Support NeoGAF

[Green Shinobi]

Another gay tactic: Overblowing one's homophobia. I don't hate gay people, but I'm not 100% behind them every issue (no pun intended).

QFT.

You can't disagree with a gay person about any of these issues without being branded a bigot. It's fascinating.

Also:

1) The military is vastly different from any other job.

2) Just because someone feels uncomfortable around gay people, that doesn't make him a bigot. kryptonian, you know how you keep bringing up the fact that your brain is wired in a way that makes you feel attracted to men? Well most men's brains are wired in a way that makes them feel attracted to women. This is just basic evolutionary psychology. It can be quite disconcerting to a lot of men to meet other men who are not like this, for quite a number of reasons. They can't help this. It's not bigotry, it's basic psychology. The fact that a person may be uncomfortable with something does not mean that this same person will display bigoted or discriminatory behavior.

When combined with the fact that the military is vastly different from any other job (in that you eat, live and piss day in and day out with a big group of men), surely you can see how the normal "deal with it" mantra doesn't apply here.

What's the solution? Well, we have one currently. But apparently it's not quite good enough because a gay man won't be able to wear a wedding ring or talk about his boyfriend. No one is arguing that this should be the case in every other job that is out there. They are arguing that this should be the case in the military. One specific job, with conditions that make it very different from every other job.

I'd agree with abolishing DADT if the 73% figure from that poll is accurate. But if the other poll that was posted turns out to be more accurate, then that proves the need for DADT still exists, IMO.

Really, a lot more data needs to be collected on this subject. There's no "absolutely right" answer here.

 

[krypt0nian]

Oddly enough my brain doesn't care one bit about straight people's personal relationships.

They don't gross me out, or offend me. I can speak with people about the most personal or sexual issues, and never do I think "OMG how disgusting"

I guess I'm just higher evolved.

 

[Mumei]

One could argue that it denies the necessity of progression of the species, but thats another argument for another time.

Look, personally, I don't agree with the lifestyle and my tick about the murder actions bit was being absurd just for the sake of absurdity. However, I'm not going to personally damn anyone for living how they choose to live nor do I think they should be subjected to ridicule just because of their lifestyle.

I'm just saying that people need to use common sense. Don't be causing any trouble or trying to make a big fuss over something and people will not reciprocate in anger or prejudice. If you want people to accept you and how you live then quit trying to shove everything in to everyones faces. Ok, fine, your gay....who cares?

I don't think a person should be kicked from the military because they are gay, but if they are knowingly creating a situation that was going to become inflammatory just to be radical or shocking or whatever narcissistic agenda the person may carry I think that some type of discplinary should be taken. Also, that type of discipline could be enacted for anyone else as well. At least that way it would be fair to everyone.

You are conflating the idea of being able to talk to call home to one's boyfriend, or receive an e-mail from them, or tell the truth when asked about a significant other with being unprofessional for the sake of being unprofessional.

Why?

 

[Aurvant]

Strangely enough, it was a combination crack and vote of authenticity.

I'm just stunned because most of the people who annoy me on this board have at least one belief or interest where we can find some common ground. But as far as I can tell, your values and beliefs appear to be COMPLETELY the opposite of mine. I hope we never meet, since we might accidentally annihilate the universe.

Like fusion!!

Or...

It could be the most awesome thing EVAR!!~

Honestly? In person I am much less vocal than you think I would be. However, on the internet and like most of you, I am another faceless entity that isn't really effected by ridicule or unable to voice my opinion on subjects.

If my values and beliefs ARE complete opposites to yours then rest easy in knowing that the universe has balanced the equation and I am the Yang to your Yin or the Shadow of your light. Ya know....all that metaphysical and metaphorical stuff.

However, just because we may disagree on a few issues doesn't mean that I'm trying or wishing to annoy you. the only person I have had any beef with here in this thread is Kryptonian and thats because he called me, and I quote this, a "damned liar" which is a pretty bold statement considering he doesn't even know me.

You on the other hand...I annoy you and I don't think we've had the first word to say to each other on this board. Unless your holding some type of agitation towards me from that previous "EXPELLED" thread, but I don't remember commenting to you at all. Why am I writing this? Hell, I don't know....guess I value someone elses opinion of me when I don't even know why I annoy them other than "we share a difference of opinion", and I figured that just because people held different beliefs and opinions you weren't supposed to hold any animosity towards them.

Anyways, comment over.

 

[NextGenitals]

Most people that I've met who have been in the armed forces are cool as fuck and have no issues with gay people.

Cool as fuck yes. Problem with gay people? Well, I dont know THAT many military guys but the ones I know may say they don't have a problem with gays but were they to serve next to an openly gay soldier their actions would probably suggest otherwise.

I'm sorry but the U.S. military is full of southern boys and generally hetero-crazy guys who make fun of each other for the slightest effeminate word or action. Most of them have hard attitudes that are set in stone, whether religious based or not. The guys you've met may say they dont have a problem with gays but when they're with a group of guys who's harassing a gay soldier are they going to stand up for him? I doubt it. They'll join in and probably won't feel badly for it.

It sucks and I'm all for dropping the policy and seeing how it plays out I'm just not as optimistic as some of you. And let's stop bring other militaries into this because other militaries are not the U.S. military.

 

[Love To Love You Baby]

2) Just because someone feels uncomfortable around gay people, that doesn't make him a bigot. kryptonian, you know how you keep bringing up the fact that your brain is wired in a way that makes you feel attracted to men? Well most men's brains are wired in a way that makes them feel attracted to women. This is just basic evolutionary psychology. It can be quite disconcerting to a lot of men to meet other men who are not like this, for quite a number of reasons. They can't help this. It's not bigotry, it's basic psychology. The fact that a person may be uncomfortable with something does not mean that this same person will display bigoted or discriminatory behavior.

This is called narcissistic prejudice. It's been used to justify racism, sexism and homophobia (and other prejudices, as well).

White men have had to become comfortable with people of other races, even though their skin is "hard-wired differently." Men have had to become comfortable with women in the workforce, even though their reproductive organs are "hard-wired differently." Harassment of either is agaisnt the law. They can help this. They will help this if they aren't allowed to discriminate. People can, and will, change when necessary. The feeling of discomfort is avoidable and is based on environmental factors, not "evolutionary psychology."

I've pointed to a study that shows that straight men are capable of working alongside gay men in a military setting in other countries where homosexuals are allowed to serve. Where is your evidence for saying that the two cannot coexist in a military setting, let alone that it's inevitable that the two can't function?

1) The military is vastly different from any other job.

And other militaries have proven that gay and straight men can coexist in this "vastly different" environment. Where is your evidence that the military cannot function when homosexuals are allowed to serve?

What's the solution? Well, we have one currently. But apparently it's not quite good enough because a gay man won't be able to wear a wedding ring or talk about his boyfriend.

No, it's not good enough because a gay man will be dishonorably discharged from the military if they are suspected in any way of being gay.

 

[krypt0nian]

However, just because we may disagree on a few issues doesn't mean that I'm trying or wishing to annoy you. the only person I have had any beef with here in this thread is Kryptonian and thats because he called me, and I quote this, a "damned liar" which is a pretty bold statement considering he doesn't even know me.

Then stop lying.

 

[Aurvant]

You are conflating the idea of being able to talk to call home to one's boyfriend, or receive an e-mail from them, or tell the truth when asked about a significant other with being unprofessional for the sake of being unprofessional.

Why?

No no. All I was saying is if you want the right to be open about your sexuality without being kicked from the military then that is noble. I don't think that a person should be kicked from the military just because of their sexual preference.

However....do not expect everyone to accept you. Do not force the legal system to protect you just because someone hurt your feelings or said something you found offensive. There is always someone out there that is bound to dislike, disagree, or act derogatory towards you and that is regardless of a person is gay, straight, whatever ethnic group, short, tall, fat, skinny, healthy, sick, whatever.

If someone physically offends you? Like tries to physically bother you? Then yeah, you have every right to defend yourself and your case. If a person is being harassed in the military just because of their sexual orientation then, yeah, fight that shit till sundown.

But don't force people to like you or accept you. Hell, I believe in God and Heaven and all that faithful stuff but I can't force people to believe it too. If you want fairness? You can have fairness all day long, but there are bad sides of equality as well and while that may seem harsh its just the way it is. People aren't always going to agree with or like you, but you can't do anything about it. Nothing.

 

[Atrus]

Like in the school system, society is weakened by constantly trying to accommodate those that are lagging behind.

Your homophobia is not relevant. It's presence represents the weakness of your will, your self-esteem, and voices your sexual insecurities. Since your arguments stem from these causes, they are by relationship also weak.

Those among you who are confounding the issue with the argument of the openness of sexuality itself as an issue are enablers to the hate-mongers. Those positions are beside the point and should be advocated without conflating or giving support to those whose mindsets are primitive and outdated.

Homosexuality is not a concern for heterosexuals. It is a concern for the religious whose claims to against it are empty, and a concern over those not fully secure in their own preferences that they need malign another's. Neither are legitimate.

 

[krypt0nian]

No no. All I was saying is if you want the right to be open about your sexuality without being kicked from the military then that is noble. I don't think that a person should be kicked from the military just because of their sexual preference.

However....do not expect everyone to accept you. Do not force the legal system to protect you just because someone hurt your feelings or said something you found offensive. There is always someone out there that is bound to dislike, disagree, or act derogatory towards you and that is regardless of a person is gay, straight, whatever ethnic group, short, tall, fat, skinny, healthy, sick, whatever.

If someone physically offends you? Like tries to physically bother you? Then yeah, you have every right to defend yourself and your case. If a person is being harassed in the military just because of their sexual orientation then, yeah, fight that shit till sundown.

But don't force people to like you or accept you. Hell, I believe in God and Heaven and all that faithful stuff but I can't force people to believe it too. If you want fairness? You can have fairness all day long, but there are bad sides of equality as well and while that may seem harsh its just the way it is. People aren't always going to agree with or like you, but you can't do anything about it. Nothing.

If anyone harasses me in any way I will have a justice. I expect the legal system to protect me in EXACTLY the same way as privileged straight people enjoy now. I don't give a fuck who personally likes or accepts me. That's called having self esteem.

Thanks for the heartfelt warning of the price of freedom.

Can I has Equality now?

 

[Aurvant]

Then stop lying.

Why don't you tell me what I'm lying about? Hmm? Please, I'd love for you to show me where I've lied anywhere in this thread.

You've been inflammatory to everyone who has disagreed with your point of view. Do you know how to be anything but a source of conflict? Or do you just have to verbally accuse people of being homophobes, liars, and bigots just because they don't share your worldview?

 

[krypt0nian]

Why don't you tell me what I'm lying about? Hmm? Please, I'd love for you to show me where I've lied anywhere in this thread.

You've been inflammatory to everyone who has disagreed with your point of view. Do you know how to be anything but a source of conflict? Or do you just have to verbally accuse people of being homophobes, liars, and bigots just because they don't share your worldview?

You lied when you said:

Really? I've worked from the local food joint to a multi-million dollar corporate setting as well and I don't think my bosses have ever found it appropriate for me or anyone to speak about their personal lives in a public setting.

Unless of course you've lived some sort of cave dweller existence. We were talking about people mentioning wives/girlfriends at work which NO boss stops anyone especially straight folks from doing. So you either lied or are being purposefully ignorant.

And there is no doubt about your serious homophobia and bigotry here. Don't even try and hide behind some trumped up sense of innocence. I haven't called anyone homophobic save those that try and use the "I don't want your sex life thrown up in my face"

My worldview is one of acceptance and equality. Yours is one of privilege and exclusion.

If I'm seeming belligerent I have no time for ignorance and hate.

 

[Aurvant]

You lied when you said:



Unless of course you've lived some sort of cave dweller existence. We were talking about people mentioning wives/girlfriends at work which NO boss stops anyone especially straight folks from doing. So you either lied or are being purposefully ignorant.

Aside from the military (which is what the thread was about) what job out there actually takes action against homosexuals for mentioning their boyfriend/girlfriends? What I was talking about wasn't any talk like "Man, you should have seen this girl I went out with last weekend man. Whooo wee! What a fine behind on that chick. Good gawd she looked so damn good!" (lame commentary I know, but just for examples sake) or "Me and my wife went to a party the other night and we started drinking and boy you know where the night went from there!". I've seen straight people fired for talking like that during lunch or while at their desks. Language and commentary like that just wasn't appropriate at the jobs I've had.

I've never ever seen an employer take action against anyone just for having it be known that a person was gay or that they mentioned their significant other. I've never seen an employer fire anyone just for being gay or anything like that.

And there is no doubt about your serious homophobia and bigotry here. Don't even try and hide behind some trumped up sense of innocence. I haven't called anyone homophobic save those that try and use the "I don't want your sex life thrown up in my face"

My worldview is one of acceptance and equality. Yours is one of privilege and exclusion.

If I'm seeming belligerent I have no time for ignorance and hate.

To imply that I am homophobic is to imply that I am afraid or scared of homosexuals. What a silly belief to think that just because I disagree with the way someone lives means that I am actually scared of them. What a preposterous idea.

And a bigot? Your implying that I am completely intolerant of gay people? Once again just because I hold a difference of opinion on what I find agreeable makes me intolerant? No, that just means that I don't agree with you. I don't hate you and I am not afraid of you. I just disagree with you. I believe that it isn't a sin nor against the law to find a difference of agreement with anyone.

Also, your worldview is of acceptance and equality? I thought you "didn't give a fuck" about who accepted you? Figured that was a matter of self-esteem and all that. and equality? Equality at the expense of what? the right for someone to express their freedom of speech? Or is the freedom of speech only reserved to this who are politically correct?

Your last sentence? Your implying, again, that I hate you or homosexuality. Also, you've resorted to name calling by saying that I'm a bigot and ignorant. I don't get what your problem is. If anyone on here is the more hateful and instigating one its you. I have only used one insult and its a pretty common retort of absurdity ("DIAF") on the internet, but you've just attacked me at every turn you could post.

Who's the real intolerant person here? Clearly, it's you.

 

[methane47]

Unless of course you've lived some sort of cave dweller existence. We were talking about people mentioning wives/girlfriends at work which NO boss stops anyone especially straight folks from doing. So you either lied or are being purposefully ignorant.

And there is no doubt about your serious homophobia and bigotry here. Don't even try and hide behind some trumped up sense of innocence. I haven't called anyone homophobic save those that try and use the "I don't want your sex life thrown up in my face"

My worldview is one of acceptance and equality. Yours is one of privilege and exclusion.

If I'm seeming belligerent I have no time for ignorance and hate.

Well in my company it is not allowed to ask people about their personal information. For example.. my boss.. the person who hired me has no idea how old I am.. And she's not allowed to ask. If she asks I can file a complaint with HR on the basis of the prospect of discrimination on age.

The same way she is not allowed to ask about my family, my gender (no assumptions are made here), my private life.

This is done to protect the company from getting sued on any kind of basis of discrimination.

I guess that makes me homophobic, heterophobic and what ever other fears because I dont think that it has any place in the work environment?

 

[valparaiso]

anybody know if women get private toilets/showers/rooms in the military?

 

[methane47]

anybody know if women get private toilets/showers/rooms in the military?

This argument will be denounced by kryptonian on the basis that black people share showers/toilets/rooms with white people..

 

[krypt0nian]

Well in my company it is not allowed to ask people about their personal information. For example.. my boss.. the person who hired me has no idea how old I am.. And she's not allowed to ask. If she asks I can file a complaint with HR on the basis of the prospect of discrimination on age.

The same way she is not allowed to ask about my family, my gender (no assumptions are made here), my private life.

This is done to protect the company from getting sued on any kind of basis of discrimination.

I guess that makes me homophobic, heterophobic and what ever other fears because I dont think that it has any place in the work environment?

See here's the disconnect. I'm not talking about a boss asking personal info. We're all well aware of HR issues. I'm talking about employees speaklng openly as they do right now in jobs all around us about basic spousal info.

"I'm taking the wife to Vegas this weekend."

"My kids start school on Tuesday"

"I'm proposing to my girlfriend on Saturday"


Where did this turn into bosses digging into your personal life?

Straight people enjoy this privilege without fear of recrimination, in the military and out.

This argument will be denounced by kryptonian on the basis that black people share showers/toilets/rooms with white people..

Laughinghippo.gif

Aside from the military (which is what the thread was about) what job out there actually takes action against homosexuals for mentioning their boyfriend/girlfriends? What I was talking about wasn't any talk like "Man, you should have seen this girl I went out with last weekend man. Whooo wee! What a fine behind on that chick. Good gawd she looked so damn good!" (lame commentary I know, but just for examples sake) or "Me and my wife went to a party the other night and we started drinking and boy you know where the night went from there!". I've seen straight people fired for talking like that during lunch or while at their desks. Language and commentary like that just wasn't appropriate at the jobs I've had.

I've never ever seen an employer take action against anyone just for having it be known that a person was gay or that they mentioned their significant other. I've never seen an employer fire anyone just for being gay or anything like that.

Then next time read what was being discussed and reply to what you read. No one was advocating sexually explicit speech anywhere in this thread.

And please don't suggest that people are not fired for being gay in this world. It's ridiculous.

 

[Mumei]

I just read through the past 4 or 5 pages, and one thing I've always found very curious is the comparisons between the [One True] Civil Rights movement, and the gay rights movement - and what it always reminds me of is a quote by Mel Boozer:

“Would you ask me how I dare to compare the civil rights struggle with the struggle for lesbian and gay rights? I can compare them and I do compare them, because I know what it means to be called a ‘nigger’ and I know what it means to be called a ‘faggot’ and I can understand the differences in the marrow of my bones. And I can sum up that difference in one word: none. Bigotry is bigotry. Discrimination is discrimination. It hurts just as much. It dishonors our way of life just as much. And it betrays a lack of understanding, fairness, and compassion just as much.”

I'm not black, and I can't really imagine how it actually differs - but from what I've heard from gay black people I know personally (and Omnigamer now), I'm having trouble seeing any substantiative difference.

If it is about who had to struggle for more, perhaps there's an argument. I'd also argue that most people have no idea what really happened in the past. When convicted homosexuals - convicted for such heinous crimes as kissing in public - in California's Atascadero State Hospital had their penises electrocuted until the flesh was so destroyed that they no longer could even achieve an erection, when they were forcibly injected with panic-inducing drugs that bring the patient to the brink of death, when they were forcibly injected with Proxilin (a personality altering drug that induces psychoses, extreme physical pain, and substantial brain damage), or when experiments with extreme forms of lobotomy are done in attempts to cure their homosexuality, I would hope that everyone in this topic would be horrified. When gay publications had to get a Supreme Court ruling to allow their distribution, I'd hope that everyone would be justly outraged. When the ACLU, of all places, said in 1957 that they wouldn't represent homosexuals in defense of their civil liberties, I'd argue that there is a problem.

It’s hard to describe what it was like to be gay in Los Angeles in the 1950’s and ’60’s. It was virtually illegal to be gay in LA, where undercover officers displayed unusual zeal to “clean up the streets.” No place was safe, not even private homes, bars or clubs. “Gay bars” barely existed. If one establishment gained a reputation as a gay hangout, it would be raided and shut down. Undercover officers would infiltrate private parties and bars suspected of being frequented by gay men. If they saw anyone who engaged in any sort of social touching, hand-holding, dancing, or even simple small-talk that might, in the imagination of the undercover officer, conceivably lead to “something more”, they were arrested. Entrapment was the norm and it didn’t take much to get arrested. Simply arranging to meet for dinner or exchanging phone numbers with an undercover officer was often enough to trigger an arrest — and being labeled a sex offender under California Law.

I would say that the civil rights movement still wins, in my estimation, but this nonsense that gays are simply whining about a problem that was never really there is ridiculous and offensive.

 

[methane47]

See here's the disconnect. I'm not talking about a boss asking personal info. We're all well aware of HR issues. I'm talking about employees speaklng openly as they do right now in jobs all around us about basic spousal info.

"I'm taking the wife to Vegas this weekend."

"My kids start school on Tuesday"

"I'm proposing to my girlfriend on Saturday"


Where did this turn into bosses digging into your personal life?

Well its discouraged to speak ask even co-workers about personal things and its also discouraged to speak about things that openly....

But don't mistake me.. I understand that you are saying ... I'm not at all saying that my company is a sterile environment... Personal information is rampant... I'm just telling you that its discouraged.

 

[krypt0nian]

Well its discouraged to speak ask even co-workers about personal things and its also discouraged to speak about things that openly....

But don't mistake me.. I understand that you are saying ... I'm not at all saying that my company is a sterile environment... Personal information is rampant... I'm just telling you that its discouraged.

ahhhhhhh! It's not about people asking about personal info. It's about being able to make offhanded remarks just as every straight person does at some time or another. Or putting up pictures at your desks, which is allowed at the majority of offices.

Please stop making this into a privacy isssue.

People are not admonished for mentioning their kids at the majority of workplaces.

 

[Dilbert]

Aurvant's original statement was that it is not appropriate to talk/mention/hint at your personal life at work. That is quite different than saying that sexual harassment or inappropriate sexual comments (Aurvant's example) or asking about personal stuff in an interview or on the job (methane47's example) are not OK. I don't think those examples defend the original statement. I don't know if people are being deliberately dishonest or not saying what they mean, but there is clearly a disconnect.

If I understand what krypt0nian is saying, he's simply pointing out that virtually everyone broadcasts personal information at work, whether they want to or not: displaying photos of family or significant others in their office/cubicle, wearing a wedding ring, explaining reasons why time off is necessary, having phone conversations which can be overheard, and so on. Heck, sometimes people even volunteer personal info -- "hey, did you do anything fun this weekend?" type questions while making small talk before a meeting or around the water cooler. All of those behaviors are normal and common workplace behaviors, and I don't see how anyone could consider them inappropriate. They just...are.

The point is that, in normal interaction with people at work or in other settings, clues about your sexuality and your lifestyle get displayed. In fact, NOT displaying such clues requires really hard work...and unless you're a spy in the making, the fact that you don't share typical information will be incredibly apparent, which makes you stick out in another way.

 

[Y2Kev]

How about, "Oh shit boss, can I take the rest of the day off, my wife/husband is having a heart attack and I need to go to the hospital!"

:\

STOP BROADCASTING INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR FAMILIES, PEOPLE. NO ONE GIVES A CRAP ABOUT YOU, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE ALL UP IN MY FACE WITH YOUR WIFE AND HER HEART ATTACK

 

[krypt0nian]

Exactly. And to see people calling this simple everyday innocent behavior "flaunting your sexuality" or "Rubbing it in my face" is disingenuous and offensive to say the least, especially when they don't acknowledge that straight people do this every day.

Like somehow it doesn't exist if they deny it.

 

[methane47]

How about, "Oh shit boss, can I take the rest of the day off, my wife/husband is having a heart attack and I need to go to the hospital!"

:\

STOP BROADCASTING INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR FAMILIES, PEOPLE. NO ONE GIVES A CRAP ABOUT YOU, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE ALL UP IN MY FACE WITH YOUR WIFE AND HER HEART ATTACK

Or you say you have a family emergency. Which is far more common in my experience than giving specifics.

 

[Love To Love You Baby]

No no. All I was saying is if you want the right to be open about your sexuality without being kicked from the military then that is noble. I don't think that a person should be kicked from the military just because of their sexual preference.

The point of this entire debate is that under DADT, people can - and thousands have been - be kicked out of the military for being homosexual. If you don't think a person should be kicked out of the military for being gay, then you don't support DADT.

However....do not expect everyone to accept you. Do not force the legal system to protect you just because someone hurt your feelings or said something you found offensive. There is always someone out there that is bound to dislike, disagree, or act derogatory towards you and that is regardless of a person is gay, straight, whatever ethnic group, short, tall, fat, skinny, healthy, sick, whatever..

I don't know enough about military policy - but is it OK for soldiers to randomly insult each other, call them racist names, etc. at any given point? There has to be some regulation on random harassment - because I can't imagine the military functioning if anyone just says whatever they want to whomever they want.

Whatever those regulations are - they should be the same to protect gay soldiers, just like anyone else.

If someone physically offends you? Like tries to physically bother you? Then yeah, you have every right to defend yourself and your case. If a person is being harassed in the military just because of their sexual orientation then, yeah, fight that shit till sundown.

Agreed.

But don't force people to like you or accept you. Hell, I believe in God and Heaven and all that faithful stuff but I can't force people to believe it too. If you want fairness? You can have fairness all day long, but there are bad sides of equality as well and while that may seem harsh its just the way it is. People aren't always going to agree with or like you, but you can't do anything about it. Nothing.

I agree - I don't think anyone, at least that I'm aware of, is arguing that people should be forced to like every gay person they've encountered, or even like the notion of homosexuality. While I think people shouldn't have any qualms about homosexuality - the argument against DADT isn't about forcing people to like or dislike someone or their sexuality. It's that gay people should be allowed to serve just like anyone else - and they shouldn't be discharged because of their sexual orientation, or live in fear because of their sexual orientation.

 

[krypt0nian]

Or you say you have a family emergency. Which is far more common in my experience than giving specifics.

Oh please. You're saying that none of what we're saying goes on in your workplace? I am so fucking sick of typing this when you willfully ignore it.

No one mentions wives, children, weekend plans with girlfriends? GTFO already.

Where do you work? Slave mines? Every job from the retail shit to the most corporate of setting we all knew who was married, who had children, etc etc. This is the common experience not yours.

 

[Aurvant]

Aurvant's original statement was that it is not appropriate to talk/mention/hint at your personal life at work. That is quite different than saying that sexual harassment or inappropriate sexual comments (Aurvant's example) or asking about personal stuff in an interview or on the job (methane47's example) are not OK. I don't think those examples defend the original statement. I don't know if people are being deliberately dishonest or not saying what they mean, but there is clearly a disconnect.

If I understand what krypt0nian is saying, he's simply pointing out that virtually everyone broadcasts personal information at work, whether they want to or not: displaying photos of family or significant others in their office/cubicle, wearing a wedding ring, explaining reasons why time off is necessary, having phone conversations which can be overheard, and so on. Heck, sometimes people even volunteer personal info -- "hey, did you do anything fun this weekend?" type questions while making small talk before a meeting or around the water cooler. All of those behaviors are normal and common workplace behaviors, and I don't see how anyone could consider them inappropriate. They just...are.

The point is that, in normal interaction with people at work or in other settings, clues about your sexuality and your lifestyle get displayed. In fact, NOT displaying such clues requires really hard work...and unless you're a spy in the making, the fact that you don't share typical information will be incredibly apparent, which makes you stick out in another way.

That's just it. I don't find any of that inappropriate. I worked for a call center that was a huge corporate setting and people of all sexual orientations (gay, straight, bi) had pictures, trinkets, and other memorabilia on their desks at their cubicles and nobody got up and called "HAX!!" and started carting them out the door. When I meant things like hinting at your personal life I meant that it was not appropriate for ANYONE (straight, gay, otherwise) to lean over the top of their cubicle and start broadcasting their private life to the person next to them because, and this has actually happened to ME, someone might find it offensive. no matter how harmless it might be.

Hell, I was taken to HR just for leaning over and whispering to someone about what we had for lunch and I mentioned that a few of the workers had had some margaritas. Some older lady got all up in arms and reported me and claimed that I had been drinking while on the job. Wasn't even me I was talking about.

Same could go for anyone else. If they mentioned that they went out on a Saturday with their boyfriend someone might find it offensive and have it reported to HR. I wouldn't be offended personally, but I know that there is always a chance that someone might get all tore up over nothing.

 

[methane47]

Oh please. You're saying that none of what we're saying goes on in your workplace? I am so fucking sick of typing this when you willfully ignore it.

No one mentions wives, children, weekend plans with girlfriends? GTFO already.

Where do you work? Slave mines? Every job from the retail shit to the most corporate of setting we all knew who was married, who had children, etc etc. This is the common experience not yours.

No not at all.. But no body is forcing them to say any of that.. my gay co-workers also talk about their personal lives openly... what they are doing with their significant other on this day etc etc. I'm just saying that in the event something is going on..... hardly ever at my company will you NEED to give any specifics about your personal life. You could very well say you had a family emergency and leave. Which is what I did when my mom died.

You make it seem that if you don't hear 10 people comment on their wife/girlfriend every day then you're living in the twilight zone... you make it seem like no gay people are ever allowed to say anything about their bf's gf's... You make it seem as if people are incapable of keeping things to themselves... Where do YOU work? the military?

I guess you're opinion is the only right one?

Aurvant's original statement was that it is not appropriate to talk/mention/hint at your personal life at work. That is quite different than saying that sexual harassment or inappropriate sexual comments (Aurvant's example) or asking about personal stuff in an interview or on the job (methane47's example) are not OK. I don't think those examples defend the original statement. I don't know if people are being deliberately dishonest or not saying what they mean, but there is clearly a disconnect.

If I understand what krypt0nian is saying, he's simply pointing out that virtually everyone broadcasts personal information at work, whether they want to or not: displaying photos of family or significant others in their office/cubicle, wearing a wedding ring, explaining reasons why time off is necessary, having phone conversations which can be overheard, and so on. Heck, sometimes people even volunteer personal info -- "hey, did you do anything fun this weekend?" type questions while making small talk before a meeting or around the water cooler. All of those behaviors are normal and common workplace behaviors, and I don't see how anyone could consider them inappropriate. They just...are.

The point is that, in normal interaction with people at work or in other settings, clues about your sexuality and your lifestyle get displayed. In fact, NOT displaying such clues requires really hard work...and unless you're a spy in the making, the fact that you don't share typical information will be incredibly apparent, which makes you stick out in another way.

That is true... but I dont think its that hard work not displaying clues to sex. orientation... but my expericience comes from a work environment where i'm there for 7-8 hrs and then I can go home.... I imagine in a military setting where you are around the same people for 24 hrs... it must be near impossible over a long period of time if you have a signif. other.

btw Does your input in this thread mean a lock is coming soon?

 

[krypt0nian]

No not at all.. But no body is forcing them to say any of that.. my gay co-workers also talk about their personal lives openly... what they are doing with their significant other on this day etc etc. I'm just saying that in the event something is going on..... hardly ever at my company will you NEED to give any specifics about your personal life. You could very well say you had a family emergency and leave. Which is what I did when my mom died.

You make it seem that if you don't hear 10 people comment on their wife/girlfriend every day then you're living in the twilight zone... you make it seem like no gay people are ever allowed to say anything about their bf's gf's... You make it seem as if people are incapable of keeping things to themselves... Where do YOU work? the military?

I guess you're opinion is the only right one?

Why do you keep bring in people prying into people personal lives? Where is this coming from? I am seriously thinking that you are just doing this now because you can.

Of course no one is forcing anyone to speak on their social lives or their lives outside work. But in many cases, including the military (hello!), straight people CAN do this yet gay people cannot.

 

[Aurvant]

Why do you keep bring in people prying into people personal lives? Where is this coming from? I am seriously thinking that you are just doing this now because you can.

Of course no one is forcing anyone to speak on their social lives or their lives outside work. But in many cases, including the military (hello!), straight people CAN do this yet gay people cannot.

The only reason I can honestly think why the military still holds it as law as to why homosexuals cant openly serve is the public view of just who they are. Women aren't allowed to fight on the front lines because 1) women are viewed as more fragile as men and 2) women are the progenitors of mankind and thus are more important than men.

However, I think, and this might just be because of sterotypes, its the "girlie man" syndrome that the military does not want to mix in with the image of the "ARG! WARRIORS FIGHT!" military that we put forwards.

this is the tough image we want to portray:

This is the pop culture stereotype that the media puts forward of gay people:

Of course thats not EVERYONE. Still, thats the public image and opinion that people carry in this country and the US military, which wants to keep an image of being tough and rugged, dont see that as being very intimidating. I'm not saying that its not absolutely retarded to assume that EVERY gay person acts like that guy or that the soldiers will somehow be made to wear designer camo in pink and canary yellow, but apparently there are some generals, lawmakers, or other people that just don't see anything "soldier-like" in a group of people who are associated with someone who places that type of stereotype on them.

Again, not saying I agree with DADT and I've said its stupid for people to get kicked out of the military just for being gay, but if you want a reason why people might still not like the idea? it could be your public image.

 

[methane47]

Women aren't allowed to fight on the front lines .

Is this true? If so... thats not very fair to men..

 

[Aurvant]

Is this true? If so... thats not very fair to men..

They can't be basic infantry. They can be armed and work as support troops, but not basic infantry.

EDIT: They are allowed to be military police or support, but their description and position in the military cannot be placed as direct combat soldier. They are not allowed to be sent in to the "front lines" so to say. The Iraq War is a bit more complex than any other wars so women do find themselves in combat a lot more than they would have in the past, but the military law still states that a woman is now allowed to be in a position connected to direct combat. Example: Infantry

 

[Saint10118]

Oddly enough my brain doesn't care one bit about straight people's personal relationships.

They don't gross me out, or offend me. I can speak with people about the most personal or sexual issues, and never do I think "OMG how disgusting"

I guess I'm just higher evolved.

I like to think of it as homo superious

 

[Gaborn]

That's just it. I don't find any of that inappropriate. I worked for a call center that was a huge corporate setting and people of all sexual orientations (gay, straight, bi) had pictures, trinkets, and other memorabilia on their desks at their cubicles and nobody got up and called "HAX!!" and started carting them out the door. When I meant things like hinting at your personal life I meant that it was not appropriate for ANYONE (straight, gay, otherwise) to lean over the top of their cubicle and start broadcasting their private life to the person next to them because, and this has actually happened to ME, someone might find it offensive. no matter how harmless it might be.

Hell, I was taken to HR just for leaning over and whispering to someone about what we had for lunch and I mentioned that a few of the workers had had some margaritas. Some older lady got all up in arms and reported me and claimed that I had been drinking while on the job. Wasn't even me I was talking about.

Same could go for anyone else. If they mentioned that they went out on a Saturday with their boyfriend someone might find it offensive and have it reported to HR. I wouldn't be offended personally, but I know that there is always a chance that someone might get all tore up over nothing.

No one has the right not to be offended though, especially when you're dealing with a branch of the government. Look, your basic point, as I see it, is that certain facts about people's personal lives are offensive and distracting to some people, and therefore potentially hurt military readiness and potentially disrupt unit cohesion, right?

If that's basically correct, then why just pick out sexual orientation? since the military is "different" than other jobs, why not ban all discussion of religion, since that causes significant military strife (not just proselytizing, but any mention of Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Vishnu, Zoraster, etc. Why not forbid the use of last names, because if someone found out that a member of their unit was, judging strictly by their name, Jewish it might cause difficulty if a soldier is anti-semitic. Why did the army get integrated at all, considering most soldiers and officers opposed blacks and whites serving in the same units?

The reason none of that is banned, and none of that causes a major problem is that while officers don't want to risk unit cohesion, they also do some of the best job in the world about bringing soldiers together as one unit. None of it ultimately matters when you're in the field so long as someone has your back. And that goes for racist soldiers (I'm sure they exist, even though I'm equally sure they're a small percentage of the armed forces, at least towards blacks) who are forced by their officers to deal with and treat respectfully minority officers they may not like, that goes for anti-semitic soldiers who may have to deal with a Jewish officer or a Jewish bunkmate, that goes for whatever prejudice a soldier comes in the door with that may affect unit cohesion.

So tell me, why is one prejudice, towards gays suddenly given more credence than any other?

 

[Atrus]

The only reason I can honestly think why the military still holds it as law as to why homosexuals cant openly serve is the public view of just who they are.

Your examples are proof that the reasons are illegitimate. So why should society be held back because of this sort of inferiority?

Their views are obsolete, they should adapt or be left behind.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I love how no one wants to touch Love To Love You Baby's points. Head-exploding logic is hard

 

[methane47]

I love how no one wants to touch Love To Love You Baby's points. Head-exploding logic is hard

Or rather because they've already been discussed 10 times... Or we already agree.

Dont kick people out of the military becasue of orientation? I'm pretty sure everone here agrees with it..

Straight people should be forced to accept living in close quarters with people that may or may not lust for them... And his reasoning for this is because white people had to do it with blacks..

Please tell me what SUPER LOGIC argument he's posted that hasn't been discuessed 5 times already in this thread?

 

[Gaborn]

Or rather because they've already been discussed 10 times... Or we already agree.

Dont kick people out of the military becasue of orientation? I'm pretty sure everone here agrees with it..

Straight people should be forced to accept living in close quarters with people that may or may not lust for them... And his reasoning for this is because white people had to do it with blacks..

Please tell me what SUPER LOGIC argument he's posted that hasn't been discuessed 5 times already in this thread?

Um... not to be technical, but as it stands now they ARE forced to accept exactly that. There are certainly closeted gays in the military, and the vast vast majority are either never noticed or if they are it's for things unrelated to "lusting" after their fellow soldiers.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Please tell me what SUPER LOGIC argument he's posted that hasn't been discuessed 5 times already in this thread?

I've pointed to a study that shows that straight men are capable of working alongside gay men in a military setting in other countries where homosexuals are allowed to serve. Where is your evidence for saying that the two cannot coexist in a military setting, let alone that it's inevitable that the two can't function?

No one seems to want to deal with this.

 

[methane47]

No one seems to want to deal with this.

I believe that the counter to this argument has been implied in many posts with people suggesting that American macho males are somewhat behind when it comes to accepting new things..

I mean these are people who dangle food and water in front of starving kids in the middle east and drive away dangling the stuff with the kids running behind them..

These are the people that throw puppies off hills... just for laughs...

 

[krypt0nian]

No one seems to want to deal with this.

Because the other countries aren't macho USA? :lol

And I love the fact that the supposedly homophobic soldiers are RIGHT NOW AS WE TYPE showering and bunking down with gay soldiers but have no idea that BUTT RAPERS ARE RIGHT THERE IN THE SAME ROOM AS THEM!!!! :lol :lol :lol

Too funny.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I believe that the counter to this argument has been implied in many posts with people suggesting that American macho males are somewhat behind when it comes to accepting new things..

I mean these are people who dangle food and water in front of starving kids in the middle east and drive away dangling the stuff with the kids running behind them..

These are the people that throw puppies off hills... just for laughs...

So this is the... arguement...? :lol :lol :lol

 

[Love To Love You Baby]

Well, Green Shinobi can't argue the 'macho' point because his point was that there is the difference between gay and straight men that will keep them at odds intrinsically. Unless he were to argue that British, Israeli, Canadian, Swedish, etc. are some how biologically different than American men, which I would think one would have a hard time doing.

I would like to see some evidence that American men are so extremely different from a 'macho' (or any other) perspective from our allies - those who we identify with politically and militarily, right?

 

[Green Shinobi]

Well, Green Shinobi can't argue the 'macho' point because his point was that there is the difference between gay and straight men that will keep them at odds intrinsically. Unless he were to argue that British, Israeli, Canadian, Swedish, etc. are some how biologically different than American men, which I would think one would have a hard time doing.

I would like to see some evidence that American men are so extremely different from a 'macho' (or any other) perspective from our allies - those who we identify with politically and militarily, right?

No. My only argument was that there are a lot of soldiers who just don't want to know that their squadmate is gay.

If you read all my posts in this thread, that has been the underlying argument behind all of them.

The natural reaction of any straight man to homosexuality is to be put off a bit by it, maybe weirded out, and in some cases, even to feel revulsion. It's a completely foreign concept to a man who is naturally straight, and just seems unnatural. Again, I'm talking about a basic psychological reaction, not willful bigotry or hatred.

The goal of society should be to condition people to overcome this reaction and to accept homosexuality as something different, but normal at a very young age. I definitely didn't get this. I didn't become truly accepting of and comfortable around gay men until I came to college, at which point I met several gay friends and played music in a theatrical group that had a large number of gay cast members.

Americans are pretty far behind when it comes to this cultural conditioning, and I don't know how long it will take for us to catch up. Maybe another generation. Hopefully not longer than that. Although if that 73% poll is accurate, we're getting a lot closer.

 

[Aurvant]

Your examples are proof that the reasons are illegitimate. So why should society be held back because of this sort of inferiority?

Their views are obsolete, they should adapt or be left behind.

That's just it. Their views aren't obsolete because they are still in the majority. It is probable to think that perhaps the majority of Americans don't have a problem with homosexuality, but then again how many states passed the marriage amendment that made it defined that marriage was only allowed between one man and one woman?

Twenty-Seven states passed it and amended it in to their constitutions.

How many states allowed civil unions between homosexuals?

Seven.

The point of that argument is that the majority of states and therefore the votes speak for the people that they are still keeping a hold of the "NIMBY syndrome". Remember that? Sure, they were find and dandy with people building roads and highways as long as it didn't involve them or include them in any way, and thats how people apparently feel about homosexuality in this country.

Example phrase: "Whatever man, be gay, but I don't want to hear about it."

I know that it must suck to realize this but your way of thinking is still in the minority. That means that until your way of thinking becomes the majority it is you who will have to adapt. You can't just usurp a common view of social acceptance and expect everyone to just welcome you with open arms and accept who you are.

The same goes for the military. It's always been that way and then all of a sudden people come along and demand it be changed because it seems to be unfair to them. Yes, there will be people who will say "Ok, fine, I accept that and I don't find anything wrong with allowing that". However, that wont be the case with everyone and you cant just say "Adapt or get left behind". Now your just being unfair to them.

Look, this isn't the perfect utopian worlds of Huxley. People have their own opinions and have their own beliefs and its always going to conflict with you or someone else. The quicker people can get to accepting THAT the quicker we can move towards finding common ground, but until then? it's always going to be a battle.

 

[Gaborn]

No. My only argument was that there are a lot of soldiers who just don't want to know that their squadmate is gay.

If you read all my posts in this thread, that has been the underlying argument behind all of them.

The natural reaction of any straight man to homosexuality is to be put off a bit by it, maybe weirded out, and in some cases, even to feel revulsion. It's a completely foreign concept to a man who is naturally straight, and just seems unnatural.

The goal of society should be to condition people to overcome this reaction and to accept homosexuality as something different, but normal at a very young age. I definitely didn't get this. I didn't become truly accepting of and comfortable around gay men until I came to college, at which point I met several gay friends and played music in a theatrical group that had a large number of gay cast members.

Americans are pretty far behind when it comes to this cultural conditioning, and I don't know how long it will take for us to catch up. Maybe another generation. Hopefully not longer than that.

It's scary how much you sound like some liberal affirmative action supporter. "Why, we HAVE to allow discrimination... at least for now. Hopefully we'll at some distant point in the future mature enough to not need to." Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

The fact is, as much as you can't "directly" make a one to one comparison between gay rights and rights for african americans, the polling was similar among soldiers and officers about integrating units so there wasn't a black army and a white army, just the US army, and allowing gays to serve openly. The only difference between the two is people were MORE opposed according to the polling to allowing blacks to serve in units with whites than they seem to be to allowing gays to serve openly.

 

[Green Shinobi]

It's scary how much you sound like some liberal affirmative action supporter. "Why, we HAVE to allow discrimination... at least for now. Hopefully we'll at some distant point in the future mature enough to not need to." Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

The fact is, as much as you can't "directly" make a one to one comparison between gay rights and rights for african americans, the polling was similar among soldiers and officers about integrating units so there wasn't a black army and a white army, just the US army, and allowing gays to serve openly. The only difference between the two is people were MORE opposed according to the polling to allowing blacks to serve in units with whites than they seem to be to allowing gays to serve openly.

I don't support gays being kicked out of the military for being gay.

I don't support one's sexual orientation being forcibly kept private in ANY OTHER job besides the military.

All I'm saying is that the military is fundamentally different from any other job, and combined with America's cultural stance towards homosexuality, it might be best for gay men serving in the armed forces to keep their sexual orientation private.

I don't know why kryptonian keeps comparing the military to working in an office.

I don't even care, personally. If I enlisted in the Army, I could really give a shit whether anybody in my squad was gay. It wouldn't make a difference to me in the slightest. The only thing is, I know for a fact that other people in the squad would not be so accepting.

 

[mAcOdIn]

I don't think women aren't generally allowed on the front lines because they're more "fragile," I'd say it's because the military will always be predominately male and the impact of seeing women get killed is a little more jarring to a man. Further since you all eat, sleep, and live together the last thing they need to throw into the already complicated mix of relationships between males who may or may not like each other is jealousy or any other emotion that comes from being around the opposite sex(or I guess in this discussion whom you're attracted to). Plus, women need more hygiene items then men which means just more crap to send forward. I don't think it has anything to do with their perceived fragileness as this could easily be overcome by getting rid of their nerfed PT standards and holding them to the same standard as a man. I'm sure the feminists would hate that but to me it seems even more discriminatory towards women to hold them to a lower standard.

Homosexuals, IMO more closely follow women then African Americans in this argument. The military WAS racist but from my time in there wasn't a lot of outright homophobic bigots, it's just something no-one wanted to deal with.

To be honest, if one was an outsider, I think many people would think that the military, or at least the combat arms was all gay, lol. Never before or after the military did I ever have to worry about getting T-bagged in my sleep. I guess it's because you know and are reasonably comfortable with the idea that everyone is straight and just ****ing around that you don't get super pissed off and start killing someone after a night of drinking.


Edit: It'd be interesting to see the breakdown of these acceptance polls based on branch and field. I think combat arms MOS' or job titles would be far less accepting where as if you were a PAC clerk or worked in a hospital they would be far more accepting of having open homosexuality.

 

[Love To Love You Baby]

No. My only argument was that there are a lot of soldiers who just don't want to know that their squadmate is gay.

If you read all my posts in this thread, that has been the underlying argument behind all of them.

To quote you:

"kryptonian, you know how you keep bringing up the fact that your brain is wired in a way that makes you feel attracted to men? Well most men's brains are wired in a way that makes them feel attracted to women. This is just basic evolutionary psychology. It can be quite disconcerting to a lot of men to meet other men who are not like this, for quite a number of reasons. They can't help this. It's not bigotry, it's basic psychology."

And even in this very post:

"The natural reaction of any straight man to homosexuality is to be put off a bit by it, maybe weirded out, and in some cases, even to feel revulsion. It's a completely foreign concept to a man who is naturally straight, and just seems unnatural. Again, I'm talking about a basic psychological reaction, not willful bigotry or hatred."

Please provide proof that this is the natural, and the default reaction - not narcissistic prejudice that has been learned.

The goal of society should be to condition people to overcome this reaction and to accept homosexuality as something different, but normal at a very young age. I definitely didn't get this.

Why can't it be said that people have been conditioned to be homophobic? You don't think people learn disgust and discomfort? People are uncomfortable by seeing women's exposed legs in some cultures. People are completely comfortable by nudity in others.

Americans are pretty far behind when it comes to this cultural conditioning, and I don't know how long it will take for us to catch up. Maybe another generation. Hopefully not longer than that. Although if that 73% poll is accurate, we're getting a lot closer.

Last time I checked, Israel (which allows gays to serve openly) lies in the middle of one of the most homophobic regions on the planet and has had much more controversy over a gay pride event in Jerusalem than one would expect if it were held in America's largest city. I thought there was just a post on GAF that homophobic insults are extremely common and used more often than other insults in British schools - indicating that people in the UK (where gay soldiers are allowed to serve as well) are conditioned to be homophobic from a young age by their peers.

 

[Green Shinobi]

Please provide proof that this is the natural, and the default reaction - not narcissistic prejudice that has been learned.

Any proof I would attempt to provide would be anecdotal or circumstantial. There's no point.