OT: Gay Marriage

[NotCranky]

Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).

[CA renter]

Dan,

Got it, and agree with your first point.

Can’t really say what they should do in the second.

My point was that it’s more complex than some people are making it out to be, and that those who favor DADT aren’t necessarily “anti-gay” or bigoted rednecks, etc.

[CA renter]

Dan,

Got it, and agree with your first point.

Can’t really say what they should do in the second.

My point was that it’s more complex than some people are making it out to be, and that those who favor DADT aren’t necessarily “anti-gay” or bigoted rednecks, etc.

[CA renter]

Dan,

Got it, and agree with your first point.

Can’t really say what they should do in the second.

My point was that it’s more complex than some people are making it out to be, and that those who favor DADT aren’t necessarily “anti-gay” or bigoted rednecks, etc.

[CA renter]

Dan,

Got it, and agree with your first point.

Can’t really say what they should do in the second.

My point was that it’s more complex than some people are making it out to be, and that those who favor DADT aren’t necessarily “anti-gay” or bigoted rednecks, etc.

[CA renter]

Dan,

Got it, and agree with your first point.

Can’t really say what they should do in the second.

My point was that it’s more complex than some people are making it out to be, and that those who favor DADT aren’t necessarily “anti-gay” or bigoted rednecks, etc.

[NotCranky]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).[/quote]
Thanks for the comments, Dan.

I think you keep missing the privacy issue and that every straight male is not you…or AFX, who as far as I know have never been in the military…as a young individual especially(yeah, I hate to pull that one). The concern for harassment is not hypocritical. The source of concern comes from the homosexuality.
A gay man in a gym is less of a threat because if he creeps you out you go home and take a shower. Gay housing would be worse because it would result in extreme cases of personal loyalty and split group loyalities. It’s supposed to be one tribe,one flag one country and unit.

Yes, it pretty universally said to be average to have at least weak homosexual impulse at some point in ones life.The question in not fleeting experience that never leads to anything or happens on a whim but is not a prevalent feature.The military has been aware of this phenomena forever. The question is difficutly, and often times failure, at being non-romantic/sexually involved in a military enviornment or important portions of it.Coming out kind of shows that a person is not in the 100%straight or fleeting notion category. Of course, that leaves 90% or more of people either pretty non-sexual or wanting something with the opposite sex. The benefit of the doubt is given to separation of men and women in important personal territories such as sleeping and showering facilities. In fairness to straight males in the military, I don’t think it matters if the outs are only 1%.

As to the voluntary nature of the military, I think you miss huge aspects of the military/human experience. It is voluntary in a sense (currently) but it is also deeply rooted in tribalism and all the things that come with performance within that ….Should we say all human characteristics that incite volunterism and benefit from it, should take a back seat to preference to let a sub-group have their way?

Banishment is not a solution to harassment it would be a protection to avery sensitive region of the social /cultural enviornment . Some could even say “I could give crap less about how it effects the mission” not having them here certainly doesn’t hurt it”. Or….another lame argument could be me sleeping and showering with the women doesn’t hurt the mission so shut them up about it already. I personally couldn’t be in that position without,getting some or losing my mind if I was supposed to hide who I am. I don’t think 90% of men could(I suppose we could be condition by threat of harm to do so,maybe a dishonorable discharge?. Why should someone who is uncomfortable with people who are avowed fans of male on male sex, stuff their doubts that gays can avoid romantic relationships between themselves or make unwanted overtures, especially when there is evidence that they can’t?

How can anyone say the whole thing isn’t enforcing a double standard?

[NotCranky]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).[/quote]
Thanks for the comments, Dan.

I think you keep missing the privacy issue and that every straight male is not you…or AFX, who as far as I know have never been in the military…as a young individual especially(yeah, I hate to pull that one). The concern for harassment is not hypocritical. The source of concern comes from the homosexuality.
A gay man in a gym is less of a threat because if he creeps you out you go home and take a shower. Gay housing would be worse because it would result in extreme cases of personal loyalty and split group loyalities. It’s supposed to be one tribe,one flag one country and unit.

Yes, it pretty universally said to be average to have at least weak homosexual impulse at some point in ones life.The question in not fleeting experience that never leads to anything or happens on a whim but is not a prevalent feature.The military has been aware of this phenomena forever. The question is difficutly, and often times failure, at being non-romantic/sexually involved in a military enviornment or important portions of it.Coming out kind of shows that a person is not in the 100%straight or fleeting notion category. Of course, that leaves 90% or more of people either pretty non-sexual or wanting something with the opposite sex. The benefit of the doubt is given to separation of men and women in important personal territories such as sleeping and showering facilities. In fairness to straight males in the military, I don’t think it matters if the outs are only 1%.

As to the voluntary nature of the military, I think you miss huge aspects of the military/human experience. It is voluntary in a sense (currently) but it is also deeply rooted in tribalism and all the things that come with performance within that ….Should we say all human characteristics that incite volunterism and benefit from it, should take a back seat to preference to let a sub-group have their way?

Banishment is not a solution to harassment it would be a protection to avery sensitive region of the social /cultural enviornment . Some could even say “I could give crap less about how it effects the mission” not having them here certainly doesn’t hurt it”. Or….another lame argument could be me sleeping and showering with the women doesn’t hurt the mission so shut them up about it already. I personally couldn’t be in that position without,getting some or losing my mind if I was supposed to hide who I am. I don’t think 90% of men could(I suppose we could be condition by threat of harm to do so,maybe a dishonorable discharge?. Why should someone who is uncomfortable with people who are avowed fans of male on male sex, stuff their doubts that gays can avoid romantic relationships between themselves or make unwanted overtures, especially when there is evidence that they can’t?

How can anyone say the whole thing isn’t enforcing a double standard?

[NotCranky]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).[/quote]
Thanks for the comments, Dan.

I think you keep missing the privacy issue and that every straight male is not you…or AFX, who as far as I know have never been in the military…as a young individual especially(yeah, I hate to pull that one). The concern for harassment is not hypocritical. The source of concern comes from the homosexuality.
A gay man in a gym is less of a threat because if he creeps you out you go home and take a shower. Gay housing would be worse because it would result in extreme cases of personal loyalty and split group loyalities. It’s supposed to be one tribe,one flag one country and unit.

Yes, it pretty universally said to be average to have at least weak homosexual impulse at some point in ones life.The question in not fleeting experience that never leads to anything or happens on a whim but is not a prevalent feature.The military has been aware of this phenomena forever. The question is difficutly, and often times failure, at being non-romantic/sexually involved in a military enviornment or important portions of it.Coming out kind of shows that a person is not in the 100%straight or fleeting notion category. Of course, that leaves 90% or more of people either pretty non-sexual or wanting something with the opposite sex. The benefit of the doubt is given to separation of men and women in important personal territories such as sleeping and showering facilities. In fairness to straight males in the military, I don’t think it matters if the outs are only 1%.

As to the voluntary nature of the military, I think you miss huge aspects of the military/human experience. It is voluntary in a sense (currently) but it is also deeply rooted in tribalism and all the things that come with performance within that ….Should we say all human characteristics that incite volunterism and benefit from it, should take a back seat to preference to let a sub-group have their way?

Banishment is not a solution to harassment it would be a protection to avery sensitive region of the social /cultural enviornment . Some could even say “I could give crap less about how it effects the mission” not having them here certainly doesn’t hurt it”. Or….another lame argument could be me sleeping and showering with the women doesn’t hurt the mission so shut them up about it already. I personally couldn’t be in that position without,getting some or losing my mind if I was supposed to hide who I am. I don’t think 90% of men could(I suppose we could be condition by threat of harm to do so,maybe a dishonorable discharge?. Why should someone who is uncomfortable with people who are avowed fans of male on male sex, stuff their doubts that gays can avoid romantic relationships between themselves or make unwanted overtures, especially when there is evidence that they can’t?

How can anyone say the whole thing isn’t enforcing a double standard?

[NotCranky]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Russell]Correction:
I did know of one blanket party. The straights and gays were beating up someone who wouldn’t shower….I pressume it was because he was stinky.[/quote]

@CAR
2 points:
1:
My reference to gender segregation (which I obviously failed to make) was to point out that gender is a relatively easier line of cleavage than preference.
I was not speaking to the motivation but to the feasibility.
Its pretty easy to determine who is a man and who is a woman.
There is a very, very tiny percentage whose category is unclear.
That is not the case with sex-preference.
The percentage who self-identify as gay is less than 10%.
The total percentage of people who self-identify as straight that have had (or are curious about) some same-sex sexual experience is much larger.
The percentage of people who have had some level of attraction to members of the same gender is larger still (like every single boy who ever watched “Labyrinth”).
It is unclear where you would draw the line here.
Do you ban every cast member of “girls gone wild”?
The point is that unlike gender segregation, there is far more gray area and far less true black or white.

Point 2:

I think that the concern over harassment is a somewhat hypocritical.
We don’t ban gays from gyms in nominally “straight” neighborhoods.
We don’t keep lesbians off the nude beaches (thank god).
All of these situations are voluntary.
No soldiers are forced into service anymore.
Further, how is banishment ever a solution for harassment?
If, as you seem to imply, the solutions should be modeled on current gender segregation practices, would you then be in favor of separate gay-only units or housing?

Note: Sorry for not addressing AFX, Rustico, or Brian. I agree with AFX, am embarrassed by Brian, and find Rustico more nuanced and thoughtful (though I still disagree).[/quote]
Thanks for the comments, Dan.

I think you keep missing the privacy issue and that every straight male is not you…or AFX, who as far as I know have never been in the military…as a young individual especially(yeah, I hate to pull that one). The concern for harassment is not hypocritical. The source of concern comes from the homosexuality.
A gay man in a gym is less of a threat because if he creeps you out you go home and take a shower. Gay housing would be worse because it would result in extreme cases of personal loyalty and split group loyalities. It’s supposed to be one tribe,one flag one country and unit.

Yes, it pretty universally said to be average to have at least weak homosexual impulse at some point in ones life.The question in not fleeting experience that never leads to anything or happens on a whim but is not a prevalent feature.The military has been aware of this phenomena forever. The question is difficutly, and often times failure, at being non-romantic/sexually involved in a military enviornment or important portions of it.Coming out kind of shows that a person is not in the 100%straight or fleeting notion category. Of course, that leaves 90% or more of people either pretty non-sexual or wanting something with the opposite sex. The benefit of the doubt is given to separation of men and women in important personal territories such as sleeping and showering facilities. In fairness to straight males in the military, I don’t think it matters if the outs are only 1%.

As to the voluntary nature of the military, I think you miss huge aspects of the military/human experience. It is voluntary in a sense (currently) but it is also deeply rooted in tribalism and all the things that come with performance within that ….Should we say all human characteristics that incite volunterism and benefit from it, should take a back seat to preference to let a sub-group have their way?

Banishment is not a solution to harassment it would be a protection to avery sensitive region of the social /cultural enviornment . Some could even say “I could give crap less about how it effects the mission” not having them here certainly doesn’t hurt it”. Or….another lame argument could be me sleeping and showering with the women doesn’t hurt the mission so shut them up about it already. I personally couldn’t be in that position without,getting some or losing my mind if I was supposed to hide who I am. I don’t think 90% of men could(I suppose we could be condition by threat of harm to do so,maybe a dishonorable discharge?. Why should someone who is uncomfortable with people who are avowed fans of male on male sex, stuff their doubts that gays can avoid romantic relationships between themselves or make unwanted overtures, especially when there is evidence that they can’t?

How can anyone say the whole thing isn’t enforcing a double standard?

[Author]

Posts