StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 02:30 PM) Well clearly, SS, I don't know NEARLY as much as you. I'll now bow to your great and expansive knowledge on this topic. I've read enough to know that it's rare, which is the only point I've been trying to make. But, as has been pointed out to you, it doesn't matter if it's rare. It's still natural. Unless you're defining natural as what you accept as normal, but that would be pretty dumb. You can google for the studies. I'm pretty sure researches in the animal psychology field are aware of the humping-dominance relationship and wouldn't be stupid enough to confuse it for obeserving actual homosexual traits. Or, alternatively, just keep asserting that it's unnatural and that homosexuality doesn't exist in other animals. You don't need complex human relationships in order for homosexuality to happen, which was your original claim.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 02:09 PM) How on earth do you know what another dog is thinking? How do you know it's not based on dominance? My point of dogs being pack animals is that by their nature they don't have a sexuality like humans do. Edit: I guess i'm assuming that in labeling something as homosexual there has to be some sort of attraction, not just the physical deed of two members of the same sex humping each other. I don't think dogs hump each other based on that. They do it to show dominance. It sounds like you've not read anything related to the study of homosexuality in other animals and that you're sort of just making it up as you go based on your preconceived ideas of what is natural.

Murder is natural. You're conflating natural and biological or societal normal. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:14 PM) And OBVIOUSLY it's not everyone. It's a small minority who say these things. But it exists, which is all i'm saying. So a small minority of a minority says some things supposedly--so what? No one here is. What are you arguing against? What point are you trying to make? Should I bring up Fred Phelps every time there's a discussion on gay rights to illustrate that some people are crazy, or would it correctly be viewed as an irrelevant distraction?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:25 PM) I think Jon Stewart just won. If the Democrats could have passed the landslide they've gotten through recently back in September or October, they'd probably have done much better in November. Of course, Republicans were well aware of this and were not going to let that happen, instead banking on the public forgetting legislation from 2 years ago in 2012.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:34 PM) Rex was alleging that dogs can be gay. They don't have the social structure to be gay. They're pack animals. Gay meaning homosexual meaning male dogs humping male dogs and not just for a dominance thing. I don't know where you got this bizarre relationship angle.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:31 PM) I see what you're saying. But I think that simply saying "part of a minority" isn't the same as "it's a rarity and shouldn't be expressed as the norm," which is what I'm trying to say, but without any moral connotation. That statement is loaded with moral connotation, especially given the context of the discussion (of gay rights in general, not just this thread). It shouldn't be "expressed as the norm" because it's not. But the way you're phrasing it, unintentionally or not, comes across as saying it shouldn't be expressed as acceptable for the minority.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:16 PM) Dogs hook up in one on one relationships? What kind of dog do you own? Wat?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:08 PM) I'd like to hear from an actual gay person on this thread...anyone? This is like a bunch of hetros arguing with other hetros bout something they can't possibly understand in a real sense. I would never imagine that it's the same as actually having to deal with it personally, but my brother is gay and I've seen the s*** he's had to put up with in his life. Luckily, he has a loving and accepting family who didn't throw him out on the street.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:03 PM) And they realize they can go into regular bars, right? Sure, you can go into them, but should you? Why not? You won't be physically threatened, like a gay person might be if they ran into the wrong group at a regular bar. You'd probably get opposition from the community, but there is plenty of self-segregation at bars. Self-segregation versus outside discrimination. Big difference.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) One is a preference of a type of thing you like, IE, type of music, type of food. The other is a genetic trait, like skin color, or being gay. Liking rock and roll vs rap is still liking one form of music or another. Gay vs straight, IMO, is not in the same class. Your last statement is a fair point, but what I'm trying to say is that choosing to congregate with like-minded or similar people isn't exclusionary. Discriminating againsta group of people is. Gay bars do not discriminate against straights.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:04 PM) Dogs can be gay? How is that possible? The same way it's possible in humans. Did you really not know that homosexuality is present through nature?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:00 PM) That something that occurs in the small minority of situations isn't normal? 5% of the population in the US is gay. Say that number is really 10%. That still means 9 out of 10 times it's not the norm. That's my point. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or that one way is preferred or not preferred, i'm just saying that's how it is. By definition it's not normal. Same with evidence of homosexuality in nature. It's rare. It's not natural. In fact it's unnatural for a species to be homosexual as they would cease to exist. You've contradicted yourself, and you've exposed your bias here. If it occurs in nature, it is, by definition, natural. Even if it is rare, even if it doesn't propagate the species, it can still be natural. Childhood leukemia is rare and if everyone had it the species would cease to exist, but that doesn't mean it is unnatural. Of course being homosexual isn't the norm, and it never will be. You're arguing against a strawman here. Generally speaking, I think the gay community would like it if sexuality was simply a non-issue and they were judged as evil degenerates who people need to protect children from. That's a far cry from something more than equal or preferential status.

My friend is having her bachelorrete party in boys town.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:54 PM) I already said that, and still find the existence of gay specific bars to be exclusionary, which goes against wanting to fit in. This is just my opinion on the matter. The issue isn't about fitting in to societal norms. edit: Think of it like this: A black family choosing to move into a predominately black neighborhood isn't racist or exclusionary. A bank refusing to lend to a black family that wants to move into a white neighborhood or a Realtor refusing to show a black family houses in a white neighborhood is.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:51 PM) The reason you don't see a listing for hetero bars next to gay bars is because "hetero bars" would be all other bars. Right, gay bars are just catering to a subset of people. Just like hipster bars, dance clubs, piano bars, wine bars, biker bars, etc. People choosing to congregate and socialize within a similar group doesn't make it ok for outsiders to discriminate or denigrate that group, especially within a legal framework like DADT.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:40 AM) Why aren't those enough? Forcing someone to buy 2 plane tickets isn't applicable here. And it's not a complicated issue as-is. I'm an employer. You're either an applicant or an existing employee. You're overweight, bald, or simply unattractive, and I decide I don't like that. It doesn't affect your performance. It doesn't affect how you could possible do the job. I just don't like it. Legally I can fire you and/or decide not to hire you for that very reason, and there's nothing you can do about it. No laws protect you. But if you're gay, I cannot. What's the difference exactly? IMO both are physical and/or mental traits that you cannot control. I'm asking why society decided to legally designate one group a special class, and force people to act a certain way towards that class, but not for the others. Is it simply the history of discrimination? If so I think "unattractive" people have a pretty good claim of being screwed over. Same with the obese. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:36 AM) Maybe it's the centuries of persecution and outright hatred of them from a large portion of the population? You could make the same argument for other protected classes like race or gender and it'd be equally wrong. When was the last time someone was beaten to death or disowned by their family for being fat, bald and ugly?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:30 AM) Do you have better examples? Preferably, these classes of people should have a history of persecution and discrimination.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 11:09 AM) Right, and I'm saying that somehow sexuality got thrown in there despite being nothing more than a physical and/or mental trait that's no different than being genetically prone to being overweight, or having red hair or being bald or whatever. It's something beyond your control. I want to know why it's different. I get that gays as a group have been discriminated against, and that's why they were thrown into EE protection, but so are fat people. Where's the outcry for that? Maybe it's the centuries of persecution and outright hatred of them from a large portion of the population? You could make the same argument for other protected classes like race or gender and it'd be equally wrong.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:53 AM) It's just his opinion that he feels the gay community wants people to accept them and their lifestyle as more than "equal", and in some cases, he's right. If he wasn't touching on some sort of truth, something called a "gay bar" wouldn't exist. You can actually do a search in Google for "Gay Bars in Chicago", and it brings up a list, complete with map locations, phone numbers, reviews, etc. Do that same exact search for Hetrosexual Bars in Chicago, and you get no such list. I know...I know...all others bars are presumed to be heterosexual bars, right? It's just an opinion, calling him a bigot for it is a bit over the top IMO. That's a pretty terrible argument. Gay bars exist as a place for gays to go hang out and meet other gays, not to force people to accept them. Just like any other business catering to a specific demographic.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 10:36 AM) This is probably going to receive a good amount of backlash, but oh well, it's how I feel. In 50 states an employer can legally terminate or deny your employment based on the fact you're unattractive, have small boobs, are fat, have red hair, have moles on your face, wear glasses, grow up being a Cubs fan, etc etc etc. What's the difference? These are physical and biological things that are beyond your control, yet we allow that, but make an exception to protect 5% of the population. I think it's a great step that the military cannot discharge you for being gay or deny you the opportunity to serve. God knows if you sign up you deserve much more than that. I just don't understand why you should receive special treatment because you're gay. I get it, you've been discriminated in the past. But so have a lot of other people for a variety of things. I'm all for equal protection. I'm all for government getting out of people's personal business. I feel though that too often the gay community wants to force people to accept them and their lifestyle more than just being equal with them. Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of "protected class."

Thank you both for a more coherent, to-the-point rebuttal of kap's inanity.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 07:40 AM) Actually, as I recall, DADT was an XO (from Clinton) that was then confirmed by Congress. I should probably go look that up, but that was my memory of it. Could be, either way it doesn't mesh with kap's rant about Congress only doing this to assert authority over the military. The policy came from outside the military leadership in the first place. It required an act of Congress or an XO to repeal (this was debatable, I think, some claiming Obama could just get rid of it). Aside from him completely dismissing the point of why discrimination based on sexual orientation is a problem, the crux of his argument, that this is just a power grab by civilian leadership, is plainly wrong.

kap, please justify the existence of DADT. Explain why it's necessary or useful, what purpose it serves. If you can't justify the policy's existence, your whole point is moot. Also, btw, DADT was originally enacted by Congress in the first place, so of course it had to be repealed by them. Which makes your rant against Harry Reid and "social f***s in Washington" all the more hilariously wrong.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 06:50 AM) Tell me how that's wrong. And tell me exactly how DADT is bigoted. It treats homosexuals differently because they're homosexuals. Who is saying this? They want the right to serve, same as any other soldier--without fear of being thrown out if someone happens to find out they're gay. How horrible! And darkies had equal rights to sign up pre-1949, they were just going to be kept away from the rest of the soldiers. Hey, man, it's equal rights in a sense! Well, they do have the right to shout that. You don't get thrown out of the military if someone finds you emailing your opposite-sex partner, but people have been thrown out for emailing their same-sex partner. Straight service members can proclaim their sexuality all they want, gays cannot. Why is that acceptable? Why do you think it's ok to have a separate set of discriminatory rules for gays? Have you not been following this issue at all? No one has to or will have to check their sexual orientation. You "bet gay people didn't even care" about getting tossed out of the military because someone found out their sexual orientation? You "bet gay people didn't even care" that the military fostered a homophobic atmosphere? The gays in the military aren't all activists, kap. You're making your usual incredibly-broad-handwaving-and-ignorant arguments. Equal rights for what? For the same treatment as any other soldier. Seriously, enough with your retarded turn-everything-into-a-giant-conspiracy bulls***. No one is ever actually allowed to legitimately care about an issue in your world, it's all some big scheme. This is "forced" on the military because most of the military is ok with it, most of the public is ok with it, the Commander in Chief is ok with it, and most of the top brass is ok with it. Yeah, kap, your entire post is one big fail. DADT was "working" if you're ok with discriminating against gays for being gays and for kicking them out of the military. More likely than not, this was going to be ruled unconstitutional, so it was actually preferable for the military to have this legislated. Your opinion is plainly wrong. We have civilian control of the military. DADT is a bigoted policy, regardless of your scare quotes, and does not serve any real useful purpose. In fact, it has arguably harmed the military in many cases when good men and women are tossed out simply for their sexual orientation.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 11:35 PM) And now, you've taken the last institution that had a autocratic function and broke down the very pillars upon which it was built. This law (to break DADT) had nothing to do with "rights", it absolutely was to send a message that the military doesn't control what happens, CONGRESS does. Nah, ... it was just bigoted law until now (please... that is a f***ing joke).