Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Please explain the difference. How is it ok to judge someone based on their sexual behavior but not someone else?
Easy, homosexuals are consenting adults. Next question.
No one's arguing that it should be illegal to be homosexual either. He's talking about personal judgment, not legality. If I were to say that skat-play is disgusting, no one would call me a bigot. But if I were to say that homosexual sex is disgusting, many would. Pretty arbitrarily subjective, isn't it?
I don't think so. I'm not talking about whether you find homosexual sex disgusting or not. I'm talking about condoning homosexuality. It's not the same thing.
Ok. Maybe I'm confused. What do you mean by "condoning homosexuality"? Are you saying that the problem is that people aren't condoning it? Do you see the problem if someone is being asked/forced to condone something they personally dislike (or even find disgusting)? Maybe I'm missing your point, but I honestly don't see how that helps the issue at hand. If the problem is that some people find homosexuality disgusting (and there certainly are), then doesn't DADT (or something like it) make a lot of sense?
There's lots of things people may do at home among consenting adults which I don't think is appropriate conversation at work. Usually, we agree as civilized people to just not talk about things in a work environment which others may find offensive, right? So how is this really different?