Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#102 Dec 20 2010 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
SuperAtheist wrote:
@Homosexuality being a choice:

When did all the heterosexuals making the argument it isn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Did you actively CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite gender, or did you just sort of naturally feel attracted to the opposite gender?


I flipped a coin.
#103 Dec 20 2010 at 12:53 PM Rating: Excellent
SuperAtheist wrote:
@Homosexuality being a choice:

When did all the heterosexuals making the argument it isn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Did you actively CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite gender, or did you just sort of naturally feel attracted to the opposite gender?
That's not really a countering point though. The argument is simply that the people who choose to be homosexual are going against what they would normally feel for whatever reasons that might be. They're not saying sexuality is a choice, they're saying that changing your sexuality is a choice.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#104 Dec 20 2010 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
The majority always seem to make the argument that you are naturally straight but can choose to be gay. Which makes several huge assumptions.

And it also is what makes them think things like straight camp work.

Though a significant number of those people likely make the remark because they are actually bisexual and deny the gay part of their selves. Homophobia, for instance, has been linked to closeted homosexual desire (unsurprisingly). Some are probably gays that don't want to own up to it out of self hate, but most are likely people that like both men and women and pretend they are straight.

I suppose that could give the illusion of a "choice." But I have never once been attracted to a female sexually. I can appreciate feminine beauty and I certainly understand the notion of what is "sexy" in a woman, but it has never done anything for me.

I remember when I first started to develop my sexuality--men were the only thing in my (albeit tame) fantasies. It wasn't until several months (maybe even a year) before I realized that I was different and that it meant I was gay. I remember trying after that to imagine women and just couldn't get into it. I was so unexciting and felt pointless.

I also went through that period where I tried to force myself to be straight (which really sucks btw--if you are a parent, just tell your kid it's fine to be either, because they end up hurting themselves and other people).

One of my best friends told me she liked me, and we started going out. Eventually, I realized that my sexuality was part of me and was never going to change, so I ended it. If you've never experienced it, hurting one of your closest friends like that SUCKS. Because you know she was into the relationship, even if you weren't. (Luckily, we made up maybe a year after that and she's still one of my closest friends, like a decade later).

It wasn't like I imagined a sex scene with a man and woman and just thought the man looked like more fun. Women have just never been part of the equation for me.

[EDIT]

All this is what I have felt while being CONSCIOUS of my sexuality. Any choice had to happen before my sexual fantasy began, because it isn't like I tried to imagine having sex before I had any desire to.

So you either think:

1. I'm lying.
2. I'm confused about the order of events.
3. Or the choice wasn't a conscious one.

1. Well, there's nothing I can tell you to convince you otherwise. Until sexuality as the result of biological processes is proved, you won't believe anything else.

2. I knew what sex was before I became sexual (I remember laughing hysterically in class when I found out a man was supposed to put his penis in a vagina--it seemed to ridiculous to me. Then the teacher yelled at me about how it wasn't a joke). I imagine I would remember deliberating my sexuality. Or have at least had ANY interest in finding out more about straight sex somewhere along the line. I was also never one of the boys that thought girls had cooties. I hated playing with most boys--I always wanted to hang with the chicas.

3. If it wasn't a conscious choice, then I'm hardly blameworthy for it. Furthermore, I imagine it would be nearly impossible to change your sexuality after it becomes part of your conscious experience. ESPECIALLY if it is correlated with different biological development after the fact.

What's truly horrifying about the notion of it being choice is the idea that people will start structuring child rearing programs designed to prevent children from being gay. Here's an idea--get over it and accept the kid you get.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 2:03pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#105 Dec 20 2010 at 1:03 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
idiggory wrote:
[blah blah blah]
So now you are judging someone for a choice they made as a child, when they were literally incapable of understanding the ramifications of either. Furthermore, it is HIGHLY unlikely it is a choice in the conscious sense, as no gay or straight person I have ever met remembers the moment they "chose" their sexuality.
[blah blah blah]
So now we have a choice made subconsciously, due to heavy environmental influence, at an extremely young age, with no scientific data suggesting that you can actually change it after the fact.

Yeah, that seems like something blameworthy.

a) I'm not judging anyone. There are just as many stupid c'unts who can't figure out where to insert tab a as there are those who can.
b) Not being able to remember a choice doesn't mean it wasn't made.

I am not making a value judgment. I don't care what you like to eat any more than I care what you like to wear. I've never met a homo who I felt a burning desire to say "no, silly..." to (there was a lesbian, once, but when we were through she still felt like she wasn't missing much. Talk about a blow to the ego...), and I've never had one tell me he could be the one to change my mind.

But comparing sexual proclivities to skin color is just dumb.

idiggory wrote:
And your analogy is retarded. This isn't a case of assumption, it is a case of extrapolating the best possible answer from the data provided. The data DOES NOT suggest that homosexuality is purely genetic. It does heavily suggest that homosexuality is due to many factors outside the subject's control.

There was no reason to assume the earth was flat. And no scientific authorities in the last 2k years actually believed that (it's an old wives tale). They were wrong about the structure of the cosmos of course, but that about sums it up.

"Purely"? No, it doesn't suggest it is genetic. All of the markers ever identified as possible candidates are missing in enough gay people to make them inconclusive, at best. Beyond that, why bring in flat earth when I am talking about cosmological models obviated by Galileo? Your arguments keep doing that, going wildly off target to try and confuse the issue. You should not do that.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#106 Dec 20 2010 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Quote:
@Homosexuality being a choice:

When did all the heterosexuals making the argument it isn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Did you actively CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite gender, or did you just sort of naturally feel attracted to the opposite gender?


Oh man I hate these questions Smiley: lol Not because they're bad ones, but because they were the questions the University of Delaware's Residence Life program for freshmen were forced to ask, which (among a controversial racism definition) led to the entire program being scrapped and entirely rewritten when lawsuits were threatened. I was an RA during that year, and the fallout was pretty nasty (luckily I was in upperclass honors housing, not freshmen, so I escaped most of the blaze).

It did make senior year as an RA pretty darn easy. No more mandatory meetings with students, no forced group activities, no lectures. Only thing I had to deal with really were underage drinking parties and students having sex in the study lounge.

The question is utterly irrelevant for the repeal of DADT, but really I don't expect people to stay on topic this far in Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#107 Dec 20 2010 at 1:08 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
The question is utterly irrelevant for the repeal of DADT, but really I don't expect people to stay on topic this far in Smiley: tongue

My second post was topical, but I can't be asked for anything more.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#108 Dec 20 2010 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
I imagine I would remember deliberating my sexuality.
Nope, them gays brainwashed you into forgetting. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#109 Dec 20 2010 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
The only meaningful point I have heard on the issue is the question of recruitment difficulties. I have seen no study on it, so I have no data, but it was an interesting question posed by my brother last night.

How does this impact the large percentage of the American military that enlists from "the Bible Belt" and will it matter if it does? Outside of that all of the other issues are pretty petty.


I reckon they'll either get over it, or get a dishonerable discharge by acting out in an idiotic manner. It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a penis in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them.

I reckon you should read before you write. Recruitment difficulties don't really relate to people on active service.


Yeah, I did read it. I had first typed, "I'm not sure it matters, I imagine people from the bible belt didn't want to serve alongside black people, either. They'll either adapt or find another job."

But then I reread it, and thought you were talking about those already enlisted.

Either way, my point stands. I reckon they'll get over it. Or they won't serve in the military. Tough titty.

ETA: By the way, on the whole choice debate, whether it's a choice doesn't really matter one whit.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 1:26pm by Belkira
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#110 Dec 20 2010 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Quote:
a) I'm not judging anyone. There are just as many stupid c'unts who can't figure out where to insert tab a as there are those who can.
b) Not being able to remember a choice doesn't mean it wasn't made.

I am not making a value judgment. I don't care what you like to eat any more than I care what you like to wear. I've never met a homo who I felt a burning desire to say "no, silly..." to (there was a lesbian, once, but when we were through she still felt like she wasn't missing much. Talk about a blow to the ego...), and I've never had one tell me he could be the one to change my mind.

But comparing sexual proclivities to skin color is just dumb.


The fact that I've NEVER met someone who remembers making it is a much stronger sample.

And it's only dumb when you make a retarded assumption like "it's a choice." Can a black man will himself to be white? Can someone with ADD will themselves to not have it?

BASED ON EVIDENCE, sexuality as a biological process is the most likely scenario. Does that mean it is correct? No. But it certainly isn't stupid to assume that it isn't something a homosexual person can change. I've never seen any scientific evidence to support homosexuality as a choice. I ask you again--link me some. Because the picture of sexuality as being optional is truly awkward to me based on my own experience and all scientific evidence I have ever seen. Until you can link any research that favors choice over biology, I have no reason to accept it.

Quote:
"Purely"? No, it doesn't suggest it is genetic. All of the markers ever identified as possible candidates are missing in enough gay people to make them inconclusive, at best. Beyond that, why bring in flat earth when I am talking about cosmological models obviated by Galileo? Your arguments keep doing that, going wildly off target to try and confuse the issue. You should not do that.


A. I'm not arguing that it is genetic. I've tried to avoid using that word as much as possible--sorry if I slipped up. I'm arguing that our sexuality is likely the result of a miriad of biological events (you know, like EVERY other aspect of organism development).

Do I think there could be a gay gene? Yes. Is that the only option? No.

Why does that matter? Because you are assuming that there's one way to become gay. I seriously doubt that's the case. There are more ways to have x hair or skin color than pure genetics. Different biological influences can change your emotional inclinations as you develop.

I'm saying that I find it extremely likely that homosexuality can be described the same way as every other biological trait on the planet--through a mixture of genetics vs. physical environment.

In the post I mentioned above, there was more than just proof that genetics might play a role. For example, I mentioned that the probability of a mother's second son is 33% more likely to be gay than her first (regardless of the first's sexuality). There is a correlation among mothers with gay children suggesting that her immune system will become stronger as she produces more males, and it will attack antibodies that we know influence sexuality in other animals. NOT ALL MOTHERS SHOW THIS, no. But not all others have to. It's merely one factor that might help contribute to a varying sexuality. But there is a definite correlation here in increased antibody numbers relative to the number of males a women has and the chances of later ones being gay.

They've also done studies testing the X chromosomes in women. Normally, these switch on and off so that only one is active (and each is active about half the time). And the process is normally understood as random. But there's a correlation between mothers with gay children and x chromosomes in which one stays "on" for much longer than it is expected to. Mothers without gay children have a much lower probability of the deformity. (Note- One chromosome goes into one egg, so some eggs would have Xs that are prone to short periods and others would have ones prone to long periods--I don't know which is assumed to potentially cause homosexuality).

Identical twins are 53-70% more likely to be gay if their twin is gay. Fraternal twins are something like 11-13% more likely. Non twins are far less likely. This would support a hypothesis that uses genetics combined with womb contitions.

And there are many more theories being tested. The actual brain structures are different in gays and heteros, along with the pheromone thing. The idea that a choice can actually cause huge developmental changes is a bold claim, and not represented in scientific evidence we have. We've seen the mind forcing small changes, but it's extremely rare for large ones to occur. And most of those involve forcing hormone switches through intense emotional stress. Homosexuality would be an even larger change cause on a much larger scale We're talking about a stress-free choice leading your body to alter the development of the brain in a significant way.

Here's a list of physical differences that have been shown to have different correlation in men and women (from wikipedia--feel free to check the sources (link)):
Quote:

-Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men.[48]
-Gay men and straight women have, on average, equally proportioned brain hemispheres. Lesbian women and straight men have, on average, slightly larger right brain hemispheres.[49]
-The VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus is larger in men than in women, and larger in gay men than in heterosexual men.[50]
-The average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as INAH 3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains.[28]
-The anterior commissure is larger in women than men and was reported to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,[27] but a subsequent study found no such difference.[51]
-Gay men's brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.[52]
-The functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in non-gay women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation).[53]
-The suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,[54] the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.[55]
-The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.[56]
-Gay and non-gay people emit different underarm odors.[57]
-Gay and non-gay people's brains respond differently to two human sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).[24][58][59]
-One region of the brain (amygdala) is more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material.[60]
-Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between non-gay and lesbian women.[53][61][62][63][64][65]
-Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than non-gay men and women;[66][67][68] Simon LeVay argues that because "[h]and preference is observable before birth[69]... [t]he observation of increased non-right-handness in gay people is therefore consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is influenced by prenatal processes," perhaps heredity.[28]
-A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whirl, as opposed to 8% in the general population. This may correlate with left-handedness.[70]
-Gay men have increased ridge density in the fingerprints on their left thumbs and pinkies.[70]
Length of limbs and hands of gay men is smaller compared to height than the general population, but only among white men.[70]


[EDITED to note that some of these haven't had dedicated studies, but also that the use of words like "may" are to demonstrate that it isn't universal among gays but does show some correlation.]

Maybe homosexuality is a choice, but it seems clear it is hardly a free one (and is actually hugely influenced by your environment). And it's not a choice you can just change your mind about down the line.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 2:34pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#111 Dec 20 2010 at 1:34 PM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
ETA: By the way, on the whole choice debate, whether it's a choice doesn't really matter one whit.

I didn't bring it up, but it's fun to see just how twisted I can make the panties of those who should be wearing something else.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#112MoebiusLord, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 1:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Thanks, gbaji.
#113 Dec 20 2010 at 1:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
A thread where I get to gloat over a Senate accomplishment shouldn't suck this much.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#114 Dec 20 2010 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,630 posts
Jophiel wrote:
A thread where I get to gloat over a Senate accomplishment shouldn't suck this much.
It's about gays and military, you should've seen the 50 page suckfest coming.



Also, in before page 50.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#115 Dec 20 2010 at 1:53 PM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
A thread where I get to gloat over a Senate accomplishment shouldn't suck this much.

A lame duck session of congress ramming through social change on an electorate that clearly doesn't want it is something to gloat over? Take your pride where you can get it, I suppose.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#116varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 2:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Supertw*t,
#117varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 2:04 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#118 Dec 20 2010 at 2:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
A lame duck session of congress ramming through social change on an electorate that clearly doesn't want it...

Heh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#119 Dec 20 2010 at 2:12 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
LOLLiberalbiaswhat?
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#120 Dec 20 2010 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Varus wrote:
LOLLiberalbiaswhat?

Right.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#121 Dec 20 2010 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Varus wrote:
LOLLiberalbiaswhat?
Is fox news liberal now? Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Jan. 12-13, 2000. N=902 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. "One issue that has come up in the presidential debates is gays in the military. Do you think gay men and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military?" % Yes 57 No 30 Not sure 13 FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Feb. 2-3, 2010. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters). "Do you favor or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?" Favor Oppose Unsure % % % ALL 61 30 9 Democrats 82 15 3 Republicans 44 46 10 Independents 62 26 13



Edited, Dec 20th 2010 2:19pm by Bardalicious
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#122 Dec 20 2010 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Moe's not serious, he's just trolling.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Dec 20 2010 at 2:40 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Moe's not serious, he's just trolling.
You mean he's actually serious some of the time?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#124 Dec 20 2010 at 2:41 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Sh;t, I'm not even trolling at this point. I was just surprised you went to the trouble to link a poll. I figured since you went to the trouble the least I could do was respond.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#125 Dec 20 2010 at 2:41 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Moe's not serious, he's just trolling.
You mean he's actually serious some of the time?

I don't believe he reference a time frame.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#126 Dec 20 2010 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Moe's not serious, he's just trolling.
You mean he's actually serious some of the time?

I don't believe he reference a time frame.

That's what I get for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#127 Dec 20 2010 at 2:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
I was just surprised you went to the trouble to link a poll.

Being able to show I'm right is never "trouble".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#128 Dec 20 2010 at 3:31 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
RDD wrote:
It also hasn't been proven as a choice either.


Neither is being born blind and they still can't join, so what's your point?


My point was that its also hasn't been proven as a choice. In reponse to moe who said it hasn't been proven as a gentic thing. In response to me saying the military has done the same pacing back and forth in respect to race, sex, and now again with sexuality.

If you are such a homophobic person Alma, why don't you leave? If you are scared of being distracted why don't you leave. These people aren't scared to fight alongside you, be persecuted by you and bleed with you for your country. They don't care that you are straight and don't find them to be attractive, they don't care that you have a small penis, or a large penis. News flash, most Gays do not care for non-gays in a romantic or lustful way. Why should they have to leave, to please you, why don't you leave, to please yourself.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#129varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 3:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#130varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 3:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) wonderboy,
#131 Dec 20 2010 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
wtf does that have to do with anything you idiot.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#132varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 3:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) wonderboy,
#133 Dec 20 2010 at 3:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
ETA: By the way, on the whole choice debate, whether it's a choice doesn't really matter one whit.

I didn't bring it up, but it's fun to see just how twisted I can make the panties of those who should be wearing something else.


All my men wear panties or they wear nothing at all.
#134 Dec 20 2010 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
varusword75 wrote:
wonderboy,

You mean besides negating your idiotic assertion that homosexuality is biological?




Seems to me that it is, one of my best friends is gay. I grew up and enjoyed girls, he grew up and enjoyed other guys. Having known him my whole life he has never once looked at a girl, he has never kissed a girl, he has never dated a girl. His room at home was decorated with boy bands, and male models, while mine was of half naked chicks and big boobs.

If he made a solid choice to be gay, he did so basing it off no personal experience with the other side, he made it when he was 8 when he told everyone he likes guys. Ironically around the same age that girls start liking boys, and boys still think they are icky.

But since there is no hardcore proof either way, what does 2 people choosing to have sex with each other have to do with anything. What is your point.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#135varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 5:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wonderbread,
#136 Dec 20 2010 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:

For all you know he could have walked in on his mom getting rammed in the as* at age 3 and that twisted his little mind against hetero-sex for the rest of this life.
ITT Varus recalls repressed memories.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#137 Dec 20 2010 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Far more likely that it was his dad/uncle and uncle going at it. While his mother/aunt taped. Explains both him and his homophobia.

Dammit, I was going to avoid this thread until my paper was done. >.<
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#138 Dec 20 2010 at 7:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
A lame duck session of congress ramming through social change on an electorate that clearly doesn't want it...

Heh


Great example of the difference between what people want in the abstract and what they support directly:

Do you think homosexuals / gays and lesbians who DO publicly 
disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the  
military or not?" 
						 
 
                Should be	Should not      Unsure 
                allowed         be allowed 			 
		% 	        % 	        % 		 
12/9-12/10 	77 	        21 	        2 


and...

 
"Do you think the current Democratic Congress should repeal the  
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy and allow gay men and women to serve  
openly in the military or do you think they should not repeal it so  
they continue to serve but not openly?" 
						 
 
		Should repeal 	Should not  Unsure 
                                repeal 		 
     		% 	        % 	    % 		 
	 
11/15-18/10	47 	        48 	    5 


So within a month period of time, we go from one poll with a large majority saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly to a majority also saying that DADT should not be repealed. Confused poll takers? Who knows? I just always find it interesting how different wordings of what is essentially the same question can so dramatically change the outcome of the poll.


What's interesting is that when the issue is asked without any association to an action people overwhelmingly support allowing gays to serve openly. But when its associated with a specific legislative action, the support drops. And the more specific the association, the lower it drops. If they ask just about whether "federal legislation" should be repealed, 58% say it should be. But when DADT is specifically named, that number drops.


Doesn't have anything specific to this topic. It's just an observation about poll results themselves.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 5:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Dec 20 2010 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So within a month period of time, we go from one poll with a large majority saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly to a majority also saying that DADT should not be repealed.

/facepalm
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#140 Dec 20 2010 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So within a month period of time, we go from one poll with a large majority saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly to a majority also saying that DADT should not be repealed.

/facepalm
orz ?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#141 Dec 20 2010 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So within a month period of time, we go from one poll with a large majority saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly to a majority also saying that DADT should not be repealed.

/facepalm


Er? One poll has a 55 point margin saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military over those who say they should not serve.

Another poll, taken within a month of the first has a 1 point margin saying that DADT should not be repealed over those saying that it should.


You don't see how those margins are massively different based on how the question is asked?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#142 Dec 20 2010 at 8:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,826 posts
Gbaji, I give you a hint.

You might like to double check the dates of when the two polls were taken.
____________________________
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

"England needs, examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek, not greater wealth, but simpler pleasures; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions self-possession, and honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of peace." - John Ruskin
#143 Dec 20 2010 at 8:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So within a month period of time, we go from one poll with a large majority saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly to a majority also saying that DADT should not be repealed.

/facepalm
Er?

Heh. I'll leave it to you to try and noodle this one out.

Have fun with it.

Edit: I don't know that there's anything wrong with the dates.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 8:34pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144 Dec 20 2010 at 10:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
A. You are comparing polls from two different sources. How about you compare a poll from the SAME poll, especially when it covers the same period. Assuming a news source polls its viewers, then each one is going to have at least SOME skew one way or another. The point is to try and evaluate all the data from each source to figure out the feelings of the public per time period.

So, the first poll you linked is from ABC. It shows increasing support for an appeal over several years, with a massive increase over the early 90s.

[EDIT] Note--this is my minor opposition. B is the important part of this post. [/EDIT]

B. The second poll you referenced gives no other data for comparison over time. Furthermore, it adds an additional factor into the mix. Note that the question was *NOT* "should DADT be repealed?" It was "should the CURRENT DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS" repeal DADT.

If you were someone that supported the repeal, but worried about being rushed (which is what the majority of republican senators claimed as their position), you'd vote against it.

Furthermore, that poll was taken before the pentagon released its report saying the repeal would have no significant affect on combat effectiveness, which would have disbanded a lot of concern for people worried about "rushing" a repeal. Notice how the repeal actually passed this time around due to that report...

But thanks for trying.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 11:56pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#145 Dec 21 2010 at 5:46 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Sir X wrote:
Ok, men and women are men and women, men and men aren't. Clearly they are different.


Wow, so you support any kind of discrimination between men and women solely based on the difference of sexes with no other reasons? So, you support men and women being segregated in the work office, they can't share the same office because clearly they are different. Men and women can't share the same parking lot, because clearly they are are different.

So, you support men and women being paid differently because clearly they are different and therefore should not be paid the same?

Wow, didn't you know support those things... surely there is more to simply being different that causes you support any form of segregation or discrimination.

Sir X wrote:
You don't seem to be understanding what I was saying but whatever. You're getting caught up in the legality of DADT which wasn't my point at all.


It seems that your point is that a person's attitude towards an assumed homosexual isn't going to change overnight when that person comes out of the closet, because you already "knew" that the person was homosexual. Am I right? If so, I've addressed your concern.

Sir X wrote:
Given how he can't explain or quantify the privacy issue, I don't think he really understands it beyond "it's an argument he's heard from some top people" We'll see, I'm playing his 20 questions game he loves so much, so maybe he'll let me in on the secret. I think he agrees with the privacy argument, but it's hard to tell, maybe he doesn't and he's just arguing it for no reason.


Although I never thought of it until someone else mentioned it, this isn't just because the "top people" are using it, just an argument that I figured more people could relate to because the "top people" are using it. You knew from the beginning that this was a game, as you stated.

You know that this was all a game from the start. You never thought the two were the same, but you pretended that you did think they were the same just so I can make my argument the basis of your argument. When you realized that you couldn't get anything from me, then you admitted that you don't think the two were the same. If this weren't a game, you would have stated that from the beginning. So, if I have to look "silly" to get my point across, then so be it.

Belkira wrote:
I reckon they'll either get over it, or get a dishonerable discharge by acting out in an idiotic manner. It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a penis in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them.


Uh, they both aren't on the same scale. Your sexuality has nothing to do with getting shot at so that's a fail comparison. You're actually doing the same exact thing the bigots against homosexuals are doing. You're making a false comparison to someone's lifestyle to the ability to perform their duty. Many people joined the Army to be in combat, so getting shot at, isn't considered a "problem" to them because that's what they joined up for.

Personally, I would rather be in combat than have someone's junk in my mouth and I'm sure many military people would agree.

Belkira wrote:
It's not an issue, though. There are homosexuals in the military right this second. You probably showered with one when you last took a communal shower. All the yammering about privacy is just a way to stall and keep people from getting rid of an archaic and stupid rule.


So, you have no problem taking a communal shower with guys? In the cases where you KNOW the person might be interested in you? You missing the whole concept of DADT. The whole point is that no one knows. DADT causes people to behave a certain way. Repealing that allows them to act differently.

If the people didn't change, then there wouldn't be a reason to repeal DADT now would it?

Besides, I'm sure there are some homosexuals who chose not to join because of DADT

Belkira wrote:
You've got issues, Alma.


Explain.. If you disagree with the concept of removing yourself from potential problematic situations, then you my friend, is the one with problems.


Nadenu wrote:
That privacy thing and the showers... it has nothing to do with being straight or gay. If I, as a straight female, am showering with other straight females, my privac


If that's true, then why aren't men and women sharing showers and rooms? If your privacy is being violated with other heterosexuals, then why are you making this distinction with men? It's the same thing right?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#146 Dec 21 2010 at 6:00 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
That privacy thing and the showers... it has nothing to do with being straight or gay. If I, as a straight female, am showering with other straight females, my privac


If that's true, then why aren't men and women sharing showers and rooms? If your privacy is being violated with other heterosexuals, then why are you making this distinction with men? It's the same thing right?


Exactly. My privacy is being violated no matter who I'm showing with. BUT, if I really wanted to join the army, navy, whatever, I would expect this. So it wouldn't matter if it were a man or woman, straight or gay.
#147 Dec 21 2010 at 6:17 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Locke wrote:
I'm not sure if you were responding to "People take offense to such things"; "It happens, it's not uncommon"; or "You might want to just think before you speak?"


I was referring to "Instead of segregating yourself". That's the problem with society, instead of being proactive and not placing themselves in potential problematic situations, they are reactive.

1. I wont because I wont say anything because I wont be there.
3. No, I took a step further. I believe people should remove themselves from potential problematic situations. In doing so, you are "thinking before talking".

I had this very same argument with a female coworker not too long ago and she said the same thing as you "just think before you talk, don't segregate". Starting that day, I started pointing out all of the sexual references the females were saying in class. This creates a false environment that it's ok to say such things because not many people complain when women say sexual things. Since sex is the topic of the conversation, the guy thinks it's ok to talk about sex and says the wrong thing. Instead of guessing what is PC and what isn't, just don't say anything at all, unless you really know your audience.

Locke wrote:
Point was right in my part you quoted: "If you think they might take offense, don't say anything."
Also,


Exactly, that's my point.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#148 Dec 21 2010 at 6:28 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,668 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Ok, men and women are men and women, men and men aren't. Clearly they are different.


Wow, so you support any kind of discrimination between men and women solely based on the difference of sexes with no other reasons? So, you support men and women being segregated in the work office, they can't share the same office because clearly they are different. Men and women can't share the same parking lot, because clearly they are are different.

So, you support men and women being paid differently because clearly they are different and therefore should not be paid the same?
That was quite the leap you took there. That's like me saying since you like yellow, you must hate red.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#149 Dec 21 2010 at 6:38 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,083 posts
The biggest problem with the military is that us real soldiers have to constantly pretend officers know what they're talking about, so when they go out in the real world they continue thinking they're intelligent and just make idiots of themselves.

Well, an amusing problem at least.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#150 Dec 21 2010 at 6:45 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Wonder Gem rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
RDD wrote:
It also hasn't been proven as a choice either.


Neither is being born blind and they still can't join, so what's your point?


My point was that its also hasn't been proven as a choice. In reponse to moe who said it hasn't been proven as a gentic thing. In response to me saying the military has done the same pacing back and forth in respect to race, sex, and now again with sexuality.

If you are such a homophobic person Alma, why don't you leave? If you are scared of being distracted why don't you leave. These people aren't scared to fight alongside you, be persecuted by you and bleed with you for your country. They don't care that you are straight and don't find them to be attractive, they don't care that you have a small penis, or a large penis. News flash, most Gays do not care for non-gays in a romantic or lustful way. Why should they have to leave, to please you, why don't you leave, to please yourself.


RDD, you're a tool.
So I guess you believe heterosexual men aren't attractive to hot lesbians, only heterosexual women.. This talk that homosexual men are LESS sexual than heterosexual men is nonsense. Men are men.

Afraid of what? You're just throwing around terms and false accusations to make you seem right. Learn something from politics, smearing your opponent doesn't always make you look good. Doing so makes you look stupid.

Nadenu wrote:
Exactly. My privacy is being violated no matter who I'm showing with. BUT, if I really wanted to join the army, navy, whatever, I would expect this. So it wouldn't matter if it were a man or woman, straight or gay.


I completely agree, but that's now how the system works. I'm all for complete open showers. But

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#151 Dec 21 2010 at 6:53 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Ok, men and women are men and women, men and men aren't. Clearly they are different.


Wow, so you support any kind of discrimination between men and women solely based on the difference of sexes with no other reasons? So, you support men and women being segregated in the work office, they can't share the same office because clearly they are different. Men and women can't share the same parking lot, because clearly they are are different.

So, you support men and women being paid differently because clearly they are different and therefore should not be paid the same?
That was quite the leap you took there. That's like me saying since you like yellow, you must hate red.


I know it is. I'm just pointing out the reality that there has to be more to it than "they are different". If you can't justify the discrimination, then it probably shouldn't occur and simply being different isn't a justification.

lolaxe wrote:
The biggest problem with the military is that us real soldiers have to constantly pretend officers know what they're talking about, so when they go out in the real world they continue thinking they're intelligent and just make idiots of themselves.

Well, an amusing problem at least.


Any real officer already knows that s/he knows nothing and must rely on the Soldiers and NCO's to be successful. I took a lot of flak because I don't get into that politic nonsense.. I care about two things, the mission and my subordinates.. Take care of your subordinates, they take care of you and the mission, which makes your immediate supervisor happy and his/her supervisor happy and everyone's happy.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 72 All times are in CDT
DSD, Kavekk, lolgaxe, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (68)