Debate and Discussion

Gay Rights.
ozoneocean at 9:50AM, Sept. 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
This one is more and more in the news all the time.
Should homosexual people be allowed too…
-serve openly in the armed forces?
-Mary their partner?
-Adopt children?
-Have children by a surrogate?
-become priests?


…I can't think of anymore.
I don't mind telling you that my answer to all of those used to be a big fat NO.
Used to be.
I justified it all very rationally along the lines of tradition and other conservative ways of thinking, because at heart I am a traditionalist. I was also homophobic as a kid, the way a lot of us were in the 80's.


But I've moved with the times. I've known a LOT of gay people over the years. I have many gay relatives! I learned that they're people too, ordinary people with hopes and dreams and aspirations and it's not only illogical, but bizarre and cruel to deny them the same rights as us straights just because of who they prefer in bed.
And most of all, I've had a good look at the kind of people who oppose gay rights and that more than anything has shown me the horrible person that I was… even though at the time I thought I was perfectly rational and reasonable.

-so that's a small insight into how I've changed.
I am now and have been for quite a few years in the big fat YES camp.
What do you guys think?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
ayesinback at 11:36AM, Sept. 24, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,003
joined: 8-23-2010
ozoneocean
This one is more and more in the news all the time.
Should homosexual people be allowed too…
a-serve openly in the armed forces?
b-Mary their partner?
c-Adopt children?
d-Have children by a surrogate?
e-become priests?
My take:

a- No. Because: When my husband served in the USA NR many years ago, there was an extremely active homophobic opinion (don't know stats, would not want to hazard whether that was a majority or minority). And I doubt that the percentage of homophobics has declined sufficiently during the interim. I endorse the military welcoming all who have talent and want to serve and to actually state as much, leaving the door wide open for gays. But for the well-being of individuals and for the efficient operation of troops/units, I think it's wisest to stay with the don't ask/don't tell. Not as an enforceable rule, but as a recommendation.

b- Civil marriage, absolutely yes. Religious marriage (frequently referred to as a sacrament)—depends on the tenets of the religion.

c- Yes!

d- Yes!

e- Again, depends on the tenets of the religion.
under new management
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:14AM
Genejoke at 12:15PM, Sept. 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,033
joined: 4-9-2010
marriage and serving country etc , hell yes.

Adopt children and the surrogate? Not sure.
To explain, I am not completely against it but I have reservations similar to ayesinbacks about military service. A child brought up like that would likely get a lot of abuse from other children. It could also be confusing to the child but that is just going into the debate about nature versus nurture.

As for the priest thing… well if it for a religion that has a holy book that says gay=evil then why the hell would they want to? But at the same time I see no reason why the shouldn't be allowed as it seems a large number are peadophiles anyway ;)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:33PM
imshard at 12:57PM, Sept. 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007

-serve openly in the armed forces? Shouldn't matter. You're there to hold a gun, not promote your lifestyle. Gays in the military should have the freedom to be open about it if they want, but special provisions shouldn't be a factor. Don't ask don't tell rules need to be heavily modified, but aren't completely invalid.

-Mary their partner? I view marriage as a spiritual and/or religious covenant. If they can find a religion that tolerates them, then more power to them. It should be well within their rights and government should have no bearing on even traditional marriages. As for being a single legal entity, anybody should have the right to form a partnership.

-Adopt children? : Anybody should be able to adopt, assuming they meet the requirements to provide a happy healthy and stable home.

-Have children by a surrogate? : Why not? Same reasoning as adoption I'd think.

-become priests? We have freedom of religion in my country. Laws and rights don't factor into religious matters, outside of preventing obviously illegal behaviors.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:57PM
Product Placement at 1:21PM, Sept. 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
I've heard the “Homosexuals can't serve in the military because of all the homophobes” argument before and frankly I don't understand it. How can denying a certain group of people from a specific place, simply because there's allot of people around there already, who have narrow minded views about them be considered a good thing? If you guys still employed that view in other aspects, you'd still be dealing with racial segregation.

Fact is, the military is a government branch, right? It's an institute that organizes the defense of the country and thus all people who wish to protect their country should be allowed access. If the government is supposed to represent the people, then it shouldn't turn its back on anyone.

As for religious marriages, it is true that churches are not governments (at least not anymore). Thus it is up to the people who are behind the religion to decide if this is something they want. They can wave a book around and extract some quotes out of it that vaguely state something that could be interpreted as homosexuality being bad but if they want to behave like children, then so be it.

Back where I live, we have a different situation. State and church is not kept fully separate and thus there are some ties that you won't see in the state. For example, a fraction of our taxes goes to the religious institute that you're affiliated with (registered atheist have that fraction donated to the state university). Because of those ties the state church bares a certain obligation to uphold the views of the government. This allows the government to apply pressure to the state church. Eventually after a fierce debate about it, the state church finally allowed priests to decide if they want to marry homosexuals or not. Those who wish to bless such weddings are now free to do so but those who do not can simply stand aside. Shortly after that, a big group of priests signed a signature list, stating their willingness to perform the ceremony so there's no shortage of them.
Genejoke
Adopt children and the surrogate? Not sure.
To explain, I am not completely against it but I have reservations similar to ayesinbacks about military service. A child brought up like that would likely get a lot of abuse from other children. It could also be confusing to the child but that is just going into the debate about nature versus nurture.
Ugh… Anyone who says that you'll turn gay, just because your parents were is an idiot (not saying that you are. This is targeted at those who told you this). The worst side effect from being raised in such an environment is open mindedness. Anything but that.

As for children who tease other children for having gay parents, I want to ask you something: Where do you think those kids get the idea that it's a tease worthy thing? Kids listen to their parents. If their parents are constantly moaning about how horrible it is that “these kind of people” are allowed to adopt and mess with them is giving their children a reason to believe that there's something wrong with those type of kids. Hence, they have a reason to tease them. Kids are like that. How can you prevent teasing of children brought up by gay parents? Don't give your children a reason to think any lesser of them.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:49PM
ayesinback at 1:56PM, Sept. 24, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,003
joined: 8-23-2010
Product Placement
I've heard the “Homosexuals can't serve in the military because of all the homophobes” argument before and frankly I don't understand it. How can denying a certain group of people from a specific place, simply because there's allot of people around there already, who have narrow minded views about them be considered a good thing? If you guys still employed that view in other aspects, you'd still be dealing with racial segregation.

Fact is, the military is a government branch, right? It's an institute that organizes the defense of the country and thus all people who wish to protect their country should be allowed access. If the government is supposed to represent the people, then it shouldn't turn its back on anyone.

The military is not a business. It's not a club. And although it is financed by the taxpayers, it does not represent them. There are no elections. And yes, many enter the military “to serve their country”, but some enter because they choose a few years of service over jail time, and some because they can't fit in anywhere else.

Training is intense both physically and psychologically not so much to get soldiers/sailors “fit” but to reshape any square pegs so that they can fit in the round holes. Each person is a unit, the units fit together to be an interdependent whole. There's a lot of talk about being able to trust your fellow soldiers—which oftens means having the same mind set. A soldier doesn't want to guess how a partner will react, they want to know. And when sleep is extremely limited, and bodies and minds are pushed to their limits, it's not to make people more tolerant and open-minded. Lordie, I do believe it be mind-control (OK, so I'm not a fan)

I think the comparison to racists is apt, and you could have used sexists, too. But incorporating blacks and women took time, both needed to start as separate corps (at least in this country) and only over time have they been more incorporated. Does it make sense to separate gays from straights and openly declare a unit “the gay unit”? Maybe.

But this: “all people who wish to protect their country should be allowed” No, I disagree. In fact, I think we have too many dangerous people with weaponry as it is.
under new management
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:14AM
isukun at 2:07PM, Sept. 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Apart from the preist thing, I would say yes on all accounts.

I agree with Product Placement on the military issue. As for marriage, marriage as it is defined by the government is not a spiritual institution. It is more like a financial contract between two people and serves to protect the individuals and any offspring they may have. Spirituality and religious marriage have nothing to do with that and I have yet to see a single gay person claim they want the churches to recognize their unions. Basically, they want the government to recognize their status as a family and gain the same priviledges and benefits that come with that.

With kids, the right to adopt or have children by proxy shouldn't be restricted. Single women have children through sperm donations, teens get pregnant all the time, how is that a step up from having two financially stable parents of the same gender? When it comes to other kids' perceptions, kids make fun of other kids for all kinds of reasons. Kids aren't any more likely to make fun of a kid because their parents are gay than they are to make fun of a kid because their father is a janitor. Does that mean we should also have everyone who has an embarassing name or job neutered or bar them from having kids?

I only say no to the preist thing because I don't think the government should have any say in religious doctrine. Likewise, religious institutions shouldn't have any say in political policy. Religions are free to set their own standards and be as exclusive as they choose so long as they aren't breaking any laws.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
bravo1102 at 2:19PM, Sept. 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,228
joined: 1-21-2008
Does the military upon enlistment ask you your sexual preference or do they just ask if you've ever been attracted to the same sex? They used to ask the latter question and holding with previous editions of the DSM that homosexuality was a mental illness used that as the reason to not allow it. Similarly they also ask if you suffer from depression or contemplated suicide.

They'd grant waivers if you answered yes but you can always lie and recruiters encourage that so they can meet their quotas and get qualified people into the service. If you're qualified they'l bend over backwards to get you in so you fudge a few questions.

Let gays serve. Reading the posts so far I'm probably the one with the most experience with this. Ten years proudly served in the Army. As I've posted under gays in the military I arranged to get a gay friend into my National Guard unit because I knew he was a good guy and knew what the hell he was doing as a medic. Homosexual soldiers are often open secrets. You know who's gay. The homophobes aren't usually bright enough because of the ignorance behind their position to figure it out. But there's always some senior NCO or officer who is aware and doesn't care because the soldier is good at what they do. As an NCO my opinion was respected so I got him in with no trouble even though the first sergeant figured it out right off. The guy I got in was a previous Navy Corpsman and had confided that over half of his previous unit was gay.

If the soldier is a troublemaker you get rid of him regardless of sexual preference and if he's causing problems you can use that fact to get rid of him quickly. That is what is behind many of the cases of gay personnel being booted out.

As far as everything else for gay rights? Hell yes. I learned early that gays are people too and if they make as many mistakes as straights so I can't think of any reason why today they can't have the same rights as heterosexuals. The reasons usually given are archaic and based on the predjudices of the ancient world and not a rational evaluation of human behavior. A bunch of ancient Hebrews scared of losing their unique culture in the face of Hellenic influence led to some of the Old Testament injunctions about homosexuality. We don't live in that world anymore and their decisions and predjudcies shouldn't rule our lives.

A little knowledge and experience of other people goes a long way in clearing away the darkness of predjudice. Then there's that whole rational evaluation of evidence. That also tends to dismiss most of the objections against allowing others the same rights as anyone else.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:32AM
Genejoke at 2:53PM, Sept. 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,033
joined: 4-9-2010
Someone
Ugh… Anyone who says that you'll turn gay, just because your parents were is an idiot (not saying that you are. This is targeted at those who told you this). The worst side effect from being raised in such an environment is open mindedness. Anything but that.
In an ideal world that would be true, but being gay doesn't make someone open minded it just makes them them gay.
Also no one told me that, this is what I came to from weighing up the pro's and cons. Most of which come down to the fact that most adoptive parents are vetted, so they should be just as good as a straight family.
What doe concern me is the childs understanding of the situation. I am NOT saying that kids raised in a gay home will be gay, I am saying it MAY confuse a child before they are really understand the situation. Good parents (regardless of sexuality) may be able to deal with it but raising kids is NOT easy.
If you think about it in the same way a kid who is Gay might be in a hetero home. What they feel is different from what they see on a daily basis. As I said this really comes down to nature versus nurture and the adopted parents/children in question. I'm not against the idea, technically they could be allowed but I can't help have a few doubts, however minor, and what good is a debate if you do not voice those concerns?



Someone
As for children who tease other children for having gay parents, I want to ask you something: Where do you think those kids get the idea that it's a tease worthy thing? Kids listen to their parents. If their parents are constantly moaning about how horrible it is that “these kind of people” are allowed to adopt and mess with them is giving their children a reason to believe that there's something wrong with those type of kids. Hence, they have a reason to tease them. Kids are like that. How can you prevent teasing of children brought up by gay parents? Don't give your children a reason to think any lesser of them.
parents are NOT the only influence on children, once a child goes to school the loose a hell of a lot of influence over their children. I doubt even a tenth of parents come out with anything like what you suggest.
Look at being gay from a child perspective, everything they come across suggests the hetero lifestyle, it is the norm after all. So when they learn about homosexuality they tend to think it's funny, the teasing would probably begin harmlessly enough, like most bullying. Kids do not see the harm they are causing. there is no use blaming the parents as most of the stuff like that come in at school. All it takes is one vocal kid to do it and get a laugh and it spreads like wildfire. Isuken made a good point of that though, that argument against it doesn't stand up well in debate. eventually the mindless masses will catch up and it won't be a an issue but for a fair number of children it could be.

Someone
only say no to the preist thing because I don't think the government should have any say in religious doctrine. Likewise, religious institutions shouldn't have any say in political policy. Religions are free to set their own standards and be as exclusive as they choose so long as they aren't breaking any laws.
well essentially being a priest is a career so by not allowing gays are they not discriminating against them? Personally I think that religion has no place affecting law or government.

Oh and here is something, the flipside to what some have said about the serving in the army. I know a guy who was in the army and was raped by several other soldiers, when he reported it the whole thing was covered up and brushed under the carpet.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:33PM
El Cid at 4:14PM, Sept. 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 947
joined: 5-4-2009
Yunno, until pretty recently here in Texas it was illegal to even engage in homosexual behavior. Not sure if that really represented public opinion though, I think it was just one of those dumb laws that kinda floats around on the books until somebody challenges it. Um, that was a tangent, what're we doing here again? Oh right, a survey!

Should gays be allowed to…

- Serve in the armed forces? Sure, why not! One of the most bad-ass fighting forces in ancient Greece was the Sacred Band, and it was made up entirely of homosexual warriors. They even whooped the Spartans. Homosexuality has been associated with manliness and military prowess for a long time. If trained and held to the same standards as all the other soldiers, I'm sure they'd serve well in the armed forces, as many already do.

- Marry their partner? Two questions there. Marry in the religious sense, or in the legal sense? In the religious sense, that pretty much depends on what their religion says, or moreso what it's interpreted as saying by whoever the authorities on such matters may be. As for marriage in the legal sense, I don't see why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, but I also don't see it as a matter of absolute right or wrong but rather just my personal opinion. If I'm overruled on that by majority opinion, I have no right to kick and throw a hissy fit. The state has authority to set those standards, since the state also has to enforce them.

- Adopt children? I know there have been studies on how children raised by gay parents turn out, but I've never delved into them in any depth, so I have no opinion on that. Potential parents should be screened based on their ability to raise the child properly, and if being gay factors into that in any way, then that should be taken into account, but it's no cause for a blanket prohibition.

- Have children by surrogate? I know two lesbian couples who have done this and they're some of the most doting, responsible parents I've ever seen. I'm strongly against government intervention in people's reproductive choices, so I can't support anyone interfering in someone's decision to have children, regardless of their sexual preference. But again, I'm not an expert on child development and how the parents' sexual orientation factors in, so I think the potential parents should be sure to educate themselves on the subject beforehand. Ultimately it's their choice however.

- Become priests? I though all priests were gay anyway.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
kyupol at 7:25PM, Sept. 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
serve openly in the armed forces?
- If they can perform their job well, why not.

Marry their partner?
- Depends. In the eyes of the state, yes. But the state has no right to force a particular religion to allow homosexuals to marry if it goes against the tenents of the particular religion.

Adopt children?
- The kid must have a say in the matter.

Have children by a surrogate?
- What about the child? The child might end up being teased in school for having two gay parents and learn to hate his parents because he wasnt allowed a choice in the matter.

Will the child be legally allowed then to bring his case before a court and ask that his parents be replaced?

If that happens, will that set a precedent for children to go to court so as to get new parents? Because afterall, it wasn't their choice to be born to an abusive parent/s.

This is where it gets complicated.

Become priests?
- depends on the religion.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
Product Placement at 7:36PM, Sept. 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Genejoke
Someone
Ugh… Anyone who says that you'll turn gay, just because your parents were is an idiot (not saying that you are. This is targeted at those who told you this). The worst side effect from being raised in such an environment is open mindedness. Anything but that.
In an ideal world that would be true, but being gay doesn't make someone open minded it just makes them them gay.
Also no one told me that, this is what I came to from weighing up the pro's and cons. Most of which come down to the fact that most adoptive parents are vetted, so they should be just as good as a straight family.
What doe concern me is the childs understanding of the situation. I am NOT saying that kids raised in a gay home will be gay, I am saying it MAY confuse a child before they are really understand the situation. Good parents (regardless of sexuality) may be able to deal with it but raising kids is NOT easy.
If you think about it in the same way a kid who is Gay might be in a hetero home. What they feel is different from what they see on a daily basis. As I said this really comes down to nature versus nurture and the adopted parents/children in question. I'm not against the idea, technically they could be allowed but I can't help have a few doubts, however minor, and what good is a debate if you do not voice those concerns?
Let's me explain myself a bit better. I didn't mean that gay = open minded. I meant by those words that children raised under scenarios where his family members are of different ethnicity, handicapped or with some serious illness, different sexual orientation or anything to that extent tend to be more tolerant then those bread under a more “wholesome” family unit.

I sincerely doubt that a same sex couple would be flaunting their affection to each other any more then a hetero couple would and even then, the child is illequipped to understand what's going on between the parents. After all, kissing is gross :Þ

Also, I have nothing against a debate but just like I have to be ready to face those who disagree with me, you have to be ready to do so yourself.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:49PM
Genejoke at 10:13PM, Sept. 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,033
joined: 4-9-2010
Someone
I sincerely doubt that a same sex couple would be flaunting their affection to each other any more then a hetero couple would and even then, the child is illequipped to understand what's going on between the parents. After all, kissing is gross :Þ

All very true, I fully imagine gay relationships get tired and have far less physical spark, just like any other relationship.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:33PM
Hawk at 10:24PM, Sept. 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
I'll admit I used to have some hangups on the “gay people raising children” thing. It was probably just from my own experiences growing up. Having been raised by a mom and a dad, both fulfilling their roles quite traditionally, I could not have imagined being raised properly by either two of my dad or two of my mom. They were both good parents, but they completed each other.

I guess what I learned is that gay people find a way to complete each other too. Raising kids is a tough thing for anybody, and I guess when the love and willpower is strong enough, you find a way to become what your child needs.

One thing I do still take issue with is the priests thing. Religions are pretty much clubs you join voluntarily, and I simply can't understand a person wanting to join or advance in a religion they don't agree with. If you were Amish but wanted to use computers, wouldn't you just quit being Amish?

Plus it would seem wrong for the government to force any religion to allow gay priests, just because of the separation of church and state.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:45PM
Blackhoodcomics at 10:12AM, Sept. 25, 2010
(online)
posts: 10
joined: 8-1-2010
I was in a four man tank crew in the Army, and we did a lot of brushing past each other in the cramped turret of the M1A1 tank, with only the driver being able to get out of a separate hatch. Also, in some of the barracks all of the soldiers showered together, and we certainly did that in the field. How would homosexual soldiers affect the other soldiers in these environments? I am for treating everyone equally but it seems to me that these hard questions would have to answered.

As a blackman I am VERY sensitive to the idea of discriminating against others, so I would say that Gays should be allowed to perform every function that any other American does, because they love this country just as much as anyone else. I do think that there are unique considerations that should be addressed, but it is wrong to make them hide who they are in order to serve their country.

As a Muslim I am PERSONALLY against the practice of homosexuality, BUT my personal beliefs should not in any way affect how another adult lives their lives, so I do believe that the government should provide the same legal recognition of Gay marriage that they do for Straight marriage. I do not want Gay marriages performed in my Mosque ( which will not happen anytime soon ) but I would never oppose a law in secular society that would deny two adults the right to marry the person they love. I do not want my Mosque entering the political arena to oppose rights for other Americans. We should only enforce the laws of Islam with those who have declared themselves Muslims, and not on people who do not believe as we do.

I believe that our personal beliefs should govern how we live our lives, but should not be used to enforce our beliefs on anyone else. I may not agree with how someone else lives their lives but I don't think they really care about my opinion, to their credit.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
bravo1102 at 10:38AM, Sept. 25, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,228
joined: 1-21-2008
Blackhoodcomics
I was in a four man tank crew in the Army, and we did a lot of brushing past each other in the cramped turret of the M1A1 tank, with only the driver being able to get out of a separate hatch. Also, in some of the barracks all of the soldiers showered together, and we certainly did that in the field. How would homosexual soldiers affect the other soldiers in these environments? I am for treating everyone equally but it seems to me that these hard questions would have to answered.


You're fortunate you didn't serve on M48 or M60 series tanks. On those you could turn the gunner's seat completely around and the gunner's face would be right in the lap of the tank commander and quite comfortably too. Countless jokes. Millions of them. As long as everyone did their job we didn't care.

But then I came from a very relaxed background. I was a drama and art geek in high school. Nearly all the guys were closeted gays. A gay friend I shared a house with had had affairs with two of them. In Macy*S I was the token straight male in the department. I got teased from the other side as the only straight guy around and I learned that most gays are don't want to risk dating a straight.
So I never felt at risk.

As for the incident of rape; it's far more prevelent with female personnel and that gets swept under the rug too. Rape is rape and it happens with all genders and persuasions and there is no special danger of same-sex rape. In fact it is estimated that non consensual sex where a man is raped by a woman is more common but men are far far far less likely to admit it ever happened. Happened to me twice. In my experience women are more aware of what the word “no” means.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:32AM
Genejoke at 10:51AM, Sept. 25, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,033
joined: 4-9-2010
Blackhoodcomics
How would homosexual soldiers affect the other soldiers in these environments?

This is an interesting point, all it takes is one homophobe to be brushed past by a gay soldier and you have the recipe for some kind of sexual assault charge. Then surely this is also a problem in the navy, those aircraft carriers look very cramped.

What would the solution be though? Make all tank crews gay or straight, but not mixed? What about female tank crew? there shouldn't be a difference, and would only be a problem for people who actually fear gays or if the gay in question is makes a point of doing it and getting a thrill for it. But there are people like that who are straight too.


last edited on July 14, 2011 12:33PM
bravo1102 at 11:37AM, Sept. 25, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,228
joined: 1-21-2008
Genejoke
Blackhoodcomics
How would homosexual soldiers affect the other soldiers in these environments?

This is an interesting point, all it takes is one homophobe to be brushed past by a gay soldier and you have the recipe for some kind of sexual assault charge. Then surely this is also a problem in the navy, those aircraft carriers look very cramped.

What would the solution be though? Make all tank crews gay or straight, but not mixed? What about female tank crew? there shouldn't be a difference, and would only be a problem for people who actually fear gays or if the gay in question is makes a point of doing it and getting a thrill for it. But there are people like that who are straight too.




It's something as simple as dicipline, professionalism and proper leadership, the same as any work place except in the military it is often easier to enforce dicipline. It can be considered harassment and there are things you don't say in various situations.

In Macy*s Polo Pat would call Tie Ronald a queen but not in front of customers. “That's a queen's crown on his tie tack.”

There's even this thing called tact. I mean you don't runaround calling a black lesbian a n***** rug-muncher. I knew one senior NCO who called all women the c-word. His girlfriend understood that was the way he was. But he didn't do it around female military personnel or people's families.

I was civilly married to my wife by a mayor with all the appropriate paper work and not a clergyman in sight. Any two consenting adults who are not blood siblings or within the first degree of family relations should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual preference. (I think that's the legal phrase first cousins marrying) There's no reason in civil law as was ajudicated in California recently. In religion it's a matter of faith. The civil definition of marriage is different from the religious and a secular government has no business enforcing the religious definition. According to the state religious preference does not matter. There is no problem condoning homosexual marriage under strict interpretation of the Code Napoleon and US Constitution. To the state it is a legal contractural matter between two consenting adults not a union sanctioned by God and defined by God as a man and woman. The state has no interest in that outside of consenting adults without first degree blood relationships.

It's similar with adoption. Domestic non-sexual partners can adopt as can single parents like the classic maiden aunts. Why can't a couple who are the same gender? Merely because they have a sexual rather than platonic relationship? What difference does that make to the state? The suitability of enviornment the child goes into is what matters, not the sexual preference of those who provide the home.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:32AM
Genejoke at 12:42PM, Sept. 25, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,033
joined: 4-9-2010
Someone
In fact it is estimated that non consensual sex where a man is raped by a woman is more common but men are far far far less likely to admit it ever happened. Happened to me twice. In my experience women are more aware of what the word “no” means.

Really? never understood how a woman could rape a man, well without a strap on or something. For sex in the traditional sense surely if a man doesn't want it the equipment doesn't rise to the occasion. It's never happened to me, obviously.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:33PM
Blackhoodcomics at 12:55PM, Sept. 25, 2010
(online)
posts: 10
joined: 8-1-2010
bravo1102
Genejoke
Blackhoodcomics
How would homosexual soldiers affect the other soldiers in these environments?

This is an interesting point, all it takes is one homophobe to be brushed past by a gay soldier and you have the recipe for some kind of sexual assault charge. Then surely this is also a problem in the navy, those aircraft carriers look very cramped.

What would the solution be though? Make all tank crews gay or straight, but not mixed? What about female tank crew? there shouldn't be a difference, and would only be a problem for people who actually fear gays or if the gay in question is makes a point of doing it and getting a thrill for it. But there are people like that who are straight too.




I agree that tact and discipline goes a long way with solving most of the problems raised by Gays serving openly in the military, but honestly I don't know how it will play out. I went into the military in 1989 and the M60 had just been phased out for the M1. I was in three two different duty stations in my four years and went to four locations, and I don't know how my tank crew or any others would have responded to a Gay member of the crew. Hopefully we would have treated him with the same respect as everyone else.

It's something as simple as dicipline, professionalism and proper leadership, the same as any work place except in the military it is often easier to enforce dicipline. It can be considered harassment and there are things you don't say in various situations.

In Macy*s Polo Pat would call Tie Ronald a queen but not in front of customers. “That's a queen's crown on his tie tack.”

There's even this thing called tact. I mean you don't runaround calling a black lesbian a n***** rug-muncher. I knew one senior NCO who called all women the c-word. His girlfriend understood that was the way he was. But he didn't do it around female military personnel or people's families.

I was civilly married to my wife by a mayor with all the appropriate paper work and not a clergyman in sight. Any two consenting adults who are not blood siblings or within the first degree of family relations should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual preference. (I think that's the legal phrase first cousins marrying) There's no reason in civil law as was ajudicated in California recently. In religion it's a matter of faith. The civil definition of marriage is different from the religious and a secular government has no business enforcing the religious definition. According to the state religious preference does not matter. There is no problem condoning homosexual marriage under strict interpretation of the Code Napoleon and US Constitution. To the state it is a legal contractural matter between two consenting adults not a union sanctioned by God and defined by God as a man and woman. The state has no interest in that outside of consenting adults without first degree blood relationships.

It's similar with adoption. Domestic non-sexual partners can adopt as can single parents like the classic maiden aunts. Why can't a couple who are the same gender? Merely because they have a sexual rather than platonic relationship? What difference does that make to the state? The suitability of enviornment the child goes into is what matters, not the sexual preference of those who provide the home.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
Aurora Moon at 6:20PM, Sept. 25, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
ozoneocean
Should homosexual people be allowed too…
-serve openly in the armed forces?
-Mary their partner?
-Adopt children?
-Have children by a surrogate?
-become priests?

I say yes to all.

For the military, if an homosexual man feels uncomfortable around an gay man in situations like showering together, then he should ask to change places or times with somebody else for showering, etc. I believe that would solve most problems. And yes, they would have to have an class on what defines as sexual harrasement so that sexual harrasment suits don't fly around silly-nilly just because a gay man simply looked at an straight man.

I definitely believe that everyone should be able to marry whoever they want, as long as it's not animals, children or their own adult siblings/parents/offspring.
I'm so tired of hearing this excuse: “But, Gay people already have the same rights as straight people…. to marry the opposite sex! You're just giving them special rights that straight people won't have!”
seriously, that's the new excuse I'm hearing all the time now. To them I say:
“Not giving Gay people special rights. Civil rights are for EVERYONE, and Marriage is supposed to be all about LOVE. Civil Unions can be for straight, gay, bisexual or even pansexual people. so don't be stupid.”

For the whole children and priests issue… this kind of stems from that whole homosexuality equals pedophilia thing… which is a rather old-fashioned and completely wrong viewpoint.

So if a pedophile sexually assaults little girls, that makes him gay? golly, didn't know that. *rolls eyes*
There's a long running joke about priests and young choir boys, but young boys aren't the only targets that priests have gone after. there's been reports of prepubescent girls and teenage girls being raped by priests before.

So this basically tells us that most pedophiles and such in the church are equal offenders–they basically DON'T care about the gender of the children…
especially prepubescent children, since how young boys can look equally effeminate as girls, and girls can look rather boyish. so children basically look like they're genderless if you cover body parts until they start to develop.

so therefore pedophiles aren't picky about the gender itself… just which kid is more vurbable and is less likely to blab to other people that they got molested.

And add on to the fact that there have been studies done that shows that a majority of kids who had been raised by gay parents are very well-adjusted, etc.

so to prostete gays or ban gays from adopting/having kids/or working with kids based on this fear, is just ridiculous.

Genejoke
Someone
In fact it is estimated that non consensual sex where a man is raped by a woman is more common but men are far far far less likely to admit it ever happened. Happened to me twice. In my experience women are more aware of what the word “no” means.

Really? never understood how a woman could rape a man, well without a strap on or something. For sex in the traditional sense surely if a man doesn't want it the equipment doesn't rise to the occasion. It's never happened to me, obviously.

you never ever had an involuntary body reaction? where your body does something without your consent or without you meaning it to?

a lot of raped women often feel guilty or traumatized because their own body had an involuntary reaction… where the body orasgamsed or started leaking juices on it own as if she was aroused even though she was mentally repulsed by the whole thing.
so it's not just about the violation of their body, but also the fact that their own bodies betrayed them.

likewise that can be the same for a man. Some men even may feel like they “participated” in their own rape somehow because their own body parts became stiff thanks to the simulation, making it easier for the women to…. errm, ride them.
It's surprising how many men don't realize that getting an stiffy from forced simulation isn't the same thing as wanting somebody or something.

so they think: “I got an hard-on despite being frightened and or disgusted by this awful woman who was forcing this on me. Even though I was saying No or whatever, that meant a part of me really wanted it…. right? god, I hate myself.”

I hope that clears it up.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Faliat at 7:26PM, Sept. 25, 2010
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
Cheers for clearing that up for folks better than I ever could, Aurora.

How may blokes here have had spontaneous erections that have occured at very bad times? And the whole thinking about the fact they're about to have sex thing won't help whether it's consensual or not.


Anyway, I come from a very openly accepting background and therefore okay with everything on the list INCLUDING allowing gays into the priesthood.

I'm pretty disgusted by folks saying stuff about the priesthood being full of gays and being full of paedophiles anyway. That in my mind implies that they think all gay priests are paedos.

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
Rafen at 9:14AM, Sept. 26, 2010
(online)
posts: 13
joined: 11-8-2009
Ok you said

Oceanzone
This one is more and more in the news all the time.
Should homosexual people be allowed too…
-serve openly in the armed forces?
-Mary their partner?
-Adopt children?
-Have children by a surrogate?
-become priests?

A- yes, but no. For the States, who are desperatly trying to win the hearts and minds of people in the middle East, I'd say its far to early to make a call. Sorry, but if they change the rulings their only gonna make it harder for those troops in Afghanistan and Iraq(even though “combat operations” have ceased there). Being labeled as the “infidel crusader” is one thing, but if they change the “don't ask don't tell policy” it's only going to give opposing forces more “moral ammunition” to rise up and gain public support. Suffice to say I support it, but enacting such actions would further comprimise American soldiers and their missions at this time.

B- Yes and no, If you mean civil union yes, hell why not it's not our business is it? Religous marriage? Its an iffy issue, and again it's the concern of each religion, though I find it incredibly hypocrital and almost..and I say this with great care “homopromotional”.

C- No, I know that their are studies that claim that raising children in the homes of LG couples has no adverse effects, I've found (every study I can get my hands on, a majority of these “studies” are nigh inacessible to the public unless you want to buy a plane ticket) most, if not all are either:
-Non indepentant (i.e commisioned or enacted by rights groups and their affilates)
- To small scale, either in sample or timeframe (which if anyone with a diploma in statistics will tell you, makes it very likely to be biased)
- Quite obivously opinionated (either for or against)
Overall I'd say this “privelge” should not be given to singles (any orientation) or homosexual couples unless the child being adopted is from close family of a close family friend, in addition the child should be an appropiate age (12?).

D- Kinda rolls onto C, Generally I'd say if under “normal conditions” you couldn't procreate the traditional way then you shouldn't be able to period. I remain on this stance for a variety of reasons.
1, it is a perversion of natural order, can't argue against that
2, Assuming there is “gay gene” it would not be beneficial to pass it on, obviously.
3, The welfare of the child is still at stake, despite all the “studies” (which as I've said before are mostly unreliable or biased, LGBT parenting is a rather new social phenomenom and you simply can't gauge it's effects on a human being in such a short span of time, look at lead in petroleum for instance, it took us over half a century to realise its effects.) we still know very little of the effects of such an enviroment on children (good or bad). Even so there are clear studies (with over 50 years of solid research) that tell us about the positvie effects of having male ‘father“ and female ”mother“ role models, which you would be denying to the child.
4, ”billy’s weird“, a quote that may become more common. Suffice to say the child/ren may come under significant stress as they realise just how ”unconventional“ their parents are.
So in conclusion the Belief that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents, or that the psychosocial development of the children of gay and lesbian parents is compromised, have no basis in science. However in saying that the beleif that gay and lesbian adults are fit parents likewise has no actual basis on science. I know you might find it a bit ”biggot like“, and yes I have met and seen Gay and lesbian parents, whom all seemed nice enough (and tended to dote on their child) but I have also met ”children“ (more like teens and adults)produced from such homes, all of which I found their company ”weird" even if they did not mean it. That and several of them were gay (admittedly) which gave me doubts about the sustainablilty and moral convitions of allowing LGBT adults the privledge of having/adopting children.

Anyways, feel free to rebuttle, add to or just plain disagree. But at least read what I said….
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:59PM
Genejoke at 11:10AM, Sept. 26, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,033
joined: 4-9-2010
Someone
I'm pretty disgusted by folks saying stuff about the priesthood being full of gays and being full of paedophiles anyway. That in my mind implies that they think all gay priests are paedos.

Full of? No, Are they present, obviously on both counts. Much like how scout masters are often referred to as kiddy fiddlers they get tarnished by a few (speaking of paedophiles not gays). the jokes are based on fact even if the reality is nowhere near as wide spread as the jokes are.

As for the alleged gay paedo link… I was going to write assloads then I read Aurora moons comment and I have no need to add to it.

Someone
so they think: “I got an hard-on despite being frightened and or disgusted by this awful woman who was forcing this on me. Even though I was saying No or whatever, that meant a part of me really wanted it…. right? god, I hate myself.”

I guess, I just can't imagine saying no to sex ;P
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:33PM
Aurora Moon at 12:04PM, Sept. 26, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Genejoke
I guess, I just can't imagine saying no to sex ;P

even when the woman in question looks like this?


Lol.

I think that face would give anybody a heart attack, especially if they slept on a sofa and then woke up to find THAT riding them.

And even if the woman in question wasn't ugly, there's still the issue of AIDs and such.

say you already have a girlfriend or a wife, and you want to stay faithful right? and add on to the fact that you don't believe in unprotected sex because of all those sexual diseases going around.

so if you fell asleep at somebody else's house on the sofa after a party…. and you woke up to some strange woman who you don't know having sex with your body like you were nothing but a sex toy–you'd feel pretty damn upset, right?

esepically if you know there's been stories of people deliberately sleeping around with other people in order to spread AIDS after having contacted the disease. and you don't know if she could be one of those people.

So even you say you would never pass up sex there's obviously going to be times when you don't want to have sex with certain women, even if they want to have sex with you. Since you would have standards when it came to women…. such as the fact that you proably wouldn't have sex with somebody who would be old enough to be your grandma, or something like that.

Stuff about priests and Boy scout troops

Yeah, there's plenty of good people in those organizations.

Unfortunately, those types of organizations are very easy to exploit because they didn't have appropriate security measures in place to combat people abusing their positions.

look at the history here, shall we?

The boy scouts thought that not letting gay people in would be enough to combat pedophiles from coming in, and then didn't even have a system in place to ensure that an adult wouldn't be left alone with the children.
so when they discovered that pedophiles were still getting in somehow (*rolls eyes*) you know what they did?
They basically did the same thing as the church– they kept things quiet by just simply dismissing the men instead of arresting them, or relocated those guys somewhere where they thought the guys would have no contact with children.
only for it to start all over again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35944804/

Likewise, the Church also had similar rules in place that did absolutely nothing. And like the Boyscouts, they tried to cover it up most likely because they were ashamed that they weren't able to prevent things from going on.

Of course, both organizations today have finally wisened up and are putting more sensible and better rules and restrictions in place. They no longer allow anybody to be alone with children and teenagers anymore, and more importantly ensure that any adults who shares an friendship with each other isn't able to cover up for each other.

such organizations' reputations suffered because of their stupidity, but at least they learned their lesson and is finally getting better about it.

Unfortunately, sometimes good people need to suffer a little bit in order for them to learn an lesson like that. it shouldn't have to happen but it does.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
blindsk at 3:27PM, Sept. 26, 2010
(online)
posts: 560
joined: 5-5-2010
Similar to ozone's prior stance, I would've naively said no to all of these points five years ago. But as the government should not intervene in religious/spiritual beliefs, I too put my own beliefs aside and instead consider each of these as rights. Just because I don't agree with it, doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to participate in the same functions that I do. But breaking them down even further…

Armed Forces
I've never seen a problem allowing homosexual individuals to serve in a military function. The arguments against this have always been weak at best, and never well-founded. Actually, as far as horror stories go, I've heard more of them coming from the few women serving in uniform, so I honestly think this is more of an issue to address.

Marriage
When it comes to civil unions, that's a big yes. I think everyone can agree on this one by this point. Religious marriages is where things turn sour, and I don't believe the issue of a right should be thrown around loosely here. To me, homosexual marriage under the sanction of a religious group is really their decision as to whether to facilitate it or not. If they claim it infringes on their beliefs, then so be it. It isn't until that religious group starts committing criminal acts against that it should start to raise some community awareness.

Adopt Children
The people against this seem to come from the notion that homosexual couples can't function as a family units. I disagree. Their relationship is not much different from a heterosexual one, save for the genders. Both partners are entirely capable of filling the necessary roles a child would need. And you can't say men are an exception - there are heterosexual relationships that function well with the men staying at home with the kids.

Have Children
Again, this shouldn't be an issue either. People try to make the psychological argument in this circumstance that the child will turn gay under gay parents. This seems hugely controversial, because what turns someone homosexual anyway? Is it a lifestyle choice or an innate trait? Using the same logic of the naysayers, if heterosexual parents raised a child, then shouldn't they indefinitely be heterosexual? The arguments against this never made sense to me.

Become Priests
Seems to depend on the religion, once again. I don't thing the priest should have to hide their sexual preference, either. It's really up to the congregation or whatever presiding jurisdiction they have. I mean, some religions will strictly banish members that practice nothing but monogamy. Even priests must follow this guideline. If the church happens to also oppose homosexuals, then that priest should take their practice elsewhere.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:25AM
ayesinback at 4:44PM, Sept. 26, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,003
joined: 8-23-2010
blindsk
Similar to ozone's prior stance, I would've naively said no to all of these points five years ago. …
Armed Forces
I've never seen a problem allowing homosexual individuals to serve in a military function. The arguments against this have always been weak at best, and never well-founded. Actually, as far as horror stories go, I've heard more of them coming from the few women serving in uniform, so I honestly think this is more of an issue to address.
The question as I understood it was not whether homosexuals should have the right to serve in the military, but whether they have the right to serve openly.

I agree with the majority that they have the right to serve and should be welcomed. As far as “the right” to serve openly, I agree that they should have this right, BUT, in the context of what the military is and how it operates, I continue to hold reservations about the sensibility and pragmatism of encouraging homosexuals to be open about their sexual preference while they serve.

It's about safety for the individuals and the corresponding efficiency of what the service is about. I'm not imagining that gay soldiers/sailors/etc. are any less physically able to protect themselves, but things “happen”, and can happen ugly.

My husband was in the navy. His ship would go out for 3 or 6 month tours and, at least twice, it so happened that not everyone who went out came back. And with the Navy, the ocean makes a very convenient place to hide things you want to keep hidden. “No one” knew what happened. The missing were reported to families as “missing”. I have no idea if these guys were gay or not, but they were unpopular. And when no one is a witness, just what kind of disciplinary action do you think happens?

I embrace Should because it is the direction we need to work toward, but it's critical to realize where things are Now so we can get to where we want to be without causing irreconcilable “collateral”.
under new management
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:14AM
blindsk at 6:25PM, Sept. 26, 2010
(online)
posts: 560
joined: 5-5-2010
ayesinback
The question as I understood it was not whether homosexuals should have the right to serve in the military, but whether they have the right to serve openly.

I see now. And after reading your post, I definitely wouldn't be qualified to make a statement on their warrant to serve openly. It seems there's a lot more to it than the simple outsiders perspective to this issue. I would also want to say that they should be able to openly serve, but if there are easy ways for the opposition to exploit this, then this serves as a very tricky situation to determine a “correct” decision.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:25AM
isukun at 12:33PM, Sept. 30, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
1, it is a perversion of natural order, can't argue against that

Actually, you can. In the case of adoption, it is simply our social nature and raising children who are otherwise unwanted is beneficial to us as a species. In the case of having children through sperm donations or surrogates, it is us using our superior knowledge of biology to help propogate the species. Claiming that our actions go against the natural order is to suggest that we are somehow above or separate from nature. Greater intelligence and the ability to formulate a complex system of linguistics is what gives us our edge in the natural world and just like other animals, we use our natural talents to survive and breed.

2, Assuming there is “gay gene” it would not be beneficial to pass it on, obviously.

With the direction our population is going in, I would have to disagree. If such a gene existed (which I doubt), it would have existed for at least the whole of recorded history and yet our species continues to grow in population, to the point of over-expansion. A genetic excuse to control our population would be a good thing.

3, The welfare of the child is still at stake, despite all the “studies”

The problem I have with your argument against the studies is that the opposition to gays adopting and having children is still pretty prevalent, yet they are not fudging the numbers to create similarly “biased” studies. Considering the money they have behind them, I find it really hard to believe they wouldn't try. After all, they were the ones who funded most of the studies which tried to prove homosexual behavior was a mental illness. And which studies are you referring to which specifically state children are best off with a male father and female mother. Most I've seen simply state that having both a father and mother role is beneficial, although the genders of each doesn't matter. In addition, they also state that having one without the other has less of an impact on the kid than having neither. Supporting an outdated sense of family values really doesn't make much sense in this modern world, anyway. Kids rarely get both a traditional father and mother. Divorce and single parents are incredibly common cases, plus it has pretty much become the norm now that both parents work in modern families. Also, the alternative in the case of adoption is kids getting bumped from foster home to foster home and never having a dedicated mother OR father. How is THAT a step up from having two dedicated gay parents?

4, “billy's weird”, a quote that may become more common.

And it's still a weak argument. It won't be any more common than it already is. Kids are spiteful, self-centered little monsters who totally lack in empathy. That's not a reason to limit certain people from having kids. As I asked above, should we also make any person with an embarassing job sterile? Funny name? Fat people? Or any other superficial criteria on account of the possibility kids might pick up on a variance in their behavior or tease them due to their family members?

but I have also met “children” (more like teens and adults)produced from such homes, all of which I found their company “weird” even if they did not mean it.

So have I, and most seemed pretty normal to me. Most of the “weirdos” I've met were products of “traditional” families.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
ayesinback at 2:30PM, Sept. 30, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,003
joined: 8-23-2010
Rather related was a local/national news event that occurred yesterday.

The report holds that a university (Rutgers) freshman jumped off a bridge to commit suicide because his dorm roommate/s (not sure) taped his lovemaking with a guy and then uploaded it to the net.

My personal reaction to this story, in addition to sadness, is that it's fine to speculate on what gays want, but it's hard to really know and understand if you're not gay.

Certainly, obviously, Everyone is entitled to privacy. But there are plenty of cases where humiliating events have been web-distributed without subsequent suicides. Reactions are individually based, but are some populations more vulnerable than others? Does pushing a certain button cause more effect for some populations than others?

The question itself forms an exclusionary stance, but I don't know. For example, there have been many impassioned and eloquent women who've talked about what women want to the point that it makes me question my own gender identity.
under new management
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:14AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved