Why is it okay to discriminate against gay people?

reply to post by Soldier of God


What percentage are born gay? what percentage choose to be gay, that's what I'm asking.....

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by Soldier of God

 

What percentage are born gay? what percentage choose to be gay, that's what I'm asking.....

That was my point also.
Second line.

Alright I though you implied it was 100% choice.... I don't support the gay lifestyle but I will defend their right to be...

My only question, I have seen many say it wasnt a choice, that he/she was born that way. I've seen this thread before, involving gays...but as of yet, I have yet to see any conclusive evidence, scientific or other that would suggest being gay is a chemical imbalance?

I do not understand the controversy myself. About "Gay Rights" that is.
Gay people have the same rights as every other person.
If they want to marry, they can. No one is stopping them. They have just as much of a right to marry someone of the opposite sex as I do.
There is a difference between "rights" and "special treatment".
Before you start flaming on me look at it this way........
Do Obese people get special rights? Most scientist say there is a "fat gene" that makes some people more inclined to be over weight. Does that mean they have to be over weight or just that they have to work harder not to be?
The difference between the two is that most obese people want help/treatment with their illness.
Most Gay people don't want help, they want everyone else to get help/treatment to help deal with the lifestyle they CHOOSE to lead.

I guess I just have a more open mind about it. If I am at a gym working out and I know the guy next to me is gay I am not going to be concerned about him looking at me. If I get hit on by a gay guy I am not going to fly off the handle. I would just say thank you but not my style. Not to long ago a female friend of mine asked if myself and my wife would go to a bar with her. Her husband would not go because it was a gay bar. Yes I did get hit on, but did I have a good time at the bar yes. No fights no arguing just lots of dancing and hanging out. You have a short time in this life and you have to find the things that make you happy. If you are happy with someone of the same sex then go for it. Let them get married, let them be able to claim married on taxes, and use insurance. I see no problem with any of it. And I know some very “manly” for lack of a better word. That if wanted to serve go for it serve with pride.

As far as the parades and things like that. It is along the same lines as many other things everyone should be equal there should be no BET, or having to march to prove something. Just accept everyone for who they are. And focus on the bigger issues that we have to face together.

Crash

Originally posted by calstorm
Here is the problem as I see it, I could be wrong. Its a complication. I am not sure what it was like when women were first allowed ot join the military but i am assuming they were housed in separate quarters. By allowing gays in the military, you in away adding two new "genders." This means they need to have four separate housing quarters instead of two. At least that's what I think they should do. But the government would rather waste their money on useless things than to help solve a problem.
Of course I have no idea what military life is like, but thats my opinion.

The housing would actually be a bit more complicated than that. The idea is that soldiers shouldn't fornicate with one another, but if you create a barrack for just gays or lesbians, you'll in fact be housing them right along with their sexual target groups. In order to get past this they'd have to create a dorm system (two people to a room) Straight Males with Straight Males, Straight Women with Straight Women, and Gay Woman with Gay Man, or a Gay Woman/Man with a Straight Woman/Man (provided that they don't have a problem with rooming with a Homosexual. Personally, I think they should combine them all creating unisexual barracks, and just stick a camera in the room, and tack on more serious punishments for sex between soldiers.
Who's to say there'd actually be any attraction between them anyway, and for those that are attracted, they'd be separated, maybe put into a different platoon.

One possible problem with having gay men on the front line is this. They will naturally become attracted to, even fall in love, with other soldiers they are in combat with. If a soldier they have strong feelings for is wounded, say, out in the open without cover, would they remain diciplined enough to follow orders and remain where they are, or would their emotions control them and will they rush out there to try and save him?

For the straight guys, imagine there was a gorgeous woman serving with you on the front, and she was wounded in the same situation. Would your emotions control you in that situation? This is the only possible problem I could see.

Love could cause big problems on a battlefield.

Originally posted by Cataka
It just doesn't make any sense to me - this is accepted negative behavior.

If you talk negatively about black people - you're a racist - you can get fired or sued for discriminating against them.

If you talk negatively about jews - you're a racist - you can get fired or sued for discriminating against them.

If you talk negatively about pretty much anything you can get fired or sued or accused of being a bigot/racist/etc.

And there seems to be a double standard - if you fire someone for being gay at the workplace they can sue you - but our country, military and our President are OPENLY against gays in the military. They are flat-out discriminating and showing the same kind of behavior that would get people sued, yet that's where we are.

I find it really interesting that we have a black (Or at least part black) president and he is actively discriminating and opposing gays in the military, yet his race was just as discriminated against for hundreds of years. If it weren't for "CHANGE" (His favorite word!) then he would still be among the discriminated and hated (though it's still up for debate as to how equal they are even in 2010).

And I use the word 'black' because African-American is a retarded term.

First of all, the label "African American" is the dumbest, most persistently used phrase in our vernacular. Every time you call someone an "African American," you're making at least two assumptions about the person:

1. That the person is an American. For example, if you saw Chiwetel Ejiofor (The Operative from the movie Serenity) walking along on a street, you would probably think he's an "African-American"

...which is fine, except for one small detail: this man is British, which makes you a presumptuous cock.

2. That the person is African (because it's inconceivable that black people could come from Haiti, India, Trinidad, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Australia, or Jamaica). Nevermind that; BLACK PEOPLE ONLY COME FROM AFRICA.


Not to mention that every time you give a black person the distinction of being "African American" out of a mixed group, you're making an assumption about an entire continent; not everyone from Africa is black. I guarantee all you politically correct morons out there have never called a white person an African American. Of course you could avoid all these problems by using the same standards on blacks as you would on whites by simply assuming that all whites are from Africa just as you do for all blacks, but that might be too forward, and in a polite society like ours, people would be all too pleased to point out which of the 192 countries you didn't guess they were actually from. Thanks Maddox!

Not only that, but to all the gay-haters out there: Why DON'T you want gay people in the military? You should be stoked that they'll have a much greater chance at getting killed while at war and then you won't have to worry about them 'ruining the sanctity of marriage!'

And does having gay people in the military ruin 'the sanctity of war' or something? If you are stuck in a fox hole with a gay guy who is in love with you, he's going to try a LOT harder to save your life!

Just doesn't make sense. At least we know how to legally dodge the draft. Speak with a heavy lisp and make comments about bedazzling your BDU's and pinch your CO's left butt cheek.

edit on 22-10-2010 by Cataka because: (no reason given)

You do know the president is trying to end the don't ask don't tell policy then institute a new policy that would allow gays to serve OPENLY in the military?? Before you condemn him, maybe you should know what he's trying to do.
My 2 cents.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
One possible problem with having gay men on the front line is this. They will naturally become attracted to, even fall in love, with other soldiers they are in combat with. If a soldier they have strong feelings for is wounded, say, out in the open without cover, would they remain diciplined enough to follow orders and remain where they are, or would their emotions control them and will they rush out there to try and save him?

For the straight guys, imagine there was a gorgeous woman serving with you on the front, and she was wounded in the same situation. Would your emotions control you in that situation? This is the only possible problem I could see.

Love could cause big problems on a battlefield.

edit on 22/10/10 by NuclearPaul because: typo

There are gay men in the military, so do you have any proof that such an event has happened?

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
One possible problem with having gay men on the front line is this. They will naturally become attracted to, even fall in love, with other soldiers they are in combat with. If a soldier they have strong feelings for is wounded, say, out in the open without cover, would they remain diciplined enough to follow orders and remain where they are, or would their emotions control them and will they rush out there to try and save him?

For the straight guys, imagine there was a gorgeous woman serving with you on the front, and she was wounded in the same situation. Would your emotions control you in that situation? This is the only possible problem I could see.

Love could cause big problems on a battlefield.

That's exactly why relationships are not allowed in the Canadian military. Shouldn't the USA be the same?
www.theglobeandmail.com...

Military rules strictly forbid any kind of intimacy on deployments, including relationships of an emotional, romantic or sexual nature. The Forces ban all forms of sexual relations in the field, including touching and kissing, to prevent an erosion of discipline and cohesion.

reply to post by NuclearPaul


This reminds me of Classical Spartan History. They would encourage homosexuality between the soldiers as it would have the same effect on the battlefield as stated by by you. But things were different then, individual heroism was far more important than it is now, where you're expected to function as a limb of a larger body, eg, "Squad" or "Section", platoon, and so forth.

I used to dislike homosexuals not because they were gay or whatever, but because I saw them as a dead end in human genetic progression. They wouldn't reproduce (Unless confused or forced) and if they did reproduce it would have to be artificially. I mean, if they couldn't reproduce originally with a man, they have to do it artificial, where is the naturally selective logic of progressive evolutionary behaviour in that? NOW, I fully do not mind them, they can be intellectually and physically apt as any other human being, and they are a form of actual contribution. They function as a form of population control, which, in our current state is quite necessary until further methods of housing larger population measures are taken (research into off-world colonisation, colonisation of deserts, etc..)

My beef with them was not out of "i think they are weird and against my religious belief, so I reckon we should stone them for our God" kind of thing, but out of logically deducting what is beneficial for the human race ( from my perspective and from what I know ), but now I see them as of great use now. Just as we need heterosexual and homosexual greedy "monsters" to make the world go around and reproduce, given the current system. The same as we need criminals, wars, soldiers, psychopaths, sociopaths and more, to make the world go around (Not to say that homosexuality is a mental illness or that they are generally as hurtful to individuals as the aforementioned). Everyone plays their bit, "mental illnesses" usually tend to play their part, and were somewhat meant to be there through what we perceive as natural selection.

All the horrible things are necessary for our technological progress such as war, and even mundane things such as homosexuality is necessary. If there was some form of global peace, countries would turn on themselves, people constantly need something to solve, a problem to overcome, perpetually. When that is constantly solved for them, they tend to make their own problems in the form of depressive disorders and the like. As stated before, the same is said with homosexuals, they are needed as population control.

Now, I propose two questions (on topic). Do you guys believe homosexual men/women should be allowed to artificially reproduce? Do you believe they should be allowed to adopt?

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
One possible problem with having gay men on the front line is this. They will naturally become attracted to, even fall in love, with other soldiers they are in combat with. If a soldier they have strong feelings for is wounded, say, out in the open without cover, would they remain diciplined enough to follow orders and remain where they are, or would their emotions control them and will they rush out there to try and save him?

For the straight guys, imagine there was a gorgeous woman serving with you on the front, and she was wounded in the same situation. Would your emotions control you in that situation? This is the only possible problem I could see.

Love could cause big problems on a battlefield.

edit on 22/10/10 by NuclearPaul because: typo

On the other hand, there will always be the love of friendship or the platonic love between people regardless of gender and orientation, meaning that there will always be people in the field that would risk their lifes for trying to save their wounded or distressed friend.

By the way, this discussion made me recall various types of weapons of warfare and ideas about chemical weapons that have been played with in the development of Chemical Warfare through the years.
One of these ideas, were the "Gay-bomb", which would basically be a very strong gas with componds that, when inhalated, the targets were filled with uncontrollable sexual urges.
Basically, the idea was, that when dropped on the enemygroups, the effect would be that the enemies would be so overwhelmed with desires that they couldn't fight anymore and instead would start mad orgies, hence being defeated.

Can't help but think that it sounds like a better idea than the tactics being used right now. That way they could all just get it on once and for all and get the whole silly fighting over with.

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
Now, I propose two questions (on topic). Do you guys believe homosexual men/women should be allowed to artificially reproduce?

Sure why not ?

Do you believe they should be allowed to adopt?

Sure why not? the "traditional" parents haven't been able to get it right so why not let some "non-traditional" parents give it a shot ????

It's not right to discriminate against anyone. Forget the legal aspect, it's a human right issue.

My youngest daughter informed me several years ago she was gay. I blew it off as a young lady experimenting with sex. We had some very candid conversations that continue to this day about career choices. She just turned 21 a couple of weeks ago and is a junior in college. I respect her lifestyle as she is an adult. I have unconditional love for her as one of my kids. I do get just a little concerned when she starts talking about dating and at some point will have a wife.

My wife had a very different reaction in that she wonders what she did wrong.

I'm very old school that has mellowed out some. I can't tell you what my reaction would have been with one of my boys. Probably not good and I would have probably disowned him. Girls and homosexuality just seems different to me than guys queering themselves. Can't explain my opinion, just the way I am.

BTW: I've got four kids. I can't tell you why, just express my observation. I was a firm believer that queers recruited one another. I thought there was a character flaw or some environmental reason for homosexuality. I was wrong! I firmly believe, now, it is a genetic issue. My control group was two boys and two girls. Stable home life, all kids had same school functions, most were honors students. Even church is involved. This again is just my opinion and observation of a very small sample.

Originally posted by JJBB22
I don't agree with the life choice, I think its wrong, and I will never accept it as being "natural"

however! my brother is gay and he knows of my thoughts on the matter , but he also knows I love and respect him for who he is. It is his life, and if he's happy, I am happy.

I feel sorry for your brother.

What you mean to say is that you believe it to be "unacceptable".
Saying being gay is Unnatural is an oxymoron. Something cannot exist in nature if it is unnatural.

If it exists it is natural, otherwise it would not exist in nature!
This really isn't a difficult process to figure out.

And to the OP.
I asked the same question recently, and most seem to agree that it isn't okay, although they'll never do anything significantly themselves to prevent homophobia.

As you rightly point out it is a double standard.
How many people would openly speak out against racism, but wouldn't openly speak out against homophobia?

I read just the other day about an American school who have publicly refused to implement policy to prevent homophobic bullying (in light of recent suicides), yet they have policies to deal with discrimination on the grounds of gender, religion, race...

Not one parent or guardian of a child in that school said anything in protest.

The fact is, you can listen to people agreeing it's not okay all you like, but until people start actually implementing it themselves, they're just paying you lip-service because they want to appear to be politically correct and a decent person.
I'd even go so far as to suggest that if most of the people posting in this thread who state that they support equality actually had to confront homophobia in their community, they'd go along with it and say absolutely nothing.

I don't even know why homosexuality is an issue except for the religious REICH who have to stuff their noses in everyone's business.
As far as I'm concerned, live and let live as long as it's 2 consenting adults, stay the hell out of their lives.

OK I like how Religion is attacked... as usual, in being the blame, for all the Gays ills. why is it OK for the "Tolerant"
to push their belief down everybody else's throat. What business is it of anybody's, if somebody choses not to agree with the gay lifestyle? Does it really affect your life is People don't like gay people? I thought It was a God given right to be what ever you want to? If you choose to be a mean spirited homophobic, more power to ya..
it doesn't affect me how other people think...

Originally posted by Target Earth
OK I like how Religion is attacked... as usual, in being the blame, for all the Gays ills. why is it OK for the "Tolerant"
to push their belief down everybody else's throat. What business is it of anybody's, if somebody choses not to agree with the gay lifestyle? Does it really affect your life is People don't like gay people? I thought It was a God given right to be what ever you want to? If you choose to be a mean spirited homophobic, more power to ya..
it doesn't affect me how other people think...

Well, actually it DO affect "You" how other people may think, if those people considers something in your lifestyle to be "Sinful" and their holy scriptures have explained that the individuals that performs this "Sin" must be punished with Death.

For instance, if people of a certain religion takes that religion very seriously, and that religion say things like;

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

Or;

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

Then it is far from being only a matter of "each and one doing their own business", for very obvious reasons.

Originally posted by Target Earth
OK I like how Religion is attacked...

Religion is not being attacked.

as usual, in being the blame, for all the Gays ills.

I don't think anyone has ever said that however, most christian based religions are not very tolerant of homosexuals.

why is it OK for the "Tolerant" to push their belief down everybody else's throat.

Why is it OK for people like you to push their beliefs down everyone else's throat as well?

What business is it of anybody's, if somebody choses not to agree with the gay lifestyle?

You have freedom of speech as long as you live within the United States just like those who do not agree with you.

Does it really affect your life is People don't like gay people?

Depends what they do about their dislikes.

I thought It was a God given right to be what ever you want to? If you choose to be a mean spirited homophobic, more power to ya..it doesn't affect me how other people think...

yep. As long as your beliefs do not interfere with anyone else's RIGHTS.