US Senate Repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[Shadic]

Science prevails!

Too bad lies spread halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

 

[Fuelbi]

I don't know. I looked in to this topic a bit and I'm having a hard time finding studies that state people choose to be gay. Also I'm starting to feel kind of bad condemning people this way. I'm saying sorry to everyone I offended. I think I'll drop my position on this argument now.

I think I might actually take you off my ignore list now if you're serious

 

[TigerWoods]

I think I might actually take you off my ignore list now if you're serious

How is he on your ignore list if you see what he's saying > . >

 

[Dre89]

Gays don't consciously chose to be gay, that's absurd, but there is overwhelming evidence that sexuality is psychologically influenced. We wouldn't have serial killer profilers if it wasn't.

This is one of those issues where there is more to it than meets the eye. I don't have an opinion on the issue, but if gay men can share toilet and bedroom facilities with straight men, do you think women should too?

 

[DTP]

If gay men can share toilet and bedroom facilities with straight men, do you think women should too?

Oh man, I hate trick questions.
But I'm going to go ahead and say......................yes?

 

[DoH]

but if gay men can share toilet and bedroom facilities with straight men, do you think women should too?

No.

I hate it when girls come into the men's room in gay bars. They're all like, "we're not looking, the line is just really long!" and I'm all like GTFO! If I went into a women's bathroom saying "I'm not looking!" I would be maced and probably arrested.

 

[deepseadiva]

The LGBT dorm on my campus actually has co-ed bathrooms.

weirdos

 

[Kinzer]

How is he on your ignore list if you see what he's saying > . >

Other people quoting him.

As for the topic at hand: Nice.

 

[Dre89]

No.

I hate it when girls come into the men's room in gay bars. They're all like, "we're not looking, the line is just really long!" and I'm all like GTFO! If I went into a women's bathroom saying "I'm not looking!" I would be maced and probably arrested.

That sounds like it would be really annoying.

So as for my question, do you think there's an inconsistency with saying yes to gays and no to women?

 

[El Nino]

if gay men can share toilet and bedroom facilities with straight men, do you think women should too?

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=294072

 

[Crimson King]

Gays don't consciously chose to be gay, that's absurd, but there is overwhelming evidence that sexuality is psychologically influenced. We wouldn't have serial killer profilers if it wasn't.

This is one of those issues where there is more to it than meets the eye. I don't have an opinion on the issue, but if gay men can share toilet and bedroom facilities with straight men, do you think women should too?

It's totally different though. Gay men are still men. It's very easy to fake being gay for the sake of being near naked women. For women's protection, it's separate.

Not all gay men will hit on straight men. That's a myth across the board. I, as a man, don't hit on every woman I see, but I some do. It varies from man to man.

On the psychologically influenced: this is more true with women than men.

 

[Pluvia]

Yeah I don't understand this myth that being male automatically qualifies you into being hit on by gay men. That's like thinking men will hit on all females just because they're female, rather than the fact that they're attracted to the individual.

Edit:

Read this:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=294072

 

[Shadic]

What's with the terrible, inflammatory thread title for that?

 

[deepseadiva]

humor whats that

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't know. I looked in to this topic a bit and I'm having a hard time finding studies that state people choose to be gay. Also I'm starting to feel kind of bad condemning people this way. I'm saying sorry to everyone I offended. I think I'll drop my position on this argument now.

Fairly rare that someone with an opinion like that changes their mind based on factual evidence. My hat is off to you.

Science prevails!

Too bad lies spread halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

This is a great post.

Gays don't consciously chose to be gay, that's absurd, but there is overwhelming evidence that sexuality is psychologically influenced. We wouldn't have serial killer profilers if it wasn't.

This is one of those issues where there is more to it than meets the eye. I don't have an opinion on the issue, but if gay men can share toilet and bedroom facilities with straight men, do you think women should too?

Yep. Because the same level of basic discretion that homosexuals are forced to have should be expected from anyone. If you can't hang around with a member of the desired sex in a non-sexual manner, then you have a problem. And sure, expecting this right away from the current generation would be silly-they have never had to deal with it. But expecting it from future generations seems sensible and reasonable.

 

[Dre89]

Just to clarify, I never suggested that all gays will hit on straight men or anything like that.

 

[DoH]

That's what your question implied because it's so utterly asinine.

Also, don't let porn or US Senators fool you, bathrooms aren't sexy.

 

[Fuelbi]

How is he on your ignore list if you see what he's saying > . >

That stupid show post button tempts me too much I don't even know why that's there

EDIT:

Also, I just realized why Brian and Stewie in that episode of Family Guy where they went to the army tried to be gay to get out of there XD

 

[Dre89]

That's what your question implied because it's so utterly asinine.

Also, don't let porn or US Senators fool you, bathrooms aren't sexy.

So when the question is about men and women sharing, everyone assumes I mean that only some men will hit on women.

But when I ask about gays sharing, of course I must be saying something absurd like all gays hit on straight men bla bla, because of course in your eyes no anti homosexual can be rational, and we all want gays burned at the stake, or some other uninformed conception you have.

 

[deepseadiva]

I don't think I could consider someone rational and anti-homosexual at the same time. Similar to creationists.

The "smart" approach to both always seems as if the person took the position first, and then found justification afterward.

 

[Pluvia]

Yeah it seems that rationality and anti-homosexuals don't really go together. Wanting people to opress themselves when they're not doing anything wrong, and which doesn't affect you in any way, isn't rational.

You can say it isn't a choice and that you disagree with it, or that it is a choice and you disagree with it. Both stances are irational, one is atkin to disagreeing with someone being black, the other is illogical for the obvious reason that it isn't a choice.

So yeah it might be a lot of things but rational is not one of them.

 

[DoH]

Because there's an inherent difference between how men interact with each other in the bathroom and how women interact with each other in the bathroom. Bathrooms are safe, private spaces for women; they have girl talk, do their makeup, help each other with Midol/tampons, etc. For them it's a social place. Bathrooms for men are a place of business; you get in, get out, get on with your life. Allowing men to penetrate the sphere of privacy the bathroom offers dismantles the protection and security it provides.

Locker rooms are segregated by sex for similar reasons. Any public area where nudity is probably is afforded increased privacy protections.

And straight men aren't considered second class citizens, so sweeping generalizations generally don't have a detrimental impact against them. And like Meno said, there's no rational reason to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It's only born out animus, bigotry, and ignorance.

 

[Merkuri]

Because there's an inherent difference between how men interact with each other in the bathroom and how women interact with each other in the bathroom. Bathrooms are safe, private spaces for women; they have girl talk, do their makeup, help each other with Midol/tampons, etc. For them it's a social place. Bathrooms for men are a place of business; you get in, get out, get on with your life. Allowing men to penetrate the sphere of privacy the bathroom offers dismantles the protection and security it provides.

Locker rooms are segregated by sex for similar reasons. Any public area where nudity is probably is afforded increased privacy protections.

And straight men aren't considered second class citizens, so sweeping generalizations generally don't have a detrimental impact against them. And like Meno said, there's no rational reason to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It's only born out animus, bigotry, and ignorance.

I think this a very ignorant and presumptuous opinion. Lots of guys socialize in bathrooms, particularly locker rooms. I don't know where you get the ridiculous idea that guys don't hang out and have guy talk locker rooms. Just hang around the football team in the locker room after a match, it's all about which girl you tryna **** and is that ho still calling you?

Dre is right in that letting gay men share bathrooms with straight men isn't far apart from letting men share bathrooms with share men.

Edit: Also anti-homosexual is kind of a catch all term, and while some it is generally not rational some of it is. Wanting homosexuality to be illegalized and wanting homosexuality censored in the media is not not analogous or really even comparable to each other.

 

[El Nino]

Dre is right in that letting gay men share bathrooms with straight men isn't far apart from letting men share bathrooms with share men.

Uh, so, where exactly do you think gay guys currently go to the bathroom, if not the public men's room shared by mostly heterosexuals? Considering that pissing on a public sidewalk can get you fined.

Don't mean to disappoint anyone, but if you haven't been molested in a public restroom yet, it probably isn't going to happen in the near future either, no matter how social views on homosexuality change.

Also have to point out that the interaction between straight men and women is different than the interaction between straight men and gay men. For one, most women don't throw on a pair of brass knuckles and beat the living daylights out of you for making a pass (though I know some ****s who might). And if they did, more straight guys would be as sexually repressed and morally depraved as most gays I know (I kid, I kid).

Edit: Also anti-homosexual is kind of a catch all term, and while some it is generally not rational some of it is. Wanting homosexuality to be illegalized and wanting homosexuality censored in the media is not not analogous or really even comparable to each other.

Most of it seems to come from the same place though. Disgust is an understandable reaction that most of us will have towards one subject or another, but I wouldn't ever say that it is a rational reaction. If anything, it is a purely emotional reaction that later demands attempts at logical justification.

 

[1048576]

And your solution is what, one bathroom per person? 2 lesbians have to share a cup? I think the bathroom thing is more practical than anything else. Guys use urinals. Women use tampon dispensers.

 

[Pluvia]

That was one of the most cringeworthy things I've ever read numbers.

 

[Dre89]

El Nino, I'm not disgusted by gays at all, I've been friends with gays, and used to have no issue with it until I was 18.

Some of the logic here is pretty bad. Saying we're asking for opression when they're not doing any thing wrong is already assuming they aren't doing any wrong, when the debate is whether it is wrong or not.

Some of you really need to drop your misconceptions, I haven't made blanket statements about my opposition, neither should you.

 

[Pluvia]

So whats wrong with being gay? I honestly have no idea how you're going to rationalise this.

 

[El Nino]

El Nino, I'm not disgusted by gays at all, I've been friends with gays, and used to have no issue with it until I was 18.

Some of the logic here is pretty bad. Saying we're asking for opression when they're not doing any thing wrong is already assuming they aren't doing any wrong, when the debate is whether it is wrong or not.

Some of you really need to drop your misconceptions, I haven't made blanket statements about my opposition, neither should you.

In case we are not clear, you are not my opposition. I base my statements on observations and psychological studies of homophobia. I'm not talking about you, at this point. I am talking about homophobia in societies, in general.

I think we already went over this in DH, and it probably doesn't warrant any repeating. I base my views of morals and the social contract on biology and the evolutionary basis for ethics.

 

[Master Xanthan]

So whats wrong with being gay? I honestly have no idea how you're going to rationalise this.

I'm straight but frankly it doesn't matter to me what people do in the bedroom. But there is a somewhat rational view of why homosexuality is wrong. Only thing I can think of right now is that homosexuals can't reproduce by natural means so they can't add to the world's population. Then again overpopulation is a problem right now so that kind of counters my statement. But if we all lived in a different time where areas of the world were struggling with population then a view like this would be rational I think. But again I don't hate homosexuals I'm just pointing out that there can be a logical point of why someone could be against it.

 

[TigerWoods]

>.>"

Should this make relationships involving a straight man and woman who are incapable of reproduction by natural means wrong?

 

[Master Xanthan]

>.>"

Should this make relationships involving a straight man and woman who are incapable of reproduction by natural means wrong?

Well since they are incapable of it, then no. Eh, I'll admit my point isn't a very good one.

 

[Geist]

I'm straight but frankly it doesn't matter to me what people do in the bedroom. But there is a somewhat rational view of why homosexuality is wrong. Only thing I can think of right now is that homosexuals can't reproduce by natural means so they can't add to the world's population. Then again overpopulation is a problem right now so that kind of counters my statement. But if we all lived in a different time where areas of the world were struggling with population then a view like this would be rational I think. But again I don't hate homosexuals I'm just pointing out that there can be a logical point of why someone could be against it.

Well creating a unique hypothetical situation where suddenly an argument becomes rational still doesn't work. And that's besides the point that the same argument seems to justify homosexuality only as a means to put a damper on overpopulation, which I find distasteful to say the least.

 

[Master Xanthan]

Well creating a unique hypothetical situation where suddenly an argument becomes rational still doesn't work. And that's besides the point that the same argument seems to justify homosexuality only as a means to put a damper on overpopulation, which I find distasteful to say the least.

I never said it was a means to put a damper on overpopulation. I'm saying that the fact that overpopulation is currently a problem hurts my argument. I'm not saying that homosexuality should be used as a solution to it.

 

[Merkuri]

Uh, so, where exactly do you think gay guys currently go to the bathroom, if not the public men's room shared by mostly heterosexuals? Considering that pissing on a public sidewalk can get you fined.

Obviously gay men go into heterosexual bathrooms, my point was that this really isn't any better than straight men going into male bathrooms.

Most of it seems to come from the same place though. Disgust is an understandable reaction that most of us will have towards one subject or another, but I wouldn't ever say that it is a rational reaction. If anything, it is a purely emotional reaction that later demands attempts at logical justification.

I think you've complete missed my point here. You're using homophobia as a catch all term for all anti-homosexual notions. Saying that I was homosexuality censored in the media because I don't want my child to be be exposed or influenced by it is a completely rational argument, whether or not I have a strong argument is neither here nor there, the point is that my reaction is logical and not emotional. If anyone isn't being rational here then it's you.

Edit: That overpopulation anti-homosexual argument works in countries like Japan and most of eastern Europe. They have an aging population and a negative replacement rate. Hmmm.... and homosexuality is wildly accepted over there.

 

[Crimson King]

The US NEEDS a negative population for us to maintain any semblance of our current quality of life. As birth rates rise, the available resources are dispersed among more and more. While 1 in 5 women are choosing to be childless, it won't be enough.

The Census website has the world population at about 6,890,917,139, whereas we hit 6 billion in 1999. Compared to the previous billion distance being from 1987 to 1999 (about 12 years), that's a scary trend we are setting since 2011 will be the year we hit 7 billion.

Also, anti-homosexuality is always homophobic. Homophobic is a fear of the homosexual life style, and fear is often displayed by anger.

 

[Master Xanthan]

The US NEEDS a negative population for us to maintain any semblance of our current quality of life. As birth rates rise, the available resources are dispersed among more and more. While 1 in 5 women are choosing to be childless, it won't be enough.

The Census website has the world population at about 6,890,917,139, whereas we hit 6 billion in 1999. Compared to the previous billion distance being from 1987 to 1999 (about 12 years), that's a scary trend we are setting since 2011 will be the year we hit 7 billion.

Also, anti-homosexuality is always homophobic. Homophobic is a fear of the homosexual life style, and fear is often displayed by anger.

Fair enough, I withdraw my point. But just so we're clear I'm not anti-homosexual, I just wanted to play devil's advocate.

 

[Dre89]

Anti homosexuality is not always a fear of the lifestyle, it can be thinking it's wrong.

I am anti abortion, so does that mean I fear abortion, and must hate every person who has had one? Or does it mean I just think it's wrong?

Do you fear and hate everyone you disagree with?

What separates El Nino from the other pro gays is that he acknowledged that his premise for his position is Social Contract Theory. It then comes down to whether SC is right or not.

 

[1048576]

Jesus had two dads, just sayin'

If homosexuality is environmentally caused, then I had to have picked it up at church. That's the only place I can remember singing and dancing as a child.

 

[El Nino]

Saying that I was homosexuality censored in the media because I don't want my child to be be exposed or influenced by it is a completely rational argument

Why don't you want your child to be exposed to it?

If it is a question of sexuality being too prevalent in media, then wouldn't you have an issue with both heterosexual and homosexual depictions in media? Why target homosexuality specifically?

Edit: That overpopulation anti-homosexual argument works in countries like Japan and most of eastern Europe. They have an aging population and a negative replacement rate. Hmmm.... and homosexuality is wildly accepted over there.

No, it is not "wildly accepted" in Japan or Eastern Europe. Not sure where you got that information, or maybe you actually live in one of those places and my sources are wrong. To my knowledge, there isn't any society in the world in which homosexuality is "wildly accepted." Thailand is one of the most tolerant, and it is still not "wildly accepted" there.

Currently the world population is at 6.8 billion and growing. The human species is not in any danger of dying out. But we are in the danger of overconsuming our resources.

The reason why homosexuality is being re-evaluated in our modern times has little to do with some underhand "homosexual agenda" and more to do with our biological, cultural, and technological evolution as a species. Homosexuality became taboo in certain areas at certain times because it, at the surface, appears to work against reproduction. However, it has proven to not be detrimental to the species. If anything, Homo sapiens is a species that survives via other means besides simply churning out babies. It has survived, in part, due to social cooperation and division of labor, creating societies in which not all members are expected to procreate because there are other tasks to be done that assist in the survival of the population, tasks that don't involve reproduction. Ant colonies and other insects operate on a similar principle.

The challenges facing us as a species is not the same challenges that our ancestors faced. We are not in danger of succumbing to violent winters or raging mastodons. We are in a greater danger of killing ourselves over finite resources. Our population growth is exceeding the rate of renewal of the planet's natural resources. Social taboos about sexuality will change now and in the future because sex serves a different purpose in modern societies other than procreation. Our rate of procreation is no longer our primary concern. This is nothing more than the process of evolution.