I find it hard to even bother reading past your second paragraph where you clearly show that you either did not read my post fully, or did not fully comprehend it.
It is quite clear you rarely make it past the second paragraph of any document that challenges your current world view. Look up "mental dissonance". You should at least understand what is happening.
You say you dont care what a dude does with another consenting adult then you immediately back pedal by saying many men in service (including youself i would obviously assume) would prefer not to shower or hot bunk with them. So you dont care yet you still dont want to be around them.... Maybe im missing something but can you explain to me how that is not ass backwards?
I can try with an example. I don't care what the women did last night. But I don't want to shower or hot bunk with any women other than my wife.
And "not wanting to shower or hot bunk" is materially different than "don't want to be around them." In an office environment who cares? I don't shower or bunk with co workers.
If you want to understand my position, you need to try to understand the notion of sexual privacy. Or want the religious call "modesty." Even my happily married, straight as an arrow proctologist does not leave me hanging out needlessly. Pants don't come done until necessary for the exam. They get pulled up as soon as possible afterward. Ditto for the colonoscopy. We all know as soon as you are under they are moving the sheets completely out of the way, maybe even making a few jokes. But not until you are under. The docs and nurses are completely professional and do all they can to maintain the patient's sexual privacy (or modesty if that term is easier for you to understand) as long as the patient is conscious. Once he is out, it doesn't really matter.
That may not be entirely rationally, but it is reality. Most humans develop a desire for modesty or sexual privacy. We don't care to be needlessly exposed. We especially don't care to be exposed to those who may have a sexual interest in our body. Even if the specific person in front of us doesn't have an interest in our body, if they belong to a group that tends to have interest in our bodies, we generally prefer modesty over exposure. Hence, most guys prefer not to be exposed to a woman even if that woman is a 75 year old nurse or nun or both. Some men have no compunction. Others maybe even enjoy it or have something to prove. But most of us really prefer not to be exposed, generally, to a women. Women tend to feel even stronger about being exposed to men.
In exactly like manner, and for exactly the same reasons, many of us prefer not to be exposed to homosexuals. Some don't care. I think others are trying to prove something to themselves or the world. "Look at me, I'm secure I can shower with homosexuals and not care in the least...." It doesn't matter and I don't care. Whatever floats your boat is your business. I just prefer not to be exposed to homosexual men, or to women other than my wife. I am clearly not alone.
Is any of this making any dent at all in your understanding of the situation? Are you capable of seeing beyond your own views and to give any credence to differing views held by others? Does it help if you think of it in terms of "celebrating diversity"?
Is that your passive aggressive and politically correct way of saying that I personally am ignorant
Nope. Just an observation and light prediction.
You've readily admitted your ignorance regarding well known sociological facts including the personal problems associated with homosexuals. Sometimes homosexuals themselves will cite these facts as evidence they are being mistreated. I honestly continue to be amazed that so many who hold such strong opinions on the politics and public policy surrounding homosexuality are so wholly ignorant of such facts.
Keep in mind that copy and pasting some random paragraph from some inane study done by some guy someplace for some purpose doesnt count. Something reputable that is WELL KNOWN to be fact. You dont read something and then claim its fact because it was there to read.... Well maybe you do, but i do not.
Dude, if you can't find a study given the name of the lead researcher and the Ivy League (and way left leaning) institution that conducted the study, you've got no business even trying to debate about what the statistical, sociological facts are. Just come right out and say, "I don't need none of dat dare book larning. I knows what I knows and you ain't no gooder than me."
Whats your opinion on being 50 times more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal with your own gun? BS statistics?
Answered previously. I KNOW it is a BS statistic because I've read the report and actually seen and understood several errors in the methodology. It is not BS because it would hurt our cause. John Lott has found that increasing access to carry permits tends to lead to a small increase in property crimes. Is that BS? Near as I can tell, the methodology and calculations were sound even though it might not be entirely flattering to our cause. Of course, that Lott found a significant decrease in violent crimes against persons (at the same time there was a small uptick in property crimes) makes it a lot easier to accept. But that is beside the point.
But your statistics are sound for some reason? Why do you stand behind one study and not the other? We all know how bogus these studies are and thats why i contend that your facts are nothing more than wastes of text.
I've read both studies. I find major flaws in one. I find no such flaws in the other. One study has been torn to shreds on factual, methodological bases by other statisticians. The other one, reporting higher rates of suicide and similar problems among homosexuals has not been attacked in similar fashion by anyone on either side of the political debate.
Mature, educated, intelligent, informed adults actually do have a reasonable method for determining which studies and claims are likely to have merit vs which ones are fundamentally flawed. And it has nothing to do with whether those stats agree with our current world view or not. Yes, some stats are flawed or manipulated. Many are not. Sometimes we actually have to go read something for ourselves to see whether it has merit. Sometimes in doing that we learn things that challenge our previously held views.
When confronted with such facts, mature men alter their view to fit the facts. Immature men ignore the facts, or discount them, or attack the messenger.
It has been said that you can explain the most complex idea to the most simple minded if the listener has not previously adopted any view on the subject. But the most simple concept is impossible to explain to the most intelligent of men if the listening has already made up his mind.
And yes, just so there is no mistake, I'm now insulting you. I am talking down to you and exposing and lambasting your ignorance, bigotries, and refusal/inability to even consider a new or contrary point of view. I figure you've got it coming for repeatedly calling me a bigot, asking for facts and cites and then ignoring them when I provide them, and otherwise opening your mouth and proving yourself and utterly ignorant, overly opinionated fool.
Oh, and for using a word like "derp" as an insult. May I next expect a rendition of "rubber and glue"?
Simply put, you're not doing the homosexuals any favors if this is the best debating technique you can muster.
And for the record, I'll happily work with on RKBA despite our differences on homosexuality. I only ask that you find someway to work on RKBA that doesn't involve any formal debating or attempts to argue facts.
Are you willing to work with me on RKBA? Or are our differences on homosexuality too much, too important, for you to overlook in efforts to advance RKBA?
Charles