior preference, even while still being an inclusive society.

[pawnman]

So now that we are all on board with subjective morality.. .whose opinion on right and wrong should we go with from here on forward in this country?

All morality is subjective. Most of us would agree that killing people is wrong, as a general rule...and yet we all joined the military, where our primary job is to kill people.

Just because there are things that most people agree on across the world as "wrong" doesn't make them any less subjective.

[brickhistory]

Why didn't heterosexual marriage open the door for these things? Inter-racial marriage? Why is gay marriage your line in the sand where society will collapse?

Argue with what I actually wrote. Did I say society will collapse? Why don't polygamists and others have the same argument now regarding 'marriage equality' as gays did prior to last week?

[pawnman]

Argue with what I actually wrote. Did I say society will collapse? Why don't polygamists and others have the same argument now regarding 'marriage equality' as gays did prior to last week?

Why didn't they when inter-racial marriage was repealed? Perhaps because they are entirely different issues?

[Homestar]

Argue with what I actually wrote. Did I say society will collapse? Why don't polygamists and others have the same argument now regarding 'marriage equality' as gays did prior to last week?

Polygamists need to hire a more trendy lobby firm in D.C. It makes no sense to me to keep plural marriage illegal when society at large has decided that marriage between one man and one woman is so 20th century.

[Vertigo]

They are both abnormal, unnatural sexual behaviors that have the same prevalence in the US population.

Yep, homosexual behavior is so abnormal and unnatural that it's only exhibited by 1500 different species of God's animals. I guess political pressure and gay activism affected those animals as well until it became normalized.