Obama's "Dont Ask Dont Tell"

[Tawnos]

Not answering for him, but for me

Are you secure enough with yourself not to care if there are women present in the shower?

yes - did it in Baden-Baden, would recommend doing again!

Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't share your point of view is "insecure" with him or herself?

yes

Are you willing and able to admit that honest men of good intent may well have legitimate concerns with forced intimacy with open homosexuals?

WTF? Intimacy? Sh-t, you have a different definition than I do of "intimate".

Are you willing to engage in honest, civil discussion of sexual privacy?

Charles

Indeed, that's exactly what repealing DADT addresses - the right to civilly discuss what it means to have private sex with a person you publicly associate with as a significant other (or a f-ck buddy, I don't care).

 

[slowfiveoh]

I'm sorry you didn't see my point. Let me clarify.

1-There are reasons other than hate, bigotry, or easily dismissed religious or moral beliefs for opposing the end of DADT or other political positions that would serve to normalize homosexual conduct.

Homosexual activity is already "normalized".

What you truly mean through subtle implication, is that homosexual activity would not have to remain "oppressed".

Concerns about sexual privacy are very real and should be addressed honestly. Even hospitals now have policies and procedures designed to provide the greatest amount of sexual privacy (or modesty) possible to patients. Such concerns on the part of heterosexuals are not bigotry, hatred, insecurities, or something they should be expected to "just deal with" any more than we would lob out such platitudes to concerns about co-ed bunking or showers. I find VERY few on the pro-homosexual side who are willing to really discuss this issue in any detail

Concerns about "sexual privacy" within the military only become an issue when somebody learns that Peter loves Paul, not Paulene.

The matter of sexuality is obvious when a Marine or Soldier takes his wife to the Corp Ball. However, a man in love with another man may not do that. Well, now he can.

2-Marriage between man and woman is unique, it offers social benefits not offered by any other relationship.

While asserting this as a fact, please cite specific examples of "social benefits" you are proclaiming to be exclusive to heterosexual couples.

Furthermore, be sure to use all available metrics, such as couples who never have children, as part of your process.

Those social benefits--and not any benefits to the couple themselves--are the real reason that society rightfully grants benefits to marriage, and not to other relationships, and why society is within its rights to decline to change the definition of marriage.

Spectacular!

I am certain you won't mind listing these social benefits?

We're all waiting in earnest.

3-Rights go both ways. And those who demand rights for homosexuals need to consider the rights of those--including in business--who want to peacefully decline to associate with those whose conduct is offensive.

It was also inferred that "negros" engaged in "offensive conduct" as a means to deny them equitable rights under law.

Are you stating that sexual orientation should be excluded from protected classes such as race, or gender?

We must respect privacy on both sides. But if a person chooses to make public his involvement in conduct that offends much of society, he might well expect some peaceful social disapproval or stigma.

Unless s/he is is heterosexual, yes?

Ditto if a person engages in what society deems to be bigoted or hateful conduct.

Bigoted or hateful conduct like denying equitable rights to those who are of a different sexual orientation?

Bigoted or hateful conduct like denying a soldier the right to bring his lover, but only if his lover is male, to a military function?

Bigoted or hateful conduct like ejecting an otherwise well decorated and competent soldier on the simple premise of his sexual orientation?

4-Arguing over these points does nothing to improve our ability to work together in the area where we presumably all agree: RKBA.

Your commentary here would have merit, were you not caught denigrating and lambasting an individual in Orem Utah for exercising his right to open carry a rifle, in a peaceful manner.

Furthermore, this is the "Social Lounge", and is not technically part of the main forum focus.

If you believe this conversation to be straying from site focus, than you should feel the same way about 90% of everything else posted in this section.

5-While I do not believe sincerely held religious beliefs or morals should be discounted or mocked, I make a point in these discussions to avoid relying on them and instead maintain a purely secular point of view. I also make a point to remain respectful and civil and expect others to do likewise.

Charles

I think you may be a bit disingenuous in your claim here, and I think the proof is in your comments.

I'd love to see a compiled list of these benefits you claim to only be present in heterosexual marriages.

 

[slowfiveoh]

Are you secure enough with yourself not to care if there are women present in the shower?

Frankly, yes.

However, we can control the gender of those we engage in hygienic activities with. We cannot in any case be it male or female, control the sexual orientation. Dividing based on gender is still optimal, because only a fraction of any given same gender group, will be homosexual.

Your response does not address the issue, and you have offered no solution, as I requested.

Do not deflect.

Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't share your point of view is "insecure" with him or herself?

Another attempt at deflection, but I will answer it regardless.

Often, there is the automatic tie-in that just because somebody is homosexual, that they are going to engage in intercourse with you post-haste.

It's actually quite comical to watch the fear steeped in misunderstanding, that many individuals have in regards to homosexuals.

Are you willing and able to admit that honest men of good intent may well have legitimate concerns with forced intimacy with open homosexuals?

If you consider 20 soldiers lathering up in a bay shower the forum for "intimacy", I won't judge.

I am fairly certain "Kiss-Right-Kiss" is not a DNC maneuver.

Can you please elaborate, specifically, on what you are trying to qualify as "intimate"?

Are you willing to engage in honest, civil discussion of sexual privacy?

Charles

Absolutely!

Are you willing to refrain from calling homosexuals "bozos" or "idiots"? :lol:

 

[frankd]

The only Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that Obama is referring to is in regards to his birth certificate. :shocker:

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yes. For exactly the same reasons I would be uncomfortable showering or bunking with a woman.

Are you sure you are straight?

If I am showering or bunking with women, comfort is the last thing on my mind. :lol:

 

[utbagpiper]

yes - did it in Baden-Baden, would recommend doing again!

I would not suggest there is anything remiss out you emotionally or otherwise for so feeling. I would not require you to believe and feel as others do.

Will you accord others the same regard if they don't have exactly your same level of comfort when it comes to showering or bunking with those of the opposite sex?

yes

With all due respect, I believe your answer here and your lack of regard for others demonstrates an arrogance that is unbecoming and inappropriate. It indicates a bigotry that prevents you from even recognizing the potential that others' beliefs and feelings may be every bit as legitimate and honorable as your own.

WTF? Intimacy? Sh-t, you have a different definition than I do of "intimate".

Apparently so. I happen to think that showering and bunking together are "intimate" activities even if no sexual contact takes place and even if one (or all) parties are not interested in sexual contact with the other.

From Webster (among other uses):

marked by very close association, contact, or familiarity

of a very personal or private nature

However, since you don't see anything "intimate" about showering or bunking together, may I presume you will have no problems if I shower with your wive, girlfriend, or even daughter? I will guarantee no sexual contact will occur. After all, if you don't see anything at all 'intimate" or otherwise concerning about such conduct you have no reason to object right?

Indeed, that's exactly what repealing DADT addresses - the right to civilly discuss what it means to have private sex with a person you publicly associate with as a significant other (or a f-ck buddy, I don't care).

Actually, your answers demonstrate you are not willing (or maybe capable) of having a civil discussion on this topic. The first rule of civil discourse is to acknowledge that differing viewpoints have validity, that those who hold them may well be honest, intelligent, well adjusted persons who simply disagree with you rather than having any ill intent whatsoever.

I am still quite willing to work with you to advance RKBA despite whatever differences we may have on this (or most any other) issue.

I extend you the invitation to publicly declare your willingness to likewise work with me to advance RKBA.

And with that, I trust you will accept that if I do not respond to you further on this topic is not because I necessary agree with or concede to what you are posting or because I am unable to respond, but merely because I believe it would be fruitless and even counterproductive to continue a discussion that seems almost assured raise needless contention.

Charles

 

[marshaul]

Anyone who reads that article and thinks that Fred has equated homosexuals to adolescents did not comprehend it.

The premise is one of sexual privacy. Some examples and analogies were used.

Nobody was equated to adolescent males.

Charles

That was, according to him, his "secondary" point.

And his "sexual privacy" argument makes no sense in the context of the armed forces, which are not your private home, nor does it make any sense as a criticism of DADT, the abolition or preservation of which will have no effect on the likelihood of a gay checking out another man in the shower room.

Knowing that homosexuals have been in military washrooms since, well, since mankind first engaged in organized warfare, what real issue are you clinging to here?

How does the lack of knowledge of their sexual orientation shield you from prying, probing eyes?

To me, the only way to make sense of his arguments is to interpret them as arguments to ban homosexuality from the military outright.

There is no way in which this implicates DADT.

I find it is the homosexuals and their supporters who are most likely to take offense and refuse to work together. Here in Utah, Dave Nelson refuses to even speak to me even if doing so would advance RKBA. On this list, the last time you and I and a couple others went the rounds on homosexuality it was I who made very clear that despite our personal differences on the issue of homosexuality, I was still more than willing to work with any of you on RKBA any time the opportunity arose. I asked directly if any of you could and would say the same thing in return to me. Not one of you responded in the affirmative.

I would stand beside you on any issue regarding the RKBA. If Dave Nelson won't do that, he has his own reasons and is free to exercise his discretion of association. I, personally, have no dog in this fight. I merely feel inclined to argue a point which to me seems important in any discussion of civil rights. Presumably you find it important as well, though obviously for different reasons.

What do you think about me? That I am evil? Or hateful or bigoted? Maybe that I'm small minded? Or brainwashed by religious upbringing?

I think you just happen to disagree with me. I think you are wrong. But that is as far as it goes. I don't think you want to hurt people or destroy the military or the nation or undermine any essential social values or constructs. I just think you disagree with me.

Can you say the same for me? Or do you find yourself imparting some sinister motive to my position, some evil intent to my views?

Just because we largely agree on RKBA does not mean we are going to agree on any other issue.

I do not find you evil, although there are certainly those whose hate crosses some line, and some of those may share views with you (or with myself) in some instances.

Personally, I think you are ignorant (factual analysis, no value judgement implied) about certain issues and suffering from a narrow perspective, preconceived biases which are largely inaccurate, paranoid, and unfair.

Here, my most important issue is RKBA. Can you say the same? Or is pushing your views on homosexuality as or more important to you than advancing RKBA?

I'm pretty happy to check my views on homosexuality, UFOs, taxes, the best party, etc, etc, at the door to OCDO and focus on RKBA. Are you?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. That you've engaged this issue less? That you'd be happy to leave it alone, if we left it alone? That we should all agree to leave it alone?

 

[Claytron]

I believe it is a violation of sexual privacy to be required to shower or bunk with those who are likely to have a sexual attraction toward me. This is the reason that men and women are required or even allowed to shower/bunk together in the military.

All adolescent joking aside, most men would prefer not to shower or bunk with women. Women feel even stronger about bunking or showering with men. Many heterosexuals feel similarly about being exposed to or sleeping in close quarters with homosexuals. Heterosexuals' feelings relative to homosexuals are no less rational or worthy of consideration than are the feelings of men toward women and vice versa.

If homosexuals do not make known their sexual preferences then heterosexuals have nothing to be uncomfortable about.



The information is widely available to anyone with google. Those who are sincerely capable of accepting information that may contradict their previously held point of view will go looking for and find it. Those who aren't are merely asking red herring questions to waste time.

Respectfully, any adult who has any opinions at all on this should have first studied such data and thus be well aware of the social benefits of real marriage: lower crime rates among men; lower poverty rates among women; lower domestic violence rates; longer lifespans; lower rates of unwed pregnancy among children raised in homes with married parents; greater social stability; lower rates of crime among children raised in such homes; lower rates of alcohol/drug abuse. These and/or similar benefits have been widely recognized by virtually every society to rise above stone age. It is the secular reason for government recognition of marriage as unique compared to every other relationship.

Even among the Classics who were quite accepting of homosexual conduct, and even encouraged pederasty, and were fine with prostitution, marriage between man and woman was given unique status not afforded other relationships. That was NOT because of some religious bias. It was a recognition of the benefits that marriage between a man and woman bring to society.

I respectfully reject your assertion about too many children. No society exists with a negative birth rate. And with the exception of a couple of specific demographics--at least one of which is not really friendly to the notion of individual freedoms--worldwide birthrates are declining and are either already below maintenance levels or are predicted to be there shortly. With some the exception of some questionable research conducted by overtly and highly pro-homosexual groups, every study on the subject makes clear that the best possible environment for raising the next generation--including the instilling of crucial social values (like respect for RKBA)--is in homes where the biological mother and father are married to each other. Every other alternative is no better than 2nd place. All at the macro and not anecdotal levels, of course.

Likewise, the personal and--thus at the macro level--social ills associated with homosexuality are, likewise well documented.

Anyone who is going to have strong opinions on the politics surrounding homosexuality really should go study these things out so that their opinions are informed.



In a growing number of locations there are laws that prevent so-called "discrimination" in areas such as employment, rental housing, etc. Fertility doctors, reception centers, and wedding photographs have all been sued for peacefully declining to offer services to homosexuals.

I've not met very many persons who support repeal of DADT who don't also support these kinds of laws mandating that landlords and employers associate with those who choose to make public that they engage in conduct that is very offensive and offputting to large segments of the population. There are a few libertarians who oppose such laws. But even among them, I have observed a fair number who either support these laws overtly, or take such an unrealistic view of politics as to effectively support them.

So when you say people are free to walk away, does that include supporting the right to peacefully decline business relationships? Or do you believe it is moral and just to force people to engage in business relationships with homosexuals if they'd prefer not to do so?

As far as leaving the military, I point out that homosexuals make up about 3% of our population and thus, one might expect given how draconian DADT was viewed, certainly no more than 3% of the military. Depending on the service, and the ranks involved (and thus how much privacy one has), we might well expect that those in the military who don't care to shower or bunk with open homosexuals is quite a bit higher. Losing any significant percentage of such persons will cripple the military.

I might also point out that homosexuals have a demonstrated propensity against following lawful orders. Since DADT was instituted, some 15,000 homosexuals have been discharged from the military for violation of that policy. There are about 3 million active duty and reserve military members. That means, at 3% of the military population, there are about 90,000 homosexuals serving. For 15,000 to be discharged for failure to obey orders relative to DADT (and remember, the full policy is "Don't ask; Don't tell; Don't pursue; Don't harass) means that fully 16% of homosexuals have refused to follow lawful orders. The vast majority signed up, volunteered, after the policy was in effect. They agreed to abide it as a term of service and then failed to do so. By comparison, of the remaining 2,910,000 members of the military who are heterosexual, a 16% discharge rate would have been over 450,000 members discharged. Whatever the capabilities of any individual homosexual on the battle field or elsewhere in his duties, 16% being unwilling to obey orders that they voluntarily agreed to when they signed on is a serious and systemic problem.

Please don't bother to make excuses about the law or orders being "unfair". That describes a LOT of orders in the military and with the draft now two generations behind us, doesn't wash.



I'm sorry you didn't see my point. Let me clarify.

1-There are reasons other than hate, bigotry, or easily dismissed religious or moral beliefs for opposing the end of DADT or other political positions that would serve to normalize homosexual conduct. Concerns about sexual privacy are very real and should be addressed honestly. Even hospitals now have policies and procedures designed to provide the greatest amount of sexual privacy (or modesty) possible to patients. Such concerns on the part of heterosexuals are not bigotry, hatred, insecurities, or something they should be expected to "just deal with" any more than we would lob out such platitudes to concerns about co-ed bunking or showers. I find VERY few on the pro-homosexual side who are willing to really discuss this issue in any detail

2-Marriage between man and woman is unique, it offers social benefits not offered by any other relationship. Those social benefits--and not any benefits to the couple themselves--are the real reason that society rightfully grants benefits to marriage, and not to other relationships, and why society is within its rights to decline to change the definition of marriage.

3-Rights go both ways. And those who demand rights for homosexuals need to consider the rights of those--including in business--who want to peacefully decline to associate with those whose conduct is offensive. We must respect privacy on both sides. But if a person chooses to make public his involvement in conduct that offends much of society, he might well expect some peaceful social disapproval or stigma. Ditto if a person engages in what society deems to be bigoted or hateful conduct.

4-Arguing over these points does nothing to improve our ability to work together in the area where we presumably all agree: RKBA.

5-While I do not believe sincerely held religious beliefs or morals should be discounted or mocked, I make a point in these discussions to avoid relying on them and instead maintain a purely secular point of view. I also make a point to remain respectful and civil and expect others to do likewise.

Charles

Since its obvious you are just interested in acting like a jerk about it, ill decline to argue with you any further than posting YOUR very own quote which, in my opinion, should shut up everyone who holds an opinion similar to yours.

" Please don't bother to make excuses about the law or orders being "unfair". That describes a LOT of orders in the military and with the draft now two generations behind us, doesn't wash."

Please stop making excuses for yourself and every other military member that is now questioning his job and his choices just because the military in which he works for has now changed their rules to go against what he or they believe is right. Things have changed and in my honest opinion its a military member's job to keep his mouth shut and do his job. Whining that other people whined and got what they wanted doesnt make you any better.


You voluntarily joined. You voluntarily remain. You are making the choice to shower next to gay men.... Is there something youd like to tell us?

 

[utbagpiper]

Homosexual activity is already "normalized".

No, it is not. Not in this nation. Among 50 States, only about 3 recognize homosexual coupling as the social and legal equivalent of heterosexual marriage. A few more recognize it on equal legal basis via "civil unions" but deny it equal social recognition. Thirty plus States specifically define marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. Such definitions--some mere statutes, many State constitutional amendments--were enacted in direct reaction to claims that the respective genders of marriage partners should not matter.

You clearly don't like that reality. But that is reality.

What you truly mean through subtle implication, is that homosexual activity would not have to remain "oppressed".

I believe homosexual conduct should remain private. I care not what consenting adults do in private. The law must respect such privacy. But society has an interest in not encouraging conduct that is so strongly correlated with so many personal and social ills as is homosexual conduct.

Concerns about "sexual privacy" within the military only become an issue when somebody learns that Peter loves Paul, not Paulene.

No. Sexual privacy is also a concern if Paul wants to use the women's showers or bunk with the women.

Paul may well not have any particular attraction to any of the women present. They may not be "his type." But that Paul is attracted, sexually to women generally is sufficient cause to deny Paul use of the women's showers and the women's bunks.

Any honest discussion of sexual privacy must start with making clear why we generally segregate the genders during intimate activities like showering or sleeping. Once that is clear, the real concerns of many heterosexuals relative to sharing such activities with homosexuals can be rationally discussed.

And that is why you and those who share your view refuse to honestly discuss sexual privacy. So long as you make the issue about "bigotry" or "discrimination" your sound bites work well. Move into an honest, rational discussion of what sexual privacy really means and it becomes much more difficult to brush off or demonize those who disagree with you.

The matter of sexuality is obvious when a Marine or Soldier takes his wife to the Corp Ball. However, a man in love with another man may not do that. Well, now he can.

Homosexual conduct is not the social equal of heterosexual conduct presumed to lead eventually to honorable marriage that benefits society. And it remains to be seen whether even with the repeal of DADT the military is going to countenance such public and overt homosexual conduct as bringing a same-sex partner to a social function.

While asserting this as a fact, please cite specific examples of "social benefits" you are proclaiming to be exclusive to heterosexual couples.

Furthermore, be sure to use all available metrics, such as couples who never have children, as part of your process.

I find this often turns into the logical fallacy of "moving goal posts". Someone asks for citations. Then rejects them for some reason. Additional citations are given, they are also rejected.

The question becomes, is there any citation, any study I could provide that would convince you that marriage between man and woman provides social benefits unmatched by any other relationship? Any at all? If so, what is it? And what is the standard. Set your goal posts right up front.

But honestly, I think you've made quite clear that you are going to have such a high threshold that NO study will reach it. Social science is a soft, inexact science.

Which brings us back to questioning why society recognizes marriage at all. Why should society grant benefits to any couple in the absence of the kind of absolute proof of social benefits you will demand?

I contend it is because even in the absence of absolute proof, the evidence (even predating formal studies, but certain now that multiple studies are available) is strong enough for making social policy. And has been since at least the Greek and Roman empires.

I might just as well ask you to provide evidence that homosexual unions provide any significant benefits to society to warrant society granting them any recognition at all. All I have to do is require studies with more than 20 years of history (a short time socially speaking) and/or not funded by overtly pro-homosexual organizations and you will not find any to support a position that there is any objective reason for society to encourage homosexual coupling.

You see, I reject emphatic assertions that homosexual unions are inherently equal or equivalent to marriage between a man and woman. I likewise reject any assertion that siblings living together or platonic roommates create a relationship this is equal to marriage in terms of socially derived benefit. My position here has nothing to do with any personal moral view. Who would claim any immorality to siblings or platonic roommates sharing expenses and helping each other out? There simply is not any meaningful evidence that such relationships--personally beneficial as they may be--create anywhere near the same social benefits as does a marriage between man and woman.

I am certain you won't mind listing these social benefits?

We're all waiting in earnest.

I have listed them. You have clearly rejected them and are now engaging in moving goal posts. Having listed the well known and documented social benefits of marriage between man and woman, you then demand citations and studies. If I provide those, you will reject them for one reason after another.

Why not just admit right up front that there is no study that is going to convince you that marriage between a man and a woman provides social benefits beyond any other relationship? That is the honest thing to do.

I can respect "religious" positions that are beyond logical or rational discussion. But let's be honest about when and where such positions are held.

It was also inferred that "negros" engaged in "offensive conduct" as a means to deny them equitable rights under law.

Not so much no. Blacks were denied equal rights based primarily on their skin color / race. There were widely held views that the negro race was inherently inferior. Any claims about "conduct" were entirely secondary.

The discussion of homosexuality, in contrast, centers on conduct. Nobody credibly says that a person is inherently less capable because he is homosexual. What we say is that certain sexual conduct is offensive, should not be encouraged by society, and is a reasonable ground on which to disassociate with someone.

Are you stating that sexual orientation should be excluded from protected classes such as race, or gender?

Yes I am. And in fact, that IS the current State of law in most of this nation. Like it or not, that is the law in most cases. A few States and a few localities are the exception.

Sexual conduct is not at all the same as skin color, or gender.

Indeed, whatever one's tastes, desires, inclinations, or "orientation" humans retain the ability to choose whether to engage in any given sexual conduct.

Much of possible human sexual conduct remains taboo or otherwise offensive to most of society. This includes many fetishes, S&M, B&D, bestiality, wife swapping or swinging, etc.

Some human sexual conduct remains illegal including pedophilia, pederasty, polygamy (if those involved admit to an claim an on going commitment as opposed to merely having multiple noncommitted partners), and exhibitionism (in most cases).

Casual sex and having a large number of partners in your lifetime has lost much of the stigma it once bore, but remains less than completely accepted among many segments of society.

With the exception of certian illegal conduct, society is obliged to tolerate a host of sexual conduct that is generally viewed as offensive.

You would grant some special protections to those who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (I've NOT speculated as to the core cause of homosexual desires or orientation).

Would you grant similar protections to those consenting adults who choose to engage in polygamy? Or incest? Or who favor barnyard animals?

If you walk into the office and announce that you are official "out of the closet" as a swinger who enjoys S&M on the side, do you really expect the law for force your employer or landlord to maintain your existing relationship if they'd really prefer not to?

Or do you expect such protections only if the sexual activity you reveal to them is same-sex intercourse?

Bigoted or hateful conduct like denying equitable rights to those who are of a different sexual orientation?

You mean people who are into swinging, polygamy, bestiality, S&M, B&D, incest, and every other possible sexual activity that does not involve unwilling participants?

Or did you mean just homosexual conduct?

And what "equitable rights" are denied even to homosexuals?

NOBODY is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Homosexuals are perfectly free to get married if they want to. They simply have to meet the same conditions as everyone else: two persons not married to others, not too closely related, of sufficient age and mental ability to enter into contracts.

Bigoted or hateful conduct like denying a soldier the right to bring his lover, but only if his lover is male, to a military function?

And if his "lover" is actually 4 lovers in a polygamous relationship? Or his dominatrix? Or his pet goat? Or even his prostitute?

I think military standards extend beyond just requiring a heterosexual relationship, don't they?

Bigoted or hateful conduct like ejecting an otherwise well decorated and competent soldier on the simple premise of his sexual orientation?

Since Bill Clinton was president, no one is being ejecting because of his sexual orientation. He is being ejected ONLY for refusal to follow orders relative to keeping his orientation private and/or his actual sexual CONDUCT.

Do you believe members of the military should be exempt from following orders they don't like?

That you consider ANY and all differences of political opinion in this realm to be based only on bigotry, it is clear you are nor prepared to have a civil, rational dialogue.

I will readily admit that some persons will be unkind toward homosexuals out of pure bigotry or hatred. The question becomes, do you believe that people have a right to be bigoted so long as the do no more than peacefully withdraw association? Put another way, even if a landlord or employer admits no other motivation than bigotry toward homosexuals, will you defend his right to decline a business relationship? Does he have a legal right to engage in peaceful conduct that you find offensive?

Your commentary here would have merit, were you not caught denigrating and lambasting an individual in Orem Utah for exercising his right to open carry a rifle, in a peaceful manner.

There remains some question about whether his conduct was entirely legal. Until that is decided, you emphatic assertion that he was exercising a "right" is not supportable. You may believe there is a right to OC a long gun without restriction. I'm unaware of any SCOTUS or even appellate level court ruling that so holds.

That said, will you defend, with the same vigor as you do this fellow OCing a rifle in a combat sling, the man who engages in what you believe to be offensive conduct by peacefully declining to enter into a business relationship with someone who is homosexual?


Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Since its obvious you are just interested in acting like a jerk about it, ill decline to argue with you any further

I readily accept differences of opinion. But I'm curious as to what you think indicates that I am "acting like a jerk"?

That I disagree with you? That I write frankly, but civilly about the matter?

What I have written was insulting, factually inaccurate, or otherwise offensive other than just the basic disagreement?

Please stop making excuses for yourself and every other military member that is now questioning his job and his choices just because the military in which he works for has now changed their rules to go against what he or they believe is right. Things have changed and in my honest opinion its a military member's job to keep his mouth shut and do his job. Whining that other people whined and got what they wanted doesnt make you any better.


You voluntarily joined. You voluntarily remain. You are making the choice to shower next to gay men.... Is there something youd like to tell us?

Oh, I fully expect that a fair number will take you up on that and either leave, or never sign up in the first place.

I hope I am wrong as I believe that would be disastrous to our military readiness.

Charles

 

[Claytron]

I readily accept differences of opinion. But I'm curious as to what you think indicates that I am "acting like a jerk"?

That I disagree with you? That I write frankly, but civilly about the matter?

What I have written was insulting, factually inaccurate, or otherwise offensive other than just the basic disagreement?




Oh, I fully expect that a fair number will take you up on that and either leave, or never sign up in the first place.

I hope I am wrong as I believe that would be disastrous to our military readiness.

Charles

So you fully expect it meaning you accept my logic and agree that you can quit at any time if it makes you uncomfortable. You are not forced. You are not required. You choose. Now that we have that out of the way ill refer to a quote of yours

"Those who are sincerely capable of accepting information that may contradict their previously held point of view will go looking for and find it. Those who aren't are merely asking red herring questions to waste time."

This comment, like many of yours, just reeks of "proper" insults. Trying to hide behind articulate and unnabbrasive words and terms might make you think that your true meaning cant be seen but trust me my friend, it can.

You try to make it seem like im uninformed and unable to make a point because i havent read these specific articles and documents you are referring to, yet conveniently refuse to link us to? You dont want to bother throwing up a few links, but you will bother typing out a big paragraph or two explaining why you wont? Interesting.

Your only transparent argument so far has been "their are many personal and social ills regarding homosexual conduct" Are you an expert"? A doctor? Or just some dude whos scared about his own sexuality? Because, regardless of your opinion on cites not being applicable, so far you seem to know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

"Im straight and i dont like being around homosexuals. They hurt our army and our country and there is a lot of proof. I just cant show it to you on principle, sorry."

You talk about social and personal ills.... Can you explain this? What "ills" Yes i realize you are found of typing out page after page with little to no REAL explanation of your reasoning, but im curious if you are talking about any "personal and social ills" that dont directly come from being around people like you who refuse to accept another human being for who they are?

And in closing, regarding your comment about people leaving the military or not signing up at all ill repeat what ive said a few times here: Any soldier who would relinquish his duty to protect his country because there is a gay man or woman serving next to him is a complete and utter *****. You want me to believe that someone who is supposed to have bullets and bombs buzzing by their head is SUCH a bigot or SUCH a coward that they cannot handle the fact that the dude next to him french kissed another dude the night before?

No offense but if you are/were in the military, in a way im glad you left and/or are thinking about leaving because frankly we dont need cowards in our military. I regret having the thought in my mind that you or someone like you wouldnt help a wounded homosexual on the battlefield just because he is who he is.


"soldier help me bring this man to the infirmary!"

"No, he might grab my ass, sir."

 

[marshaul]

Not so much no. Blacks were denied equal rights based primarily on their skin color / race. There were widely held views that the negro race was inherently inferior. Any claims about "conduct" were entirely secondary.

The discussion of homosexuality, in contrast, centers on conduct. Nobody credibly says that a person is inherently less capable because he is homosexual. What we say is that certain sexual conduct is offensive, should not be encouraged by society, and is a reasonable ground on which to disassociate with someone.

This simply isn't true. We're not talking about conduct, we're talking about status.

We're not talking about full-on homosexual intercourse in the showers. We're talking about people who merely happen to be gay serving in the military.

Nobody has suggested that there isn't all kinds of inappropriate conduct. Nobody has suggested the military ought not to prohibit certain conduct. However, the ramification of your position is that simply being gay qualifies as inappropriate "conduct".

Folks do not have a choice to be gay. They may choose how, when and whether to explore their sexual proclivities, but the simple act of having been born (or grown up, if you so believe) gay is not a form of "conduct", any more than simply being black is a form of "conduct".

You're talking about a person merely being in a shower room, and describing it as "offensive conduct".

You want to have your cake, and eat it too.

If you walk into the office and announce that you are official "out of the closet" as a swinger who enjoys S&M on the side, do you really expect the law for force your employer or landlord to maintain your existing relationship if they'd really prefer not to?

Question: Is my employer or landlord the government?

Since Bill Clinton was president, no one is being ejecting because of his sexual orientation. He is being ejected ONLY for refusal to follow orders relative to keeping his orientation private and/or his actual sexual CONDUCT.

Let's be clear: the "conduct" to which you are referring is not, as you have tried to insinuate, some kind of orgiastic sexual expression akin to publicly engaging in beastiality.

The "conduct" to which you are referring need be nothing more extreme than simply appearing publicly with a boyfriend. No public sex needed, just appearing together. This is not conduct for which heterosexual couples would be sanctioned.

If you'd like to discuss prohibitions against sexual conduct, to apply equally to gays and straights, like "no sexual intercourse in the shower", or "no appearing in public with any romantic partners", I think you'd find the discussion took a very different turn.

 

[slowfiveoh]

No, it is not. Not in this nation. Among 50 States, only about 3 recognize homosexual coupling as the social and legal equivalent of heterosexual marriage. A few more recognize it on equal legal basis via "civil unions" but deny it equal social recognition. Thirty plus States specifically define marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. Such definitions--some mere statutes, many State constitutional amendments--were enacted in direct reaction to claims that the respective genders of marriage partners should not matter.

You clearly don't like that reality. But that is reality.

You stated "homosexual activity". Not "homosexual unions". Yet you have digressed into a sole conversation about homosexual unions.

The truth is that homosexuals are enjoying displays of love and affection in public, now more than ever. A man dancing with another man, could be construed as homosexual activity. A woman kissing another woman, is also a form of homosexual activity.

These activities exist whether you believe them to or not, or whether you believe their oppression will help you manage your day to day life better.

Please remain focused on what constitutes homosexual activity, as opposed to your narrow tailored focus on homosexual unions.

I believe homosexual conduct should remain private. I care not what consenting adults do in private.

What would you have a same-sex couple do when one soldier receives an invitation to the Engineering Corp ball?

Is it fair that a man and his wife may be allowed to dance slowly with their men in uniform, but homosexuals should not be afforded the same liberty?

This is the true issue you are unwilling to concede to, or focus your commentary on.

The law must respect such privacy. But society has an interest in not encouraging conduct that is so strongly correlated with so many personal and social ills as is homosexual conduct.

Describe "homosexual conduct".

Describe how it is "strongly correlated with so many personal and social ills".

Honestly, and unavoidably, your comment here shows a great deal of bigotry and unfounded disdain for homosexuals.

No. Sexual privacy is also a concern if Paul wants to use the women's showers or bunk with the women.

But of course it is not a concern at all if we pretend that homosexuals are not within our ranks.

Let them shower with us.
Let them dig foxholes.
Let them engage in combat with enemies of this country.

Just whatever you do, do not let them act within the normal scope of their homosexuality.

Yes?

Paul may well not have any particular attraction to any of the women present. They may not be "his type." But that Paul is attracted, sexually to women generally is sufficient cause to deny Paul use of the women's showers and the women's bunks.

So ensuring that homosexual service members are forced to hide their sexual orientation, makes it "ok" for them to shower with us?

Or, are you specifying that you want no homosexuals in the military?

If the latter is true, how do you suppose to implement such a brash plan?

Any honest discussion of sexual privacy must start with making clear why we generally segregate the genders during intimate activities like showering or sleeping. Once that is clear, the real concerns of many heterosexuals relative to sharing such activities with homosexuals can be rationally discussed.

Sexual activity, is just that. An action.

There are many key behavorial attributes that man possesses over animal, that distinctly separates us from them. We can make rational choices and control our sexual urges regardless odor or physical attraction.

It's what allows us to not dive immediately upon and start humping every cute thing that walks by.

Those who cannot control their sexual urges are little more than animals themselves.

Both homosexual and heterosexuals understand this truth.

This is why the commentary you make about sexual attraction, is truly pointless. Rape will always be rape, and the UCMJ prohibits sexual harassment.

I find it very interesting that I can have intercourse with the Mrs. in the morning, then go to PT, and shower in the gym locker room surrounded by heterosexual and homosexual males, observe a whole lot of "nothing" happening besides the liberal application of Ivory soap, and scoot off to morning formation.

I also find it seriously interesting that the same homosexuals you insist are getting "intimate" with you, in a bay shower, can shove a bayonet into an enemy combatants throat with the same alacrity and spirit of the warfighter, that a heterosexual soldier can.

And that is why you and those who share your view refuse to honestly discuss sexual privacy. So long as you make the issue about "bigotry" or "discrimination" your sound bites work well. Move into an honest, rational discussion of what sexual privacy really means and it becomes much more difficult to brush off or demonize those who disagree with you.

If you say "rational" 30 more times, you might meet the preliminary requirement to convincing the general public viewing this thread, that your view is the "rational" one.

Homosexual conduct is not the social equal of heterosexual conduct presumed to lead eventually to honorable marriage that benefits society.

Truthfully, you are not a qualified master of "homosexual conduct".

The last meeting of individuals I attended that was hosted by a homosexual couple, was done so in their 1 million dollar Downtown Sacramento Old District home. I brought the Mrs. along and we all dressed our best.

I was truly "shocked" by all their "homosexual conduct".

Not only did the couple have the gall to sit and ask each other about their day like any heterosexual couple would, they also offered to help each other around the house, and started talking about their retirement plans. One of them even got up to feed their dog. Then these "dirty homosexuals" offered to go out on the town and just walk around. We all stopped and got some ice cream, then went back and watched a movie. I was very angry that they threw in a notable heterosexual movie, Die Hard 2. I had never seen so much "homosexual conduct". I was appalled! :lol:

And it remains to be seen whether even with the repeal of DADT the military is going to countenance such public and overt homosexual conduct as bringing a same-sex partner to a social function.

The "military" has no choice but to be equatable in the matter.

What your inference really should lean towards if anything, is that certain command elements, or even NCO's amongst the normalized ranks, may take issue with openly homosexual activity.

This fear is based on the same irrationality observed in those who are scared of openly carried firearms. In fact, the process of analyzing the two, would be very similar.

What it all comes down to, in the end, is normalization.

It is shocking to me that thousands and thousands of heterosexual people live in San Francisco, and very few of them whine or complain about two guys kissing each other on the Embarcadero under moonlight on the piers.

Maybe there was a day this activity would not be "tolerated", but now it is a norm.

I find this often turns into the logical fallacy of "moving goal posts". Someone asks for citations. Then rejects them for some reason. Additional citations are given, they are also rejected.

You have provided one citation alone. That's it.

I dare say you would be hard pressed to earn Doctorate by reading a single book.

The question becomes, is there any citation, any study I could provide that would convince you that marriage between man and woman provides social benefits unmatched by any other relationship? Any at all? If so, what is it? And what is the standard. Set your goal posts right up front.

Your scope is limited by whatever boundaries you set in this conversation. It is not the all encompassing factors of homosexuality in the military or society that you want to discuss.

It is within the confines you narrowly tailor that you wish to do so.

But honestly, I think you've made quite clear that you are going to have such a high threshold that NO study will reach it. Social science is a soft, inexact science.

You have made it quite clear that you wish to impose severe limitations on what you are willing to discuss, in an effort to thread a conversation that suits your point of view.

The majority of us, be it in support or opposed to the repeal or homosexuality in general, achieve no satisfaction in such narrowly tailored conversations.

Which brings us back to questioning why society recognizes marriage at all. Why should society grant benefits to any couple in the absence of the kind of absolute proof of social benefits you will demand?

Homosexual couples contribute the same societal benefits in general, as a married heterosexual couple without children, as a good, solid, irrefutable metric.

They buy homes.
They buy commercial goods.
They start up their own small businesses.
They donate time and effort to voluntary projects.
They bring value to the concept of unity.
They demonstrate that monogamous relations are fruitful.

...and the list goes on and on.

You would have to dismiss these stark realities and replace them with your own contorted view of what homosexuality is (your "Homosexual conduct" comments) to invalidate their societal impact.

I contend it is because even in the absence of absolute proof, the evidence (even predating formal studies, but certain now that multiple studies are available) is strong enough for making social policy. And has been since at least the Greek and Roman empires.

Truth be told, your replies are long winded, and not full of much more information other than to say:

"I haven't provided but one link to said studies, but even if I were to do so, you would simply dismiss them."

This is a rather convenient way to dismiss the entire research your opposition may have at their behest, or their life experiences. It is also convenient to try and put yourself in a position of moral superiority through subtle character denigration.

By the way, I knew you would do that. I called it in the latter part of my last post.

I might just as well ask you to provide evidence that homosexual unions provide any significant benefits to society to warrant society granting them any recognition at all. All I have to do is require studies with more than 20 years of history (a short time socially speaking) and/or not funded by overtly pro-homosexual organizations and you will not find any to support a position that there is any objective reason for society to encourage homosexual coupling.

Wow, kind of hard to find studies in a society known historically for beating to death, those who are homosexual.

You are asking for substantiated proof in an environment that oppresses homosexuals.

Boy oh boy, that's rational.

While I'm looking for those documents, please find me American literary works describing the need for equality and the benefits of such equality if provided to African Americans in society, in the 1700's.

You won't find one, because back then, they were property.

You see, I reject emphatic assertions that homosexual unions are inherently equal or equivalent to marriage between a man and woman. I likewise reject any assertion that siblings living together or platonic roommates create a relationship this is equal to marriage in terms of socially derived benefit. My position here has nothing to do with any personal moral view. Who would claim any immorality to siblings or platonic roommates sharing expenses and helping each other out? There simply is not any meaningful evidence that such relationships--personally beneficial as they may be--create anywhere near the same social benefits as does a marriage between man and woman.

Ah, and placing nails in your own conversational coffin.

You equate two men or women in love with the same sex partner, as like "two siblings living together". All while homosexual couples vie for unity on the basis of love, and to be recognized equally as unionized within society.

Your argument also must recognize married couples, claiming benefits, who have no children.

You have proven no societal benefits married couples possess over homosexual couples. The comparing of a man and a woman with no children, married for 30 years, filing at the married rate, clearly receives more benefits than a homosexual couple in the same, precise scenario.

I have listed them. You have clearly rejected them and are now engaging in moving goal posts. Having listed the well known and documented social benefits of marriage between man and woman, you then demand citations and studies. If I provide those, you will reject them for one reason after another.

You posted one single link, then inferred we all use Google.

You have posted nothing.

Why not just admit right up front that there is no study that is going to convince you that marriage between a man and a woman provides social benefits beyond any other relationship? That is the honest thing to do.

So "honest" in a society that treated homosexuality as taboo, or otherwise disregarded it as a legitimate state of being for 200+ years, for me to go back and look for documents supporting it from the same period of time.

Not so much no. Blacks were denied equal rights based primarily on their skin color / race. There were widely held views that the negro race was inherently inferior. Any claims about "conduct" were entirely secondary.

The status claim is precisely the same.

The discussion of homosexuality, in contrast, centers on conduct.

Incorrect. It centers on orientation as a state of being, not conduct.

Nobody credibly says that a person is inherently less capable because he is homosexual.

Of course not. That would be denigration of sexual orientation.

What we say is that certain sexual conduct is offensive, should not be encouraged by society, and is a reasonable ground on which to disassociate with someone.

Homosexual conduct is the same type of conduct engaged in by heterosexual couples. In fact, conduct is a result of state of being.

Nobody gets mad because a man kisses his wife. It is understood that that is their relationship, and the conduct or activities they engage in, a byproduct of their sexual state of being, or orientation.

Yes I am. And in fact, that IS the current State of law in most of this nation. Like it or not, that is the law in most cases. A few States and a few localities are the exception.

I always like your inferences that the law is on your side, therefore you are correct. Yet you assert repeatedly that you have helped to change law in Utah, because it was incorrect.

So all this really comes down to, is your limited perspective on what is or is not a legitimate law.

Sexual conduct is not at all the same as skin color, or gender.

Sexual orientation IS.

Indeed, whatever one's tastes, desires, inclinations, or "orientation" humans retain the ability to choose whether to engage in any given sexual conduct.

Oh so you "choose" to be heterosexual. You have found yourself enticed by other men, but excluded acting upon said enticements, because you "choose" to have intercourse or romantic relationships with women.

I see.

Much of possible human sexual conduct remains taboo or otherwise offensive to most of society. This includes many fetishes, S&M, B&D, bestiality, wife swapping or swinging, etc.

Homosexuality is not a "fetish".

It is a state of being.

Some human sexual conduct remains illegal including pedophilia, pederasty, polygamy (if those involved admit to an claim an on going commitment as opposed to merely having multiple noncommitted partners), and exhibitionism (in most cases).

Meaningless commentary meant to attempt to bridge a parallel with homosexuality.

Homosexuality is not pedophilia.
Homosexuality is not pederasty.
Homosexuality is not polygamy.

Fail correlation is fail.

Casual sex and having a large number of partners in your lifetime has lost much of the stigma it once bore, but remains less than completely accepted among many segments of society.

Many homosexuals agree wholeheartedly.

With the exception of certian illegal conduct, society is obliged to tolerate a host of sexual conduct that is generally viewed as offensive.

You're failing your attempted tie-in here Charles.

You would grant some special protections to those who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (I've NOT speculated as to the core cause of homosexual desires or orientation).

Not special protections. Just equitable status.

Would you grant similar protections to those consenting adults who choose to engage in polygamy? Or incest? Or who favor barnyard animals?

Polygamy is up in the air. Only because it crosses the line into exercising ones religious belief. Hence your home states multi-bride husband pimps.

If you walk into the office and announce that you are official "out of the closet" as a swinger who enjoys S&M on the side, do you really expect the law for force your employer or landlord to maintain your existing relationship if they'd really prefer not to?

You are attempting very hard, to conjoin sexual activity, and sexual orientation.

Public Service Announcement:

Not all homosexuals, nor all homosexuals, are into pedophilia, swinging, or S&M.

By virtue of simple sexual orientation, human being should not be prejudiced against, or oppressed.

Or do you expect such protections only if the sexual activity you reveal to them is same-sex intercourse?

Again Charles, heterosexuality and homosexuality are a state of being. Not an inherent activity.

So yes.

If a man or woman, heterosexual or homosexual, reveals their sexual orientation either publicly or through observation, they should not be prejudiced against.

You mean people who are into swinging, polygamy, bestiality, S&M, B&D, incest, and every other possible sexual activity that does not involve unwilling participants?

No. I mean a sexual orientation, and not sexual activity Charles.

An individual may be heterosexual or homosexual, and choose to engage in the said activities you have defined.

Or did you mean just homosexual conduct?

Homosexual conduct is the result of a human beings sexual orientation Charles.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

And what "equitable rights" are denied even to homosexuals?

In the military, it was acceptable to kiss your wife out in public and off duty.
In the military, it was not acceptable to kiss your same sex partner out in public, and off duty.

That is called being inequitable.

In society, a man may live with a woman, as a "married" couple, and bear no children, yet reap all of the benefits of a married couple, to include tax breaks, health insurance, etc.

In society, a wo/man and a wo/man, as a permanent couple, may reap none of the benefits of a married couple.

NOBODY is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

Homosexuals are perfectly free to get married if they want to.

You contradict yourself a lot.

I mean. These sentences are back to freaking back.

They simply have to meet the same conditions as everyone else: two persons not married to others, not too closely related, of sufficient age and mental ability to enter into contracts.

Incorrect. As you have pointed out prior, only 4 states recognize homosexual unions.

You pointed that out by the way, not me.

And if his "lover" is actually 4 lovers in a polygamous relationship?

Polygamy is not a state of sexual orientation Charles.

Or his dominatrix?

S&M can be engaged in regardless of sexual orientation Charles.
S&M is not an orientation Charles.
It is a sexual activity.

Or his pet goat?

Behold, a homosexual or a heterosexual may engage in this conduct.

Or even his prostitute?

Heterosexuals and homosexuals can both engage in prostitution Charles.
Prostitution is not a sexual orientation.

I think military standards extend beyond just requiring a heterosexual relationship, don't they?

This comment makes no sense.

When you join the military, you do so to fight for your country. Your sexual orientation plays no role in TRADOC training, well, unless you have a DADT policy in place.

Since Bill Clinton was president, no one is being ejecting because of his sexual orientation. He is being ejected ONLY for refusal to follow orders relative to keeping his orientation private and/or his actual sexual CONDUCT.

There is no bill, policy, or regulation prohibiting homosexuality in the presidency Charles.

Most homosexuals would agree that that kind of activity does not need to occur in the White House, regardless sexual orientation.

Do you believe members of the military should be exempt from following orders they don't like?

Only those that are unlawful.

That you consider ANY and all differences of political opinion in this realm to be based only on bigotry, it is clear you are nor prepared to have a civil, rational dialogue.

After laying down miles and miles of text in an effort to equate a state of being, to sexual activity, you duck out by stating that I am being uncivil.

Not surprising.

I will readily admit that some persons will be unkind toward homosexuals out of pure bigotry or hatred. The question becomes, do you believe that people have a right to be bigoted so long as the do no more than peacefully withdraw association?

Well of course!

When one is in a position of voluntary duty however, you should not be able to duck out by stating you do not like homosexuals.

Put another way, even if a landlord or employer admits no other motivation than bigotry toward homosexuals, will you defend his right to decline a business relationship?

Nope, I will not. No more than I would allow for an employer to terminate a black man based solely on his color.

Frankly, this argument is presumptively stupid anyways.

99.9% of normal employment is "at will", and you would not find an employer across this great nation that would ever terminate somebody on the basis of sexual orientation or skin color. There are 1,000,000,000 other reasons and employer can use to terminate somebody under that structure.

Does he have a legal right to engage in peaceful conduct that you find offensive?

But of course! So long as it is not lewd or sexual in nature.

There remains some question about whether his conduct was entirely legal. Until that is decided, you emphatic assertion that he was exercising a "right" is not supportable. You may believe there is a right to OC a long gun without restriction. I'm unaware of any SCOTUS or even appellate level court ruling that so holds.

And yet, as a demonstration of your character, you immediately label him a "pinhead", and refer to him as a "bozo" and a "clown" on various other occasions.

You purport to support RTKBA, yet denigrate a man peacefully doing so.

Hell even watching the video you can tell the guy is a nice, calm, rational guy.

That said, will you defend, with the same vigor as you do this fellow OCing a rifle in a combat sling, the man who engages in what you believe to be offensive conduct by peacefully declining to enter into a business relationship with someone who is homosexual?

Charles

Oh I would indeed! Sexual orientation is a status.

 

[utbagpiper]

Frankly, yes.

However, we can control the gender of those we engage in hygienic activities with. We cannot in any case be it male or female, control the sexual orientation. Dividing based on gender is still optimal, because only a fraction of any given same gender group, will be homosexual.

Your response does not address the issue, and you have offered no solution, as I requested.

Actually we can control the sexual orientation of who is allowed into showers, at least to some degree. That we choose not to is another matter entirely.

We might require that homosexuals not serve in the military. That dramatically reduces, though doesn't eliminate their presence in communal showers and bunk halls.

We might continue with DADT so that at least service members are not aware of exactly which of their fellows may be invading their privacy.

We might require that homosexuals shower at different times or in different facilities.

There may be any number of other solutions. But your asking for a solution is not honest on your part. Until you acknowledge that a desire for sexual privacy regarding homosexuals is legitimate, then NO solution offered is going to satisfy you. You merely get to shift from arguing about the underlying issue to arguing about why one solution or another is a bad idea.

Why not deal with the core issue first, honestly? THEN we could see if there are any practical solutions to whatever problems we might conclude exist? The answer is self evident: because you will never concede there is any problem and no amount of logic, reason, or studies are going to change your mind. For you, this issue is beyond any reasonable argument. And that is fine. I just wish you'd admit it.

The question remains, WHY do we afford respect to the widespread desire for sexual privacy involving members of the opposite sex but then turn around and completely dismiss exactly parallel desires for sexual privacy involving homosexuals?

Please do not deflect.

Often, there is the automatic tie-in that just because somebody is homosexual, that they are going to engage in intercourse with you post-haste.

It's actually quite comical to watch the fear steeped in misunderstanding, that many individuals have in regards to homosexuals.

Red herrings, straw man and non sequitor along with childish insults and accusations. I don't think for one moment that if I shower with members of the opposite sex that some woman is going to jump me post haste. There is no reason for the women to have such concerns about me. Yet if I express a desire not to shower with a bunch of woman, or they a similar concern about showering with me, we are not accused of bigotry, hatred, being insecure, or anything else remiss. At least not by any who are mature enough to be past adolescent fantasies of seeing large numbers of the opposite sex naked. Indeed, that such fantasies exist (at least among many men) may well be one reason why women are not forced to shower with men.

Yet if I express a desire not to shower with homosexuals you attempt to implicate me of having some phobia about unwanted sexual advances?!?!!?

Do you really not see how you are applying a double standard and completely refusing to discuss the matter in a rational, logical basis?

If you consider 20 soldiers lathering up in a bay shower the forum for "intimacy", I won't judge.

If you do not so consider it then there is NO rational basis for gender segregation. You don't get it both ways. Either there is nothing intimate or private about showering, changing clothes, using the toilet, etc and thus there is no rational reason for gender separation, OR, there is something intimate about such situations that would justify not only gender segregation but also demand some deference to sexual privacy from homosexuals.

What you refuse to address is why you believe that a desire for sexual privacy from opposite gender is a legitimate desire among healthy, well adjusted, non-bigoted adults, but simultaneously believe that a desire for sexual privacy from homosexuals is not a legitimate desire among those same persons.

What is the material difference between the two situations? Certainly we are not keeping any secrets about differences in plumbing. So what is the reason?

I am fairly certain "Kiss-Right-Kiss" is not a DNC maneuver.

Quite agreed, so the ladies should have no qualms about showering with the men, RIGHT?

Can you provide the material difference between a woman's concern about showering with men and a man's concern about showering with homosexuals?

Are you willing to refrain from calling homosexuals "bozos" or "idiots"? :lol:

I have never in my adult life used any such insults towards homosexuals. You most certainly will never find any such incivility from me toward homosexuals in anything I've EVER posted to this forumn.

I may disagree with the political agenda. I may get frustrated with those who refuse to engage in honest debate. I will return some insults to those who insist on calling me a bigot or worse simply because I disagree with them. But I do not resort to such baseless and infantile insults of an entire group.

Evidence to the contrary is welcome if you wish to back up what was a thinly veiled accusation against me.

Otherwise, an apology for that accusation is the honorable course for you to take.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

You stated "homosexual activity". Not "homosexual unions". Yet you have digressed into a sole conversation about homosexual unions.

It is clear that either your reading comprehension is too poor to following analogies and examples and logical arguments, or you simply not interested in doing so.

It is pointless to continue this discussion with you as you are either unable or unwilling to even understand what it is I am writing.

I never said homosexuals were pedophiles, into S&M etc. I compared homosexual conduct with many other sexual practices to which you and most others would not grant protections.

I never said homosexuals were not productive members of society. What I said is that homosexuals unions have not been shown to demonstrate the same social benefits as does marriage between men and women. With rare exception everyone engages in beneficial activities like working, buying a home, etc. Brothers and sisters do those things. Business partners do those things. Children do those things with aged parents. Society does not grant special benefits to any of these other relationships. Marriage goes above and beyond these benefits.

Marriage between man and woman provides demonstrable, measured benefits to children raised in those homes. Such children are about 45 to 50% less likely to be physically abused or neglected, emotionally abused or neglected, or suffer other such problems than other children. Boys raised in such homes are only about half as likely to engage in crimes serious enough to be jailed.

At the macro level do homosexual couples provide similar benefits to the raising of the next generation? Maybe. But I can't find any research, and certainly none of it coming from anything close to independent sources or with more than just a few years of data that says so. Maybe someday such data will be readily available and apparent. Or maybe not. Maybe we'll wake up one day and just as sociologists now admit that fathers are important for far more than just a paycheck, that a mother and father joined in marriage provide benefits simply not readily available in other situations.

I don't know and neither do you because the data simply doesn't exist yet. That you claim to know, emphatically assert that homosexual relationships provide all the same benefits to society (NOT the couple, but to society) as does marriage between man and woman is ample demonstration that you are not dealing with facts, but with your own biases and beliefs. That you are unable or unwilling to admit they are such, but instead assert them as facts is strong evidence again that you are incapable of having a mature, rational, non-emotive discussion on the topic.

I've not accused you of hatred or stupidity or any emotional issues. Yet you can barely get through a paragraph without directly calling me a bigot or strongly implying that only bigotry, emotional distress, or some other personal failing could possibly explain my beliefs.

So take the last word. Or 1000 if you like.

I've attempted to be civil, rational, respectful while conveying honest concerns and issues. We might have learned something from each other. But it seems you are so set in the sound bites and play books that you are unable and unwilling to even recognize I'm not making the arguments you are refuting. So yet again, enjoy.

Charles

 

[Claytron]

Actually we can control the sexual orientation of who is allowed into showers, at least to some degree. That we choose not to is another matter entirely.

We might require that homosexuals not serve in the military. That dramatically reduces, though doesn't eliminate their presence in communal showers and bunk halls.

We might continue with DADT so that at least service members are not aware of exactly which of their fellows may be invading their privacy.

We might require that homosexuals shower at different times or in different facilities.

There may be any number of other solutions. But your asking for a solution is not honest on your part. Until you acknowledge that a desire for sexual privacy regarding homosexuals is legitimate, then NO solution offered is going to satisfy you. You merely get to shift from arguing about the underlying issue to arguing about why one solution or another is a bad idea.

Why not deal with the core issue first, honestly? THEN we could see if there are any practical solutions to whatever problems we might conclude exist? The answer is self evident: because you will never concede there is any problem and no amount of logic, reason, or studies are going to change your mind. For you, this issue is beyond any reasonable argument. And that is fine. I just wish you'd admit it.

The question remains, WHY do we afford respect to the widespread desire for sexual privacy involving members of the opposite sex but then turn around and completely dismiss exactly parallel desires for sexual privacy involving homosexuals?

Please do not deflect.



Red herrings, straw man and non sequitor along with childish insults and accusations. I don't think for one moment that if I shower with members of the opposite sex that some woman is going to jump me post haste. There is no reason for the women to have such concerns about me. Yet if I express a desire not to shower with a bunch of woman, or they a similar concern about showering with me, we are not accused of bigotry, hatred, being insecure, or anything else remiss. At least not by any who are mature enough to be past adolescent fantasies of seeing large numbers of the opposite sex naked. Indeed, that such fantasies exist (at least among many men) may well be one reason why women are not forced to shower with men.

Yet if I express a desire not to shower with homosexuals you attempt to implicate me of having some phobia about unwanted sexual advances?!?!!?

Do you really not see how you are applying a double standard and completely refusing to discuss the matter in a rational, logical basis?



If you do not so consider it then there is NO rational basis for gender segregation. You don't get it both ways. Either there is nothing intimate or private about showering, changing clothes, using the toilet, etc and thus there is no rational reason for gender separation, OR, there is something intimate about such situations that would justify not only gender segregation but also demand some deference to sexual privacy from homosexuals.

What you refuse to address is why you believe that a desire for sexual privacy from opposite gender is a legitimate desire among healthy, well adjusted, non-bigoted adults, but simultaneously believe that a desire for sexual privacy from homosexuals is not a legitimate desire among those same persons.

What is the material difference between the two situations? Certainly we are not keeping any secrets about differences in plumbing. So what is the reason?



Quite agreed, so the ladies should have no qualms about showering with the men, RIGHT?

Can you provide the material difference between a woman's concern about showering with men and a man's concern about showering with homosexuals?




I have never in my adult life used any such insults towards homosexuals. You most certainly will never find any such incivility from me toward homosexuals in anything I've EVER posted to this forumn.

I may disagree with the political agenda. I may get frustrated with those who refuse to engage in honest debate. I will return some insults to those who insist on calling me a bigot or worse simply because I disagree with them. But I do not resort to such baseless and infantile insults of an entire group.

Evidence to the contrary is welcome if you wish to back up what was a thinly veiled accusation against me.

Otherwise, an apology for that accusation is the honorable course for you to take.

Charles

when i read your comments you know what i see? I see someone who sees themself as someone who feels they are entitled. Entitled to what exactly im not sure.... everything maybe. Its as if you think that a Man is the original and woman and homosexuals are second class.... why do you act as if these people wanting to have privacy is them asking for a special privilege when you yourself state you want the privilege to choose who you shower with?

It seems in your mind you already see yourself as being correct, instead of seeing yourself as having the correct opinion. Opinions can change and be swayed but when you feel that everything you do and believe in correct just because its what YOU believe then its hard for anyone to convince you past that bias.

also i believe people assume you are a bigot because you disregard homosexuals as someone who isnt natural and is encroaching on your naturalness and your rights, when in actuality its because you are just a bit insecure and nervous about your sexuality and are just uncomfortable. Thats why i believe you to be a bigot, not just because you disagree with me, so try not to strawman everyone all at once.

 

[Claytron]

Marriage between man and woman provides demonstrable, measured benefits to children raised in those homes. Such children are about 45 to 50% less likely to be physically abused or neglected, emotionally abused or neglected, or suffer other such problems than other children. Boys raised in such homes are only about half as likely to engage in crimes serious enough to be jailed.


Charles

Its comments like these that make us ask for cites, because honestly, it sounds like the biggest load of ******** ive ever heard in my life. Seriously... where do you get this crap? Cut the "try google" remarks and the insults about my knowledge on the subject and just humor us. Where is this information gathered from Charles?

"50% less likely to be abused" just like a person is "50 times more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal" right? Same group behind both studies maybe?

Off the top of my head, it seems like common sense that a couple who is required to go through the trouble of adopting/artificially getting pregnant is going to be more prepared and more likely to be able to care FOR a child than your typical "oops how did this happen" straight couple and lets not kid ourselves, it probably wouldnt be too much of a stretch to say that the majority of births in the united states arent intentional.

You say that the Man+Woman marriage has much more benfits for the child yet you have one seriously overlooked aspect that throws one flaw into that opinion and thats the fact that somewhere along the lines of 50% of all marriages end in divorce..... So even if a Man+Woman marriage and parent situation was better, it would only have a CHANCE of working out good 50% of the time.

 

[marshaul]

I never said homosexuals were pedophiles, into S&M etc. I compared homosexual conduct with many other sexual practices to which you and most others would not grant protections.

But this has never been about homosexual conduct. Most sexual conduct is still prohibited in a military setting.

This is merely about the homosexual state of being, and whether mere admission of that state of being is sufficient cause to discharge soldiers.

For the last time, we're not talking about homosexuals having sex in the shower, we're talking about homosexuals showering in the shower.

I'm beginning to think that you view homosexuals showering as, inherently, a form of sexual conduct. Which fact speaks volumes, none of it regarding the issue at hand.

 

[slowfiveoh]

when i read your comments you know what i see? I see someone who sees themself as someone who feels they are entitled.

[snip]

It seems in your mind you already see yourself as being correct, instead of seeing yourself as having the correct opinion. Opinions can change and be swayed but when you feel that everything you do and believe in correct just because its what YOU believe then its hard for anyone to convince you past that bias.

This is an excerpt from Charles commentary in another thread.

Any day you want to compare our relative successes in protecting, preserving, advancing, and restoring our RKBA I'm up for it. I will put my personal contributions and successes in this area up against anybody. I will put Utah's collective improvements (and my contributions thereto) over the last 15 years up against any other State in the union. Do you really want start comparing which of us has had more real success in changing laws? And getting local governments to comply with the laws? How do your stomping grounds of Washington or Virginia compare to Utah, in total?

Just sayin.

But this has never been about homosexual conduct. Most sexual conduct is still prohibited in a military setting.

This is merely about the homosexual state of being, and whether mere admission of that state of being is sufficient cause to discharge soldiers.

For the last time, we're not talking about homosexuals having sex in the shower, we're talking about homosexuals showering in the shower.

I'm beginning to think that you view homosexuals showering as, inherently, a form of sexual conduct. Which fact speaks volumes, none of it regarding the issue at hand.

Bingo.

He will not concede though.

Remember, showers full of stinky ass troops are "intimate".

 

[utbagpiper]

So you fully expect it meaning you accept my logic and agree that you can quit at any time if it makes you uncomfortable. You are not forced. You are not required. You choose. Now that we have that out of the way ill refer to a quote of yours

Funny that when that logic was applied to homosexuals it was hateful and bigoted. Now that it is applied to heterosexuals it is good public policy.

You try to make it seem like im uninformed and unable to make a point because i havent read these specific articles and documents you are referring ...

I'm sorry. I assumed that anyone with such strong opinions on the topic would have arrived at such opinions ONLY after becoming well informed as to the facts that are available. Are you admitting you've arrived at such strong conclusions based on nothing but your necessarily limited--ie anecdotal--experiences?

But it is anyone who disagrees with you who is the bigot?!?!?!

I'm sorry, you see I've played the game of moving goal posts before. It is a waste of time. If you will tell me up front what level of study, documentation, or citation has any reasonable chance of changing your mind, I might well provide some citations. But I'm referencing what is well known facts, if politically incorrect, in the literature. Literature that I mistakenly assumed anyone with such strong opinions might have bothered to read in arriving at such opinions. That you claim to be wholly ignorant of such facts strongly suggests to me that if I provide citations you will do as so many others have done and simply reject the citations.

Did you read the Fred Reed article I linked? It is not an authoritative cite except so far as an honorable Vietnam vet who is now legally disabled from his war injuries but is not particularly religious or even "conservative" might be considered authoritative in providing some non bigoted thoughts on why this is an issue. But it is an easy, informative read. Did you bother to take 5 minutes to read it?

If not, why should anyone think your demand for citations is anything other than an attempt to deflect. If you won't read a 5 minute commentary what are the odds you are going to dig into a 50 page academic study? All due respect.

Your only transparent argument so far has been "their are many personal and social ills regarding homosexual conduct" Are you an expert"? A doctor?

No, my argument has been:

1-Everyone is entitled to some degree of sexual privacy when ever possible. That is why men and women don't shower and bunk together. Forcing people to shower or bunk with homosexuals is a similar, parallel violation of basic sexual privacy. That you are comfortable with it, or even with showering with a bunch of women does not change that many are not and so long as we recognize the legitimacy of wanting sexual privacy from the opposite sex, we should give some similar deference for desires for sexual privacy from homosexuals.

2-There are legitimate reasons why society treats heterosexual courting and matrimony differently than it treats homosexual coupling or other sexual activities.

3-Homosexuality is strongly correlated with a host of social ills.

4-It is pointless and counterproductive for us to argue about such emotional topics because no one changes his mind and relationships that may be important for working together on RKBA are damaged.

5-I am careful to avoid religious or moral arguments on this topic. I try to avoid insults or presuming ill intent from others...until they offer evidence that such ill intent is present.

Or just some dude whos scared about his own sexuality? Because, regardless of your opinion on cites not being applicable, so far you seem to know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

In the pro-homosexual political play book accusing an opponent of having latent homosexual issues is a standard tactic. It is one that often works. It doesn't work with me because I'm quite secure thank you.

To be fair, normally we first see accusation of ignorance. Just like we did above with questions about "being an expert" or doctor.

When it becomes obvious that a persons positions cannot be attacks as founded in pure ignorance or evil religious beliefs, then we see attacks based on some hidden sexual issues. How pleased your homosexual friends must be that for all your chest thumping to defend them, you still consider accusations of being homosexual to be an insult, a weapon to use in an attempt to silence your opponents. Since your side likes to make false comparisons between sexual conduct and race, I'll take the liberty of pointing out that "scared about his own sexuality" is no less bigoted and offensive than "you sound like one of them black guys". Think about that.

When it becomes clear that someone won't be silenced with accusations of being homosexual (do you really consider that an insult?) I think the playbook tells you to circle around to accusations of bigotry, and misrepresentations of the positions being stated.

You talk about social and personal ills.... Can you explain this?

I thought I had.

Here it is again. Homosexuals are far more likely than heterosexuals to be depressed, attempt or commit suicide, abuse drugs and alcohol, and be involved in domestic violence. Homosexual men are more likely than the general population to engage in high risk sexual conduct including multiple sex partners, anonymous sex, and unprotected sex outside of a monogamous relationship. Homosexual men are far more likely to cheat on a partner than are heterosexual men similarly situated.

Here is a citation, let's see if it convinces you of any of these simple facts.

"Teenagers who are gay or bisexual are more than three times as likely to attempt suicide as other youth, according to a Massachusetts study reported this month in The Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.

"The lead researcher, Dr. Robert Garofalo, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital at the Harvard Medical School, also noted that these young people were more likely to engage in other high risk behaviors: Alcohol consumption, drug and tobacco use and sexual activities with multiple partners."

The same study finds that about 3 1/2 percent of teenagers self-identify as homosexual, bi-sexual, or "unsure" of their sexuality.

There, a simple, solid cite from a researcher at a major, respected university. The report is not at all hostile to homosexual or homosexuality.

Many who previously claimed ignorance that such ills were more prevalent among homosexual than among the general population will immediately become experts on the matter and assert that all these ills are the result of "poor treatment" at the hands of society and even family and friends. I suggest you at least pretend to have done significant reading on the subject by waiting at least a day or two before posting such a claim since you have just claimed to know nothing about any such ills.

Of course, such assertions fail the logical test on two fronts: 1-Other groups that are mistreated do not exhibit similar elevated rates of such problems. These include religious minorities such as Jews, or even individuals who convert to say mormonism and are disowned by their families. 2-The elevated risks among homosexuals exist even in States and nations that are very accepting of and even offer protections to homosexual conduct. Canada is literally arresting clergymen who dare to preach across their own pulpits that homosexual sexual conduct is sinful. Homosexual Canadians have similar elevated problems compared to their heterosexual countrymen as do homosexuals in Utah, California, Massachusetts, or anywhere else.

Note that I have not said that homosexuality causes such ills. I've never seen that demonstrated in the literature. But the correlation cannot be denied. All that can be debated are why the correlation exists, and what might be done to reduce the problems for the individuals and thus society.

And in closing, regarding your comment about people leaving the military or not signing up at all ill repeat what ive said a few times here: Any soldier who would relinquish his duty to protect his country because there is a gay man or woman serving next to him is a complete and utter *****. You want me to believe that someone who is supposed to have bullets and bombs buzzing by their head is SUCH a bigot or SUCH a coward that they cannot handle the fact that the dude next to him french kissed another dude the night before?

I don't think any of us care what the dude did last night with other consenting adults.

But if you'd bothered to read Fred's column you'd know that some men you'd never dare call cowards to their face really do prefer not to shower with or in front of homosexuals. They'd prefer not to hot bunk with them on a sub.

Let me try this on for size. "Any soldier who would relinquish his duty to protect his country because there are only coed showers or bunks is a complete and utter *****. You want me to believe that someone who is supposed to have bullets and bombs buzzing by their head is SUCH a sexist or SUCH a coward that they cannot handle the fact that someone of the opposite sex will see them naked?"

Doesn't have quite the same ring of self-righteous indignation now does it? Sounds like someone who is entirely out of touch with basic human psychology in matters of sexual privacy.

When you have done enough reading to have facts to help back up your currently held opinions, let me know. Until then, opinions so strongly held and expressed so vilely without factual basis beyond limited personal anecdotal experience is one of the definitions of blind bigotry.

Charles