User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you think passing this legislation will truly help?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I think it's a step in the right direction.

    14 51.85%
  • Yes, but it's only the tip of what really needs to be done.

    10 37.04%
  • No, this this repeal is gilded.

    0 0%
  • I don't care either way if it's repealed or not.

    3 11.11%
First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 54

  1. #31
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    There are a lot of stupid things thrown into this debate, not least of which there are a lot of bitter attempts at ridicule of what one or the other side of the discussion may suppose the others views are, your previous post is one example, I dont think that's helpful to a real and meaningful discussion on what is going to be best for the military and service men and women.
    It looks like you have no idea what you're talking about on this issue. You're arguing concepts and don't seem to know any details on a very context specific issue. Maybe you should stick to Euro issues.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #32
    / nonsequitur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    512 sp/so
    Posts
    1,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I know that gay identity is this whole other thing comprising myriad conflicts and complexes whereas most heterosexuals just experience that orientation and get on with their lives, never marching about it, partying about it or requiring a whole series of reinforcement, encouragement, support or anything like that remain convinced of themselves. Is that what you mean? Sorry but could be difficult to fight a war if it interfers with pink tuesdays and a parade around the destroyers deck to provide sufficient evidence of support of a particular sexual orientation or sexual behaviour.

    Then what if despite every single rule and regulation to the contrary someone fails to make someone feel accepted because of the private details of their private lives? The forces going to be protected against all the lawsuits that could be mobilised in that inevitable scenario?
    My 2-year-old post from prop 8 on rights that still applies: http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...089#post399089

    That is the reason why there are marches and parades. That is the reason why something that you deem to be a "private detail" of an individual's life is celebrated. It's to show that despite being treated as a 2nd-class citizen by the state compared to heterosexuals, you are proud of who you are and would not change a thing.

    As for being rejected in the military because of homophobia leading to lawsuits - it's ALREADY against the law to discriminate based on sexual orientation in civil society i.e. jobs. The reason why this is being compared to discrimination by race or sex is because it is THE SAME THING. Except that - oh, I guess you can't hide your skin colour or sex - oh wait, multi-racial people ALREADY DID THAT back in the '60s if they could. Asking people to "not ask and not tell" is like telling those children from multi-racial marriages to pretend that both of their parents were white so that they could be hired by the US military.

    This gets me so worked up, and I'm not even personally invested in it. Gays were always the first group of people to be marginalised in any society, and the first to be attacked/exterminated. It's just not fair. Repealing DADT is something that should've happened a long time ago. I'm STILL for gay marriage, gay kids, gay divorce, gay anti-discrimination laws, and even the whole heap of frivolous lawsuits that it could potentially bring. Because for me, the rights of the individual, the effect that it would have on lives and equality are far more important than it being "troublesome" to the state.

    BTW Lark, as one of the 9 out of 10 biologists that Kasper mentioned, I can tell you that she was obviously being sarcastic.

  3. #33
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    I'll be interested to see how things change if it passes. For instance, if men and women have separate showers/bays/etc. wouldn't the straight and gay soldiers need separate ones for the same reasons?
    My issue with all that is that gay people have been dealing just fine for decades in public bathrooms and rest areas and spas and wherever else... so here we go with heterocentric bias again.

    1. Do people realize how often they are in the bathroom with a gay or lesbian, and no harm is done? This is just the Way of Things for YEARS.
    2. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you think everyone of your gender is attractive, just as hets do not think everyone of the opposite gender is attractive.
    3. Hets are allowed to mingle with members of the opposite sex in every area of life, without people expecting them to not feel levels of attraction -- the standard social policy is that it's fine, and you just deal with it and act appropriately, and often people never know.
    4. Gay men are under so much threat of being beaten up, especially in a military setting, do we think they'd actually want to be looking at their comrades like that or would even go there?
    5. Men are fine with allowing themselves to basically undress women in their minds and do all manner of crazy shit to our images without us ever knowing about it -- how would we know? -- yet they get weirded out at the thought of someone else doing this to them? I just want to say "grow up, and be fair."

    The list goes on and on in just how unrealistic a lot of the fears are, and from what I understand, the Pentagon report stated from a practical perspective there was no realistic issue that couldn't be dealt with just by people actually just dealing and not working themselves up. It also stinks as to how over the last fifteen years the military really didn't even follow DADT, they actively sought out gay people and would grill suspected gay people, placing them in a quandary of maintaining their integrity vs being able to continue to honor their commitment to their country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm a democrat, aswell as a socialist, so I generally think that the individuals being asked to make sacrifices and expend especial personal resources should have a greater say in decisions effecting them than random others so I could understand why a group of soldiers would wish to exclude or include homosexuals from their battle groups, they may be perturbed about a close fraternal bond, the kind associated with individuals being willing to sacrifice their very lives for one another, being misconstrued as sexual attraction or affection.

    There are a lot of stupid things thrown into this debate, not least of which there are a lot of bitter attempts at ridicule of what one or the other side of the discussion may suppose the others views are, your previous post is one example, I dont think that's helpful to a real and meaningful discussion on what is going to be best for the military and service men and women.

    I'm sorry but this again to me appears like an attempt at grievance finding by a certain set and subset of political agitators rather than a serious dialogue of any sort, the military are probably extremely sensible to be taking a blanket ban approach to it as a consequence, otherwise they could be inviting individuals with real deep seated problems to enter the ranks and just launch one after another of crippling legal actions because they feel disatisfied with how they are being treated.
    What you have described here is exactly the mentality that had been used to suppress blacks and women in our country for decades, along with the typical accusations used against such groups that their attempts to receive some sort of equality within our culture was just an act of selfishness and exploitation on their parts. At least you're always clear about how you fall on issues like this -- blame the disenfranchised and assume the worst of their motivations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus
    It looks like you have no idea what you're talking about on this issue. You're arguing concepts and don't seem to know any details on a very context specific issue. Maybe you should stick to Euro issues.
    I think I told him this at least a year ago. Or at least educate oneself in American social issues and dynamics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper
    Check out what happened in other countries when gay soldiers were allowed to serve openly, your fear campaign is a load of crap with nothing to back it up.
    That's pretty much it. We can bullshit about potential fears as much as we want... but we don't need to. It's obvious that many countries are mature enough to handle things, and everyone can serve their country. I'm not sure why this discussion is laden with so much fearful conjecture when it's already damn clear what sort of outcome is possible if people are able to act maturely and with respect for each other.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lark
    I know that gay identity is this whole other thing comprising myriad conflicts and complexes whereas most heterosexuals just experience that orientation and get on with their lives, never marching about it, partying about it or requiring a whole series of reinforcement, encouragement, support or anything like that remain convinced of themselves.
    God, what a crackup.

    If homosexuality was the norm and hets were constantly being excluded, talked down to, verbally and physically abused, and treated as second-class citizens, wouldn't you think you would have the EXACT SAME ISSUES? It has nothing to do with whether you're het or straight, it was to do with your position within the culture's powerbase.

    If you have two kids, and you beat the one for being artistic and the other for being technologically proficient, don't you think the artistic kid would either repress her artistry and try to look normal while meanwhile suffering a host of psychological issues inside for that repression, or else become more dogmatic and assertive in the face of a cultural seeking to repress her individuality? This is all very basic psychology, and it has nothing to do with psychological disturbance or morality whatsoever: It's all cause and effect.

    And your typical approach is to blame the minority.

    Sorry but could be difficult to fight a war if it interfers with pink tuesdays and a parade around the destroyers deck to provide sufficient evidence of support of a particular sexual orientation or sexual behaviour.
    If all this crap wasn't going on, Lark, there wouldn't be a NEED for Pink Tuesdays and pride parades. Capiche? If people are treated as normal citizens, soon enough the need to be SO vocal diminishes. That's, again, cause and effect. People don't fight battles that don't exist. If you look at this carefully, and you wish to shut gay people up, then not limiting their rights as citizens is probably one of the most effective ways to end the need for these sort of events that bother you so much.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #34
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    This kind of legislation is excellent for determining which of our representatives are capable of striving for equality, liberty, and an integrated, functional society, and which ones are incapable of this. I fully support this kind of ongoing analysis of our leaders and hope to derive more useful information from it.

  5. #35
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'd have to know what that meant, to be honest with a few exceptions for the protection of animals and children from abuse its not something that requires policing. Equally it doesnt deserve official recognition, support, endorsement, sponsorship deals, a profile or any of those things.
    It shouldn't be something that requires policing. This repeal is about taking away SOME of the unnecessary infiltration into and repression on a human's personal life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Removal of an imbalance of personal liberty? And what imbalance would that be? It is affirmative action and I consider all profiling and pushing of the gay agenda to be just that and its probably the reason I'm so opposed to it given that it remains a minority orientation and all too frequently is a flag of convenience for individuals struggling with all kinds of other problems with they pass off as membership within an ostrachised minority group.

    Your first point is patently ridiculous and far removed from anything I would suggest, which I'm sure you also know, though I suppose that kind of thing suffices in the abscence of a decent point of discussion.
    The point of my discussion isn't at all about homosexuals being repressed from DADT. My point is that homosexuals will now join the ranks of women in the military--the guise of freedom being there, with the same constraints as before. It's a small victory.. but I don't think the army, and their policies, are homophobic in nature. I think they are sexually repressive in nature. the DADT policy eventually just became too obvious. Their agenda is still there and still continues. The policies are not scared of same sex.. they're scared of sex.

    My question was to pose how many people felt the army was truly homophobic and who noticed the trends that I am noticing? I think homosexuals will be worse for wear with this, and the army will be a mess for a while as a result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm a democrat, aswell as a socialist, so I generally think that the individuals being asked to make sacrifices and expend especial personal resources should have a greater say in decisions effecting them than random others so I could understand why a group of soldiers would wish to exclude or include homosexuals from their battle groups, they may be perturbed about a close fraternal bond, the kind associated with individuals being willing to sacrifice their very lives for one another, being misconstrued as sexual attraction or affection.
    Again, this is a civilian mentality being introduced into a military setting. As a soldier, one of your first duties is your job. You do your job, regardless of if you like the people or not. Many of the people that work together in the army are not Band-of-Brothers-style. It happens, for sure. You make life-long, close bond to some people. Most of the time, you cant stand the other person, or don't give a shit about them. But you do your job, and hold yourself to a professionalism that goes beyond civilians. You don't get to choose who you work with--you choose how you react to situations and how to conduct yourself. "being able to discriminate" is not a luxury soldiers get. THat's a civilian thing.

    I'm sorry but this again to me appears like an attempt at grievance finding by a certain set and subset of political agitators rather than a serious dialogue of any sort, the military are probably extremely sensible to be taking a blanket ban approach to it as a consequence, otherwise they could be inviting individuals with real deep seated problems to enter the ranks and just launch one after another of crippling legal actions because they feel disatisfied with how they are being treated.
    I'm sure many people felt the same when blacks were allowed to enlist, and when women were allowed to enlist. The point is. Homosexuals are in the military now, and they do their job just fine. They aren't going to go bat-shit insane as a result of telling people.

    My entire point is that they won't be able to tell people at all despite the ban being lifted. This repeal is an on-paper success only. It won't work in practice.. the repeal is pointless, and an emotional, symbolic victory at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont know what rights you're talking about here, what especial rights are they being denied or do they need different from the heterosexual majority?
    There are basic human rights soldiers are afforded--like being able to talk about their significant others--that are denied with DADT. When you're in a war-setting, away from home.. to just be able to talk about the ones you care for is a lot. The little things are taken for granted as civilians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I know that gay identity is this whole other thing comprising myriad conflicts and complexes whereas most heterosexuals just experience that orientation and get on with their lives, never marching about it, partying about it or requiring a whole series of reinforcement, encouragement, support or anything like that remain convinced of themselves.
    Heterosexuals don't put on marches about their sexuality?

    http://www.cbs.com/specials/victorias_secret/

    http://dailybabenews.com/article.php...2142&type=read

    I'd go on, but you're honestly derailing my thread. This thread is not about gays in the military, or if you support them or not. It is asking about homophobia vs. sexual repression, and which one is the bigger issue in the military.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    When I consider it I shouldnt even have bothered posting, this is a troll thread with the title like "homophobia or sexual repression", its like saying "bad thing or really bad thing".
    It is exactly what I am saying. I am saying the repeal will have little to no effect because these two issues still exist. It is not a trolling thread, it is talking about legislation and it's ineffective nature looking super effective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    So to bring you up to speed....
    Well said. And yes, they are denied many of the rights heterosexual servicemen have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    My issue with all that is that gay people have been dealing just fine for decades in public bathrooms and rest areas and spas and wherever else... so here we go with heterocentric bias again.

    1. Do people realize how often they are in the bathroom with a gay or lesbian, and no harm is done? This is just the Way of Things for YEARS.
    2. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you think everyone of your gender is attractive, just as hets do not think everyone of the opposite gender is attractive.
    3. Hets are allowed to mingle with members of the opposite sex in every area of life, without people expecting them to not feel levels of attraction -- the standard social policy is that it's fine, and you just deal with it and act appropriately, and often people never know.
    4. Gay men are under so much threat of being beaten up, especially in a military setting, do we think they'd actually want to be looking at their comrades like that or would even go there?
    5. Men are fine with allowing themselves to basically undress women in their minds and do all manner of crazy shit to our images without us ever knowing about it -- how would we know? -- yet they get weirded out at the thought of someone else doing this to them? I just want to say "grow up, and be fair."

    The list goes on and on in just how unrealistic a lot of the fears are, and from what I understand, the Pentagon report stated from a practical perspective there was no realistic issue that couldn't be dealt with just by people actually just dealing and not working themselves up. It also stinks as to how over the last fifteen years the military really didn't even follow DADT, they actively sought out gay people and would grill suspected gay people, placing them in a quandary of maintaining their integrity vs being able to continue to honor their commitment to their country.
    When I served overseas.. my command was particularly hateful and spiteful of women in service. Their actions dictated this, and anyone in my company could vouch for the awful things they did over there. They were spiteful to many people.. and didn't lead well. We were pretty much at the mercy of our command. We didn't have a large base with lots of people to back us up.. we were alone out there with these spiteful people in charge of us.

    I fear three things with this repeal:
    - The command of the company still has a lot of control, no matter how you look at it. Because of this.. if a command has hate in their heart towards an openly gay soldier, it's even easier to find 'perception'-based criteria for negative statements and actions. UCMJ will accept the perception of a relationship to be there. Sexual harrassment will be easy to find as well.. it only takes one hateful person to claim sexual harrassment for an investigation to go on their record.
    - Because of point one, they won't be able to be vocal at all. Don't ask don't tell will quietly remain because it means less trouble for the homosexual servicemen.
    - The on-paper victory will distract from this core problem, and you'll effectively reinforce the policy that has been in place with women for years already. Nothing is fixed, but things look fixed, so everyone's happy. Except the people that continue to be victims of perception and shitty commands and such.

    In the end.. everyone is at the mercy of where they go when they are assigned. If it's a shit unit for them, they're going to hate life. If it's a good unit, they have no complaints and should consider themselves lucky ducks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    I'll be interested to see how things change if it passes. For instance, if men and women have separate showers/bays/etc. wouldn't the straight and gay soldiers need separate ones for the same reasons?

    There's a guy in my platoon that is obviously gay (if I'm wrong I'll be really surprised). No one talks about it and no one really cares because the important thing is pulling your weight, and he does. I can't say that it wouldn't be considerably more awkward and difficult if it was open, but at the same time, I don't think anyone should be forced to hide it either.
    Meta, as much as I hate to say it.. men and women need separate shower areas at the least. If people were more mature about their behavior, there'd be no need for it. A curtain at best would be necessary. They shouldn't need separate sleeping and hygiene facilities. But they do. I just think segregating homosexuals isn't worth all the hassle of separate facilities. I think it'd make the transition more difficult, and put more strain on the existing problems. Better to just go on as usual.

    Your second paragraph is exactly why DADT is better than nothing at all, even if it is pretty useless--there are only good soldiers and bad ones. Everything else is secondary. I knew people overseas that were horrible people civilian-side.. they were not people I would ever associate with in my personal life. They made bad choices, did bad things... but, when it came to serving, and doing their job, they did just as well as anyone else. There is something about that that is uniquely military. I can't imagine homosexuals acting any other way honestly. The gayest, flashiest man on earth could enlist.. and I think the military mentality will reside in his mind and actions enough to do his job well.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  6. #36
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Kyuuie this is quite the stimulating and provocative thread. *golf claps*

  7. #37
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Where is Lark's response?

  8. #38
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,881

    Default

    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  9. #39
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    I guess that means he is now embracing not only equal rights but also homosexuality in general. What a happy ending!

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    537

    Default

    I was very surprised when I first heard about DADT during the lady Gaga protest. I couldn't believe this was still going on in a first world country. It's more okay if individuals are sexists, bigots, racists, pedophiles, mass murderers or whatever. But it's demoralizing for the population if the laws(execution) reflect inconsistency and unfairness. Kinda brings the whole population into the toilet.

    Good to see it changing. I predicted as much when people who have as much publicity as Gaga put the spotlight on the issue.

Similar Threads

  1. Easy way to tell S or N?
    By Lily flower in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 12-29-2010, 03:30 PM
  2. Any MBTI tests that don't weigh functions or letters?
    By paintmuffin in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-07-2009, 09:30 PM
  3. Obama to End: "Don't Ask. Don't Tell."
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 386
    Last Post: 01-24-2009, 01:52 AM
  4. What they don't tell you about eating boogers...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-13-2007, 10:42 AM
  5. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 08-05-2007, 03:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO