Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Alma, legitimate question (and I'm not even going to insult you in this post).

You say that soldiers won't want to room/shower with a gay guy because he is sexually attracted to men, right? You think that would make him uncomfortable? And you think the gays should have separate quarters?

Okay, then let me ask you this. What about the gay men and women who are now living exclusively with gay men/women?

They are now in a situation where everyone would be attracted to everyone (insofar as sex alone is an attractor).

Why is it okay to segregate them into another situation where they alone might be super uncomfortable? Unless you attribute blame to them for making the others uncomfortable, you have no right to do this. And if you *do* attribute blame to them, it can only be because you are prejudiced in favor of straight units.

*All this has been assuming you are right and it is the sexual attraction, not the sexuality itself, that people object to.*

So you would be choosing to place two groups into super awkward situations to save the rest from being in a slightly awkward situation. How is that going to encourage combat unity? It seems to me like having one or two gay guys using the same shower is less awkward for everyone.

[EDIT]


If by "only idiots" you mean "every gay person on the planet and many, many straight ones" then fine.

But the fact is that we have no scientific evidence supporting homosexuality as a choice, and a veritable ton of evidence saying it is.

Examples:
-Gay men react to male pheromones and lesbians to female ones. This is subconscious and occurs once puberty starts. Straight men/women react to the opposite sexes'.

-When dealing with identical twins, if one of the two is gay the other is also 70% of the time.

-Genetic transplants in fruit flies from "gay" to "straight" ones have managed to turn the "straight" ones "gay."

-The x chromosomes in a mother switch on and off (one on, one off). This is normally a random process. But data of women with gay sons shows that their switches are far skewed. I don't know what that means specifically, but it is a sign of another factor).

-The more male children a mother has, the more likely a latter one will be gay. It is believed this is because the mother's system works up an auto-immune defense to males. So, one potential factor (remember that sexuality is the result of many different things, and there are multiple ways a child could end up gay) is that the mother's antibodies attack an antibody known as the HY antibody, which has been linked to sexuality. The reduced number of these causes the male's sexuality to remain unchanged, rather than emasculation (remember that the female is the standard state of a human fetus and that the Y chromosome changes the genetic blueprint).

-Evolution is able to tell a story involving how homosexual men contribute the good of the family group (as social animals) which has led them survive against natural selection despite not passing on their own genes. Even in modern times, sisters with gay brothers are more likely to have more children.

-Then there are specific studies that show differences in the brain.

I'm not criticizing you for not knowing this--few straight people bother trying to. But there's literally no evidence for homosexuality being a choice but a ton for it being the result of involuntary biological processes.

It isn't something a gay guy can change, and it isn't something he chooses. It's part of who he is--no different than your sex or your race. It all boils down to the biological processes that make you who you are.

If you are interested, I will give you sources. I didn't bother here because you haven't read anything else I've linked.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 12:24pm by idiggory

Liar.

It also hasn't been proven as a choice either.

Hi, referring to one's (presumed) sexual orientation is a sexual reference. People take offense to such things. It happens, it's not uncommon. Instead of segregating yourself, you might want to just think before you speak?




Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Just because you don't think it's harassing doesn't mean others agree. And know what? That's how the law works. Your view honestly seems like more of an issue of not thinking out what you say; or perhaps lack of knowledge on social norms and/or the English language.

Did you watch Bambi as a kid? Remember the phrase "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all"? If you think they might take offense, don't say anything.

It seems your own view might be the one needing adjusting though, as "People ASSUME" is pretty darn vague and seems to imply a systemic problem. Personally I've gotten to know people a bit before popping potentially upsetting comments. Maybe 5% of people you talk with will be jerks who would complain about anything; 10% will take being called a ***** (for example) as legitimate harassment; and 85% just don't like you, Alma, in particular.

Ok, men and women are men and women, men and men aren't. Clearly they are different.

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.

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.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 11:38am by Xsarus

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.

Uh... no.

It's not that simple. Because you'll be talking to a female who make sexual comments and everyone laughs. Then you might respond one way, thinking she's cool with it because of the stuff she says and does, and then all of the sudden you offended her.

Well, that's like the girls who wear shirt skirts and tops and get offended when you look at their chest and legs. How about I just remove myself from them. Every other normal girl interacts the way I'm used to being around. There's no reason in taking chances at work.



I'm not grasping your point. Maybe my reply above is relevant to this.

Girl- Hahaha, he should keep it in his pants!
Alma- Yeah... Hey, can I motorboat you?

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?"

Let's break them down!
1. Yes, they do. It's YOUR fault if you said it. So, don't say potentially harassing things.
2. Again, it's not uncommon. This isn't my argument to back up, as you've been saying "People ASSUME", thus implying more than one person.
3. If you don't believe you should think before you speak... well, I think we just clarified almost all of your posts here!


Then don't make a sexual comment or a comment that might be considered inappropriate? Goodness, it's not a hard concept. Self-moderation is a great thing, and if you cannot (or will not) use it, why would you complain when it bites you?

This is so startlingly close to the "She deserved it for wearing that" rape argument that I'm really getting creeped out by you. You hit the nail on the head though - don't take chances AT WORK. It's work, stop popping off-color jokes that could be offensive. Who cares if others are doing it? If you're offended, report them; if you're afraid you'd get in trouble for doing the same, uh, don't do it!


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

Bilogical processes can be impacted and effected by behavior and environment.

Yeah, they're really nothing alike, what so ever, but if you feel the need to take the conversation in a different direction, who am I to try and stop you.

400 years ago it seemed pretty clear that Earth was the center of the universe, too. Then we gained a better understanding of things. Now we know that I am the center of the universe.

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

Except that it is awkward that these differences may be observed at the very onset of sexuality.

Is it possible that someone "chooses" their sexuality before sexuality actually influences biological developments? Yes.

But does that really give any more weight to the "it's a choice" argument against self-identification? I don't think so.

Even if it is a choice, it's one that we make at an extremely young age before we even begin to develop sexual tendencies. A child can't comprehend what being gay actually means, because they can't even understand what being straight is. Sure, they might know that gay guys like guys and straight guys like women, but they have no ability to relate to the feelings of it.

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.

So now that choice leads to their biology to literally shift, so that their brain develops the one sexuality over the other.

Can you, Moe, imagine actually switching sexualities? Because I can't. I can imagine sleeping with women and such. But I can't imagine actually forcing myself to become sexually attracted to them.

So if the choice isn't something you can actually change, why bother discriminating against them?

Furthermore, your argument at the very least has to account that the choice is heavily influenced by situations outside the child's control, or else there would be no way to correlate the increase in homosexuality in subsequent male children or in twins.

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.

[EDIT]

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.

Will science EVER fully explain anything? Probably not. That's no reason to assume that you should never lend credence to what your data suggests. It's a reason to investigate the other options. I've never heard of a study looking for evidence of choice and being successful. Please link one if you do.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 1:30pm by idiggory