Gay Recruits Now Welcome. Sort of.

Same old. Same old.

The ARMY just keeps getting worse and less respectable, and in the eyes of our enemies, I’m sure, less of a “force to be reckoned with”.
Those in charge can not even deal swiftly with “one of their own” who guns down a baker’s dozen on a Texas military base. The “standards” keep falling as the previous ones are ignored or are no longer enforced. The “command” has no conviction, no guts and NO BALLS. We should all join a “tribe” and laugh and ignore the military like the “thugs” from Mexico who taunt our “authority” inside our own border. We are no longer “In it to win”, folks…

In what to win what?

Please “explain” how you “choose” to “use” “quotation marks”.

We already lowered our standards. The Bush administration was so scared of the icky gays and lesbians that they allowed in more high school dropouts, more criminals, and more overweight and old recruits.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/14military.html
.
Letting gays in will raise our standards, not lower them.
.
It’s a radical move that has only been matched by the militaries of Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United Kingdom.
.
I haven’t noticed the terrorists dismissing the Israeli army because they allow gays to serve openly. Putin’s military seems to be feared enough too. And as President Bush said during the Iraq war, don’t forget Poland.

“Letting gays in will raise our standards, not lower them.”
.
Not that you meant it that way but gays are already serving.

Of course. Nice correction.

Does anyone really think that gays being allowed to serve openly isn’t close? They may as well fight the tide. An even better idea is for them to fight to make pot legal so that they have something to calm their simple asses down.

“Does anyone really think that gays being allowed to serve openly isn’t close?…”
.
You could write the same paragraph about same sex marriage.
.
And they know it.
.
Alienate African Americans, Latinos, Asians, gays, etc and you are left with rallying (by any means that can work for at least one cycle) the shrinking, aging, white base.
.
Thus, the Tea Party.

In reference to yesterday’s discussion which was left unsettled, I’m going to take this opportunity to expand upon a few things given the relevance of this post to that. Several of you stressed the opinion that describing homosexuality as a “lifestyle” is a disparaging mischaracterization. I’d like to respond to that. Now, I do understand that hyperbole and extreme accusations are the mainstay tactics immediately used to attack anyone who offers up anything short of a loyalty oath to the gay community. I understand I’m going up against “After the Ball” loyalists. Yet, I’d like to take a stab at this and perhaps, at the very least, get some of you to think outside the PC box for a moment, if for no other reason than for you to understand a rivaling position, not necessarily agree with it.
.
Patrick, you for one seemed especially adamant that no one chooses their sexuality. You offered your own personal coming-of-age anecdote about when you first realized you liked girls. Presumably, you are therefore not gay, so it would therefore stand to reason that you couldn’t say for certain what that experience might be like for someone gay, yes? So, what evidence is there that homosexuality is definitively innate? Kinsey argued, and studied, the idea that we are all sexually attracted to men and women to varying degrees. Therefore no one is strictly heterosexual or homosexual, we just follow our tastes. Behavior and personality are, by and large, a product of upbring and environment, that is nurture rather than nature. Could homosexuals simply be engaging in an expression of their personalities? We all choose what we say, how we dress, what we listen to, whether or not we have tattoos, etc. There are two prominent personas, the one that seeks to fit in and live according to tradition and norms, and the one that seeks to go against the grain, the counter-culture persona. Why is that in high school, for example, there are significantly more homosexuals amidst the alternative lifestyle types, the emos, the goths, and theater-types? Is homosexuality expressive? Could Kinsey have been on to something? If I had a different personality, one more primed to break norms, one less nurtured to uphold traditions, could I be comfortable experiencing the bounds of sexual preference? We all recognize attractiveness in people, be they men or women. Under a differing upbringing, with a different personality, who is to say that I wouldn’t explore this line and develop a personal preference? Just something to think about.

“Now, I do understand that hyperbole and extreme accusations are the mainstay tactics immediately used to attack anyone who offers up anything short of a loyalty oath to the gay community.”
.
Hyperbole is used to “attack anyone who offers up anything short of a loyalty oath to the gay community”.
.
Don’t ever change Neo.

That wasn’t hyperbole, Paul. You and I both know that even the most tepid criticism of homosexuality, even the slightest hint of skepticism is framed as unabashed bigotry.

You’re right.
.
“Loyalty oath!” has long been the battle cry.

Yes, loyal to the cause, loyal to the agenda.

So, what evidence is there that homosexuality is definitively innate?

The fact that gays soldier on being gay in spite of the severe recriminations they experience (particularly during adolescence) is pretty much proof positive.

When did you ‘decide’ to not find fire hydrants sexy?

What is so hard about saying “I used hyperbole to make a point”?
.
Odd semantic point to dig your heels in over.

You’re joking, right? You’re saying that people don’t engage in willing behavior that evokes negative responses from people in society? Is being Mormon innate? Is being a Scientologist innate? Jewish (practicing)? Catholic? Gothic? Emo? Nerdy? There are infinite examples of religious beliefs, personality traits, trends, fashions, activities, etc. (all choices) that people engage in or believe in that they continue to do despite ridicule, humiliation, and even death. That homosexuals are often taunted and ridiculed, and occasionally physically harmed, is absolutely no way evident of homosexuality being a genetic trait.

I’d normally have no qualms with using hyperbole to make a point against hyperbole. In this instance, I only used the slightest of exaggeration in making my point.

Next?

So not hyperbole but “the slightest of exaggeration”.
.
I withdraw my accusation of semantics.

Thank you, Paul. There is also significant evidence that homosexuality is at least partially caused by inherent (genetic, prenatal, or otherwise unalterable) causes.
http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch16_sfl/what_causes_homosexuality.html
-
and
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=29692&cn=10
-
This site tries desperately to make a case for nurture, and just ends up admitting that most of these causes are weak. It also gives some good reasons for inherentcy.
http://isocrat.org/science/causes/causes.php#natu
-

Haha. I enjoy arguing with you, PNNTO.

That homosexuals are often taunted and ridiculed, and occasionally physically harmed, is absolutely no way evident of homosexuality being a genetic trait.
-
Except, of course, of that it kinda is. It’s one thing to some something that society frowns upon. It’s another thing entirely to do something that can get you killed.
Do you honestly think that people would choose to put themselves at risk for, among other things, death, for the sake of personal pleasure?

Argue. Discuss.
.
Same thing in the best of worlds.

I think you’re grossly overestimating the physical risk factor for being homosexual. Overwhelmingly, people are all talk. There is something to be said, though, about the victimhood complex. It’s a powerful motivator for a lot of people. Walk into a high school and look at the number of kids being picked on for being “different.” Take homosexuals out of the mix, the kids still continue doing what they do, acting like they act, and dressing like they dress all the while knowing full well that each day will bring more of the same ridicule. There is almost a culture of victimhood that binds them with other “different” kids. I know for a fact that many of these kids thrive on being outcasts. It’s part of who they see themselves as.

“Walk into a high school and look at the number of kids being picked on for being “different.” Take homosexuals out of the mix, the kids still continue doing what they do, acting like they act, and dressing like they dress all the while knowing full well that each day will bring more of the same ridicule. There is almost a culture of victimhood that binds them with other “different” kids.”
.
“Take homosexuals out of the mix”
.
Aren’t you making the point that gays do have it harder?

I think you’re grossly overestimating the physical risk factor for being homosexual
-
I think you’re clueless about the worldwide and historical punishments for homosexuality.
-
http://www.truth-out.org/us-funds-life-imprisonment-forced-labor-and-death-penalty-for-gays60791
-
Historically, the punishments for homosexuality were far more common and severe, including castration and execution. Wikipedia has a list, not all of which have a history of prosecuting homosexuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law
-
In Europe, historically, punishments included castration, torture. and execution
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A7715315
-
patrick may only have been arguing about gays in America (though he didn’t explicitly say so). Whether he was or not, his argument holds true from an international and historical perspective.

No, I was trying to make the point that people do engage in willing behavior knowing negative backlash will follow. I specifically left out homosexuality, because that is the focal point of our debate. I was listing other examples that would counter the argument that people wouldn’t continue to do things that would put them at risk.

he fact that gays soldier on being gay in spite of the severe recriminations they experience (particularly during adolescence) is pretty much proof positive.
Essentially, I was trying to demonstrate this argument to be specious.

I would suggest there is “at risk” and there is “at risk”
.
Maybe not the same for gays and Emo.

Neo, let’s try a little thought experiment. Imagine youself having sex with another man. Isn’t there something a little more potent that “what will the neighbors think?” that prevents you from experiencing that as desirable. Now imagine that that’s your actual response to women. If you give it any honest thought whatsoever, you will realize that your sexual preferences aren’t a matter of choice either.

You’re saying that people don’t engage in willing behavior that evokes negative responses from people in society? Is being Mormon innate? Is being a Scientologist innate? Jewish (practicing)? Catholic? Gothic? Emo? Nerdy?
.
And now that we realize that discriminating against Mormons, Jews, nerds, etc., is wrong, we can extend the lesson out to include gays?
.
Is that what you were going for?

I dont know for sure what the case is. However, contrary to popular opinion, nor do you, Paul. Neither of these views are extreme.

Oh, snap! You nailed me, Cliff, see, ’cause I was advocating discriminating against gays and now I walked myself into a hole!

I’m off to bed. I just want to say, if you’re interested in having a discussion with those with whom you disagree, that is something very productive. It’s a positive desire. If you’d rather misrepresent your opposition’s view, if you’d rather extend extreme views to them rather than address the points specifically made, then you’re clearly well-versed in “After the Ball” and unworthy of my time.

Well, I missed the part of the conversation that took place on the other thread, so this was a knee-jerk reaction on my part.
.
Is this discussion in relation to DADT, or is it a discussion of choice vs. genetics for its own sake?

Exiled, I confess I have posted the following video several times. I would like you to watch it and tell me this man chose to be gay. He speaks of his life experience. Is there anything that suggests he would choose to be gay? Listen to the testimony of young people taking their lives. Do you suppose they felt they had a choice?
.

.
I will continue to post this video on occasion because it is the most moving testimony I have seen of a brave gay person speaking out.

“Loose Lips Might Sink Careers”

Or worse.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/lies-on-the-horizon/

Your not going to tell me next that you think evolution is a matter of opinion??!!

Good discussion, mostly. Is that what scared off our rightie friends?