If a person is attracted to a "type" of a person, it's natural to check that person out. You can't put a percentage on that because each person is different. I find most women attractive in their own way, so I would be more likely attracted to a random female as opposed to someone who has a more specific type of interest.
So those homosexual men who are only attracted to other homosexual men are not an issue, then. So, I reiterate, where is your problem?
I've explained this numerous times before. When multiple people argue against me (which is in every thread), "you" turns into "You all". If you don't like it, stop arguing with me or be the minority and agree with me, that way I will probably remember who "you" are.
You are substantiating my claim below. I'll reserve my more "sincere" apology once we're clear on each other.
That's not how it works. When you're talking to someone and you insult them, you can't just pretend you weren't really talking about them. You know good and well who I am. You also know that I'm right. I have never, not once, said that a man is a bigot simply because he's uncomfortable in a shower with a **** man. But you wanted to insult me, and you knew you could revert to your, "Oh, I meant the forum as a whole
. So sorry if you got lumped in, but you were
carrying on a conversation with me, after all. Surely you can understand how I would get confused!"
Let me requote you so you know exactly what I'm talking about:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
So, in other words, you're just going to pretend that the reasons we've given are exactly the same.
Yeah, you're hopeless.
It was a nice try.
No, actually, it was lazy.
I'm hopeless? You're the bigot not accepting that some people are just different. Just accept the fact that there men who have similar feelings to women when it comes to these measures.
I'm not naive. As I said, I know some people are just bigots and there exists some differences in the scenarios, i.e. if a woman gets raped by a man, she can get pregnant while a man can't. At the same time, I'm realistic. You can't have a sexual interest in something and not be attracted to it. That doesn't make any sense.
I just wish you would put away your bigotry and just accept that people are different or in this case, the same...
You were talking to me, specifically. I'm not excusing you for going on a rant about how I am saying unequivocally that someone is a bigot when I am often extremely careful not to bandy about the terms "bigot" and "homophobe." You **** all the time when someone makes an inference into one of your posts, but then you expect me to infer into this one because you're wrong and you know you owe me an apology? Like a Marine in the shower, it doesn't go both ways, Alma.
So you agree that a man can feel uncomfortable and not be a bigot/homophobe?
I think it's possible, sure. I've never said otherwise, nor have I implied otherwise. My
argument has always been that (1) a straight person and a homosexual person sharing a communal shower and their feelings about the situation is not the same as two people of the opposite **** sharing a shower and their feelings about the situation and (2) this so-called "privacy issue" that the military brass and yourself
want to pretend is a reason not to repeal DADT is a bunch of ****
That was my entire argument from the beginning, so I'm not sure why you would argue with me if you agree.
No. Your entire argument from the beginning has been that the repeal of DADT should be held off until these "privacy issues" that don't really exist can be ironed out.
But since you claim that you don't disagree, but you believe that the two scenarios are not the same, then why do think a man would be uncomfortable showering with **** men if they aren't the same reasons similar to women?
I honestly hadn't given it much thought. I was honestly asking you to back up your claims that a person could remain unbigotted in that situation. You were unable to articulate your point (again) so I remain undecided. I think there are a vast number of guys who are uncomfortable in that situation because of a bigotted viewpoint, but I don't think that's the only explanation. I would have to think on it some more, honestly.