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

[1048576]

So if our argument is that being gay makes your male role models crappier and less existent, then yours is what? Being religious makes your role models dumber? How does that work, exactly? That still seems pretty damning for religious people.

Whoops, postsplosion: That was directed at Dre.

 

[El Nino]

I've heard the "lack of male role model" argument a lot, and so far I agree with SuperBowser. I think that for some gay males, they can't identify with traditional male role models because they are gay. If you're a guy with feminine traits or interests, the traditional concept of masculinity probably doesn't appeal to you (well, not the way society wants it to, anyway). If you're a masculine guy who is gay, you might still have male role models, but you won't be able to look to those role models for guidance in sexual matters.

But that seems like drawing an improbable conclusion due to prior bias. It also doesn't account for the fact that most homosexuals dislike the other sex.

I'd like to see the source of that information. "Most" is too general, and "dislike" is also a suspicious word.

Also, assuming that source is 100% accurate, psychological characteristics aren't causation either. Children are short because they are children, but that shortness isn't what makes them children.

I think neglect or lack of a male role model could mean the child fails to develop masculine traits, and as a result adopts more from the female role model, including sexuality. Just a theory though.

Then we'd expect to see a higher rate of male homosexuality among guys who were raised by single mothers. However, a lot of the time, guys who don't have fathers growing up will seek out male role models outside the immediate family, either a male relative, a family friend, a sports coach, sometimes a gang leader, or even just a sports celebrity that they admire. I think the lack of a male role model probably leads more guys to join gangs and get into trouble rather than turn gay.

There are also male homosexuals who are extremely masculine, who look up to male role models, and who may or may not have had father figures while growing up.

Plus, you don't want to confuse male homosexuality with transgenderism. Transgenderism doesn't necessarily imply one orientation over another.

Judging by this thread, nobody has a problem with lesbians. Lolz.

 

[Pluvia]

So far we've not found a rational argument for homophobia.

 

[Dre89]

So far we've not found a rational argument for homophobia.

Only Merkuri has provided an argument, I certainly haven't.

And don't assume the burden of proof is entirely on us because we oppose the thinking of the times. By that logic the BoP would have been on freedom fighters to prove slavery is wrong back in those days.

 

[El Nino]

By that logic the BoP would have been on freedom fighters to prove slavery is wrong back in those days.

I don't think the slaves needed proof that slavery was wrong.

And yes, the burden of proof was on them to prove that it was wrong because slavery was the status quo and most people are just going to assume the default position. But once you engage in a discussion, the burden of proof is shared by everyone.

But, in the end, if you live your life in shackles, you don't care about proving sh*t to nobody. All you want is your d*mn freedom. Why? Because you're not going to live on your knees for someone else's ideal of a just society that condemns you.

 

[Pluvia]

You made a slight murmuring of paedophilia earlier Dre, but apart from that you've not really said much about the subject (a rational argument against homosexuality).

Edit: You said a lot about homosexuality though, just not the argument at hand.

 

[Shadic]

Don't just state something is wrong if you can't provide a sound explanation as to why it is wrong.

Except he made a claim that can't be proven. I like how you think I'm the logically invalid one for disputing his baseless conjecture designed purely as a red herring.

Like what? Provide me with this evidence or I stick to my former opinion that you are an idiot.

You mean this post, along with this, as well as this?

In short:

God you're dumb.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Only Merkuri has provided an argument, I certainly haven't.

Why is that?

 

[Dre89]

A number of reasons.

It's complex, I get constantly misunderstood, people start insulting me when I haven't said anything rude or attacked anyone directly, and I don't want to offend people unnecassarily.
I don't use the Internet to ram my opinions down the throats of others, I don't assume I should have that authority. I debate to learn, to be intellectually stimulated, and hopefully to intellectually stimulate others as well.

To whoever commented on my pedophilia comment, I'm just saying you can't use "you're asking gays to surpress their homosexuality" as an argument, because we already expect certain people to surpress theirs.

I almost forgot, LT, in a debate, the BoP is equal on both sides.

My take on the homosexuality issue can be seen in the Proving Grounds of the Debate Hall. If you read it, you'll see why I'm hesitant to argue my case again.

 

[Luigitoilet]

A number of reasons.

It's complex, I get constantly misunderstood, people start insulting me when I haven't said anything rude or attacked anyone directly, and I don't want to offend people unnecassarily.
I don't use the Internet to ram my opinions down the throats of others, I don't assume I should have that authority. I debate to learn, to be intellectually stimulated, and hopefully to intellectually stimulate others as well.

To whoever commented on my pedophilia comment, I'm just saying you can't use "you're asking gays to surpress their homosexuality" as an argument, because we already expect certain people to surpress theirs.

I almost forgot, LT, in a debate, the BoP is equal on both sides.

My take on the homosexuality issue can be seen in the Proving Grounds of the Debate Hall. If you read it, you'll see why I'm hesitant to argue my case again.

Fair enough, though you should realize (or maybe you do) that not elaborating on this:

"I'm just saying you can't use "you're asking gays to surpress their homosexuality" as an argument, because we already expect certain people to surpress theirs."

is something that is possibly more likely to offend people than actually explaining why you believe it.

 

[Dre89]

I don't see how that's offensive at all.

There are several legitimate arguments for homosexuality, but claiming it's wrong to expect someone to surpress their sexuality isn't one of them, because then it'd be wrong to ask pedophiles to do so. Now immediately people point out that pedophiles harm others, but regardless, you're still asking them to surpress their sexuality, and many people attracted to children and sadistically harming women sucessfully do so.

 

[Pluvia]

The problem is you're grouping two completely different groups of people together. Paedophiles suppress their feelings as what they're doing is incredibly harmful to others, which is not the case for gays.

 

[GreenKirby]

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not suggesting an agenda, I'm suggesting a link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

I'm suggesting a link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

a link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

You do know most pedophiles are heterosexual correct?

 

[deepseadiva]

This thread is a total disaster.

Oh well. This thread had a good run.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I don't see how that's offensive at all.

There are several legitimate arguments for homosexuality, but claiming it's wrong to expect someone to surpress their sexuality isn't one of them, because then it'd be wrong to ask pedophiles to do so. Now immediately people point out that pedophiles harm others, but regardless, you're still asking them to surpress their sexuality, and many people attracted to children and sadistically harming women sucessfully do so.

Yes, but homosexuals, as long as they engage in sexual activities with other consenting adult homosexuals, are not hurting anyone. The reason we need pedophiles to suppress their urges is because it is massively traumatizing to a child, someone who is not even fully developed in any sense. You cannot group these together and expect people to not be offended. The sickening thing is you seem to realize this and don't care.

 

[Grandeza]

To whoever commented on my pedophilia comment, I'm just saying you can't use "you're asking gays to surpress their homosexuality" as an argument, because we already expect certain people to surpress theirs.

As others have said, asking someone to suppress their homosexuality is completely different than asking a pedophile to suppress their "pedophiliality"(not a word I guess). Grouping what is being asked of the groups as the same thing is an oversimplification. You are asking the pedophile to suppress themselves from having sex with minors who are unable to consent and not fully developed. You're asking homosexuals to have sex with other consenting adults. Saying you can't use the "you're asking them to suppress their homosexuality" argument because we ask that of pedophiles is misunderstanding the difference and the reasons of why it's okay to ask for one over the other. And I hope this doesn't lead to something along the lines of, why is no one getting hurt the proper moral system to use?

 

[MechaWave]

Only only read the first two pages xP

Why do so many people here think we would actually go so far to enlist in the army to get some action going on? You gotta be kidding me, even if you guys are sarcastic or not.

By the way, gay men are not pedophiles and do not act typically like they do in that one Family Guy episode ("Family Guy" to be exact).

But whatever. Soon this thread shall be locked.

 

[Luigitoilet]

The thread will stay open, unless Merkuri decides to come back and flame people some more.

 

[Dre89]

Yes I understand why pedophilia is more important to surpress than homosexuality, don't straw man my argument by claiming I'm not aware of the distinction.

But regardless, the point still stands that pedophiles are physially capable of surpressing their sexuality, therefore in the instance where one's sexuality is wrong (which we are hypothetically assuming for the point of this argument), they are capable of surpressing it.

You guys take issue with the request for surpression because don't think the sexuality is wrong. You assume that because it doesn't harm others, it's not wrong. As I referred to earlier, because of the time we live in, you guys are assuming Social Contract Theory, and saying wrong= only things which harm others. That isn't some universal axiom of the human intellect, that is just a modern belief, which was a result of philosophy in the Enlightenment Period.

I haven't actually provided my argument for why homosexuality is actually wrong, but as I've said before, I'm trying to avoid extended debate on the issue.

Part of the reason why I don't want to engage in an extended debate on the issue is because you must prove first that wrong= only that which harms others. Sucumbio and from memory I think El Nino as well did pretty good jobs of attempting to justify their assumptions of SCT in the Proving Grounds of the Debate Hall.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I would reply but my eyes rolled so hard they fell out of my head and I can't find them now.

edit: but now that I think about it. this thread really may have run its course. I'll keep it open but I'm probably just gonna keep away so I don't give myself a brain aneurysm.

 

[Livvers]

I'm curious what Murrrk's link between pedophilia and homosexuality are?

Also, I have no idea what your point was about that, Dre. We are asking why you thi-you know what? Nevermind.

 

[Dre89]

This is why I try and avoid debate on the issue, because people keep insulting me when I haven't done anything to them.

I stereotyped no one and mocked no one's post. Disagreeing with my opinion doesn't justify insulting me.

 

[deepseadiva]

I'm mainly coming back to this thread just to see when it gets locked. lol

I haven't actually provided my argument for why homosexuality is actually wrong, but as I've said before, I'm trying to avoid extended debate on the issue.

Can you at least provide a link or something.

It's irritating reading all your posts that are essentially "...but you wouldn't understand."

 

[Dre89]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=276467

You pretty much need to read the virtually the whole thing to fully grasp my argument, because I spend a lot of time correcting people's misunderstandings of my arguments.

One of my firsts posts saying why people won't understand my arguments comes across pretty aggressive, but it's pretty much just saying people who think Social Contract theory is a universal human axiom, and not just one specific school of thought will have trouble getting past the "but it doesn't harm others" issue.

LT- You say that this thread will get locked if Merk comes back and "flames", yet you have stereotyped and made posts which do nothing but insult me, all of this without any provokation (I've have never criticised anyone directly, or implied pro-homosexuals are stupid, I complimented one of El Nino's posts in this thread, and said that I credited him and Sucumbio in the Proving Grounds) and that's ok?

I'm the one who is accepting of the opposition, and still thinks they can be rational people, and put good arguments across for their case.

How is your behaviour any better, because your belief conforms to Enlightenment Period thinking? That's pretty much the only difference in behaviour.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

It's a good thing that Luigitoilet knows how to properly debate on issues without disrespecting an honest debater with valid points, otherwise I'd be concerned about who was in charge of these boards!

 

[Luigitoilet]

I apologize for singling out Merkuri in that last post, and admit to my own hypocrisy. I have chosen to leave this thread as I've said, mostly because I cannot seperate my pathos from the argument any longer. I am too emotionally invested in this and am naturally crass, so at this point I choose to step out because I personally feel your philosophy is ridiculous to a point where I can't look at it objectively.

But I do resent what Pimp just said because I have been "properly" debating without resorting to insults for much of this thread. It's just reached a breaking point for me. If I speak any further I am going to lapse back into my crassness.

 

[Dre89]

It's cool no hard feelings.

But you shouldn't judge a philosophy as ridiculous when you don't know the intricacies. You shouldn't judge a theory by it's conclusion, particularly in this case when you haven't read any academic anti homosexual material, so you probably won't know what the arguments are.

It just kind of reminds me of the "religion is all about faith" people who haven't read any theology or theistic philosophy, and still think the Christian God is some guy in the clouds with beards or something childish like that.

But I respect your maturity to detach yourself from this debate, I find alot of people new to these sorts of debates have trouble removing their emotions from the debate.

 

[El Nino]

It's okay, Dre..

I still hate you.

 

[Grandeza]

Having a moral system where only the actions that don't harm others are acceptable is probably the moral system that gives the most freedom. You might say, well wouldn't a system that gives complete freedom to do whatever you want, be an even more free system. The problem with this is that if everyone can do whatever, your rights can constantly be infringed upon(you can be hurt since in this scenario there are no actual rights). Thus, you have lots of your freedom taken away. And of course if you make a stricter system you not only restrict people more, but you enforce your own morals on people. I would say that making the standard, whatever doesn't harm people is the system that least enforces morals on others. If you make a totally free to do whatever system, people would constantly have other people enforcing their morals on you because they'd be allowed to. I don't think the Social Contract enforces morals on others at all. Everyone is free to do what they want with any consenting people they want, and it doesn't involve an unwilling third party. I fail to see what a better alternative. Therefore, I believe that Social Contract is in fact correct, which may or may not be a result of the times I live in. As a result, because homosexuality falls into this, I believe homosexuality is acceptable.

I apologize for straw-manning you before.

 

[1048576]

You took 5 paragraphs to say that we can choose to not have sex. That's all well and good. Why should we?

 

[Dre89]

It's okay, Dre..

I still hate you.

Day-am, and I always compliment you.

Come to think of it I compliment CK but he still hates me.

Grandezza- It's good you attempted to justify your assumptions, it was a pretty good post.

If you want to debate me properly on it, we should take it to
the Proving Grounds I'd be more than happy to debate you, considering you can debate rationally and have displayed the maturity to refrain from insulting me. It shows character when you keep separate emotions from a debate you have strong feelings on.

 

[Grandeza]

Grandezza- It's good you attempted to justify your assumptions, it was a pretty good post.

If you want to debate me properly on it, we should take it to
the Proving Grounds I'd be more than happy to debate you, considering you can debate rationally and have displayed the maturity to refrain from insulting me. It shows character when you keep separate emotions from a debate you have strong feelings on.

Why thank you. Perhaps I will make a thread in the proving grounds when I get home later today.

 

[El Nino]

Kind of random, but to everyone in this thread/site who has defended LGBT rights online or in person, just wanted to say I'm touched (in a non-perverse way), and your efforts are appreciated. Fight the good fight, homies.

Day-am, and I always compliment you.

Hey, every superhero needs an arch-villain. I'll be the Joker to your Batman.

Come to think of it I compliment CK but he still hates me.

Yeah but CK hates everyone.

 

[Pluvia]

So basically, homosexuality is wrong and in the same category as paedophilia, as long as you have a different moral code to the rest of society?

Heck, women are just as bad as paedophiles by that logic. It's ridiculous that they can't suppress their feelings when paedophiles can.

 

[Shadic]

Or you know, murdering and plundering is fine, because it's part of evolution that these traits would pop up, and it's only natural.

Unless you can only partake in "natural" events that don't harm other people, but you cannot partake in "unnatural" events even if they do not impact anybody else in the least.

 

[Dre89]

Who said homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia? I certainly never said that.

 

[Pluvia]

You grouped them together by saying that gays could suppress their feelings because paedophiles can. I can't think of anything that people group into the same category as paedophilia and think is good.

 

[Dre89]

That's saying that they are both sexualities, and both capable of being surpressed. Heterosexuality is in the same boat too, given that it is a sexuality.

I have no idea how you deduced that I claimed homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia when all I said is that it's possible to surpress sexualities.

This is what I mean by people always misunderstanding my arguments.

 

[Pluvia]

So if you wanted to avoid confusion why did you not include that into your first post? What was the point in this post:

Who said homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia? I certainly never said that.

Wouldn't it have been more useful to use that post to clear up the confusion? I don't understand how you assumed that people would see your point clearly, but didn't assume that people would think you're saying gays are as bad as paedophiles.

 

[Namaste]

That's saying that they are both sexualities, and both capable of being surpressed. Heterosexuality is in the same boat too, given that it is a sexuality.

I have no idea how you deduced that I claimed homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia when all I said is that it's possible to surpress sexualities.

This is what I mean by people always misunderstanding my arguments.

Honestly now that you posted this I don't get your original point at all. Who was saying that people can't suppress sexual desires? If you don't believe that pedophilia and homosexuality are equivalent (not child molesters, pedophiles), then what was the point?

I'd be like if I said "People support homosexuals like people supported blacks", then said people misunderstood my argument because "I'm not saying that they're the same just that people support both"