176 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Some Geth wrote...

Oh I am sure. 

But you do know when I say "hating" on them I mean "making fun" of them right? Like do you even know what Fox News does or what their history is?

Everyone likes to make fun of them.

Funny; as I read the ratings, it appears that 'everyone' prefers to watch them more than all the other Cable news combined. Guess it is hard to be at the top.....

As for topic, bias and bigotry knows no boundaries on race, religion, creed, or even sexual choice. Think of all the gay conservatives that could be offended by now, as well as those with simple common decency towards all....

[Megaton_Hope]

Blacklash93 wrote...

And I have a hard time believing anyone has been specifically asking or expecting for Batman or Superman to turn out to be gay against all previously established facts.

I'd actually be offended if Superman had a physical relationship with a human being.

[Clover Rider]

greengoron89 wrote...

Oh look, a discussion related to homosexuality has degraded into a political pissing match! How so very charming.

You're welcome.:innocent:

[Inquisitor Recon]

Blacklash93 wrote...
You also think gays should be subject to discriminatory policies in the military 'cause they're gonna eventually say or imply that they're gay to people when making friends. Then you said something that basically amounted to people who are disgusted by gays and don't have the basic coping skills to tolerate acknoledgement of the fact that they work with them are deserving of more consideration than gays and speech equality and thus a policy that promotes social inequality should remain. Then you called gays who feel isolated, deceptive, or excluded because of the policy "sobs" while the people who feel their morals and views are somehow being violated by the basic rights of others of valid, rational feelings.

Finally you got on your regularly scheduled PC note and said soldiers would be discharged because gays are children and can't handle conflict so they'll get rid of anyone in their unit who doesn't like gays. A prediction that has been proved to be wrong if the many months following the repeal are any indication.

Guess what I'm paying more attention to or judge as more significant? The fact that you may like certain gay-related musicians or things like that?

Discriminatory polices? No I merely support polices that are common sense and based around what's best for the military and not whatever certain groups whining about "social inequality" want. Groups which naturally don't give a damn about the military the rest of the time. Dmotion driven stories aren't reason for major policy overhaul. "Activists" like you simply have an incredibly narrow view of the military and can't see the larger picture.

My "regularly scheduled PC note" happens to be correct. Like anywhere else in the government, you can find countless examples of political correctness run amok, sometimes resulting in good officers losing or hurting their careers. You've got useless "awareness" seminars using time that could be better spent on training. You've got pointless publicity stunts and pressure from the powers that be to fill certain ranks with certain people, regardless of individual merits. That hurts standards. But when you're in it for the "social justice" that doesn't matter.

I am perfectly willing to "live and let live", but to activists like yourself I am a terrible homophobe for not supporting cries for attention, special treatment, and bad policy choices. But I'm used to that, and I rather enjoy being the evil cynical polar-bear killing conservative. Polar bears are the most delicious of all bear species after all. It also takes better if I eat it while reading about how my "hatemongering" is making some "horribly oppressed" group of people feel bad. I guess I just forget the fact that everybody who is a white straight male automatically has it easy in life and should feel guilty.

Modifié par ReconTeam, 26 mai 2012 - 07:33 .

[Blacklash93]

ReconTeam wrote...

Discriminatory polices? No I merely support polices that are common sense and based around what's best for the military and not whatever certain groups whining about "social inequality" want. Groups which naturally don't give a damn about the military the rest of the time. Dmotion driven stories aren't reason for major policy overhaul. "Activists" like you simply have an incredibly narrow view of the military and can't see the larger picture.

My "regularly scheduled PC note" happens to be correct. Like anywhere else in the government, you can find countless examples of political correctness run amok, sometimes resulting in good officers losing or hurting their careers. You've got useless "awareness" seminars using time that could be better spent on training. You've got pointless publicity stunts and pressure from the powers that be to fill certain ranks with certain people, regardless of individual merits. That hurts standards. But when you're in it for the "social justice" that doesn't matter.

I am perfectly willing to "live and let live", but to activists like yourself I am a terrible homophobe for not supporting cries for attention, special treatment, and bad policy choices. But I'm used to that, and I rather enjoy being the evil cynical polar-bear killing conservative. Polar bears are the most delicious of all bear species after all. It also takes better if I eat it while reading about how my "hatemongering" is making some "horribly oppressed" group of people feel bad. I guess I just forget the fact that everybody who is a white straight male automatically has it easy in life and should feel guilty.

"Common sense" apparently means "my baseless claims founded on prejudice and bias that pander to those who can't cope with acknoledging who they work with" these days. The unit cohesion argument was BS and stuidies proved it. Polls showed that most peopled didn't care. Fear and disgust naturally diminish and disappear as one is exposed to something more and more. Other nations have no such policies and their militaries do not suffer for it. The "larger picture" is you just pretending there's more to the issue than there really is because your prejudice and unconditional sympathy for your political alignment and those who disapprove of gays and want nothing to do with them demand it. The "narrow view" is you on life in general.

You know I haven't heard a single thing about DADT following the few weeks after the repeal. Seems to me they're doing just fine. If there is some sort of punishment applied to those who don't like gays (and don't make a big deal of it) that the media *somehow* hasn't heard about, then people should be addressing the workings of that instead of pointing to gays as the source. The same for affirmative action, but it seems that's only worth fighting when gays are involved for obvious reasons.

I remember you saying the policy could use modifications, but do you honestly think right-wingers, if in charge, would do that? They don't want to include LGBT students in anti-bullying laws and neither hate-crime laws, they don't work to make civil union benefits equal to marriage even though many supposedly approve of them for gays, and they don't fight job-discrimination where you can lose your job in half the states simply for being gay. Those things are pretty cut-and-clean the moral and practical things to support, yet they don't support them because gays are disgusting deviants who deserve no protection or consideration.

"Live and let live" is more "Live and let live in inferiority" in this case. That doesn't necessarily mean you hate or fear anything, but you definitely sympathize with those who do for whatever reason.

And straight white males do face challenges in life, but those challenges are not brought about artificially by intolerance and discrimination based on who they are. "Everyone faces challenges in life so it's okay if we make or keep it deliberately harder for this particular group." is flawed logic.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 26 mai 2012 - 02:13 .

[Homebound]

Its probably one of the lanterns..Props to DC if they play the racecard and go with John Stewart. Hey, it could be Joker. Maybe thats why he never took that Harley for a ride. Major and iconic doesnt necessarily mean hero. Or maybe its Lex Luthor, his burning foeyay for Superman has finally gone canon.

I hear the Earth-2 series writer does strong gay characters. That might be the comic to watch.

Modifié par Hellbound555, 26 mai 2012 - 02:13 .

[Ecaiki]

ReconTeam wrote...

I am perfectly willing to "live and let live", but to activists like yourself I am a terrible homophobe for not supporting cries for attention, special treatment, and bad policy choices.

"Can you believe those gays, wanting to join the military to defend our country, get married to their partners, and not be beaten and/or killed just for being gay.  Can't believe they are demanding such special treatment!" 

[Tazzmission]

Hellbound555 wrote...

Its probably one of the lanterns..Props to DC if they play the racecard and go with John Stewart.

am i the only gl fan who thinks theres a big stereo type regarding john?

why does it always have to be the black guy?

[TheKillerAngel]

Most people in the military don't give a crap about DADT being repealed. Here's a thread with a lot of people currently or formerly in the military sarcastically discussing its effects:

http://terminallance...hp?topic=6179.0

[Inquisitor Recon]

Blacklash93 wrote...
"Common sense" apparently means "my baseless claims founded on prejudice and bias that pander to those who can't cope with acknoledging who they work with" these days. The unit cohesion argument was BS and stuidies proved it. Polls showed that most peopled didn't care. Fear and disgust naturally diminish and disappear
as one is exposed to something more and more. Other nations have no such policies and their militaries do not suffer for it. The "larger picture" is you just pretending there's more to the issue than there
really is because your prejudice and unconditional sympathy for your political alignment and those who disapprove of gays and want nothing to do with them demand it. The "narrow view" is you on life in general.

You know I haven't heard a single thing about DADT following the few weeks after the repeal. Seems to me they're doing just fine. If there is some sort of punishment applied to those who don't like gays (and don't make a
big deal of it) that the media *somehow* hasn't heard about, then people should be addressing the workings of that instead of pointing to gays as the source. The same for affirmative action, but it seems that's only worth fighting when gays are involved for obvious reasons.

I remember you saying the policy could use modifications, but do you honestly think right-wingers, if in charge, would do that? They don't want to include LGBT students in anti-bullying laws and neither hate-crime laws, they don't work to make civil union benefits equal to marriage even though many supposedly approve of them
for gays, and they don't fight job-discrimination where you can lose your job in half the states simply for being gay. Those things are pretty cut-and-clean the moral and practical things to support, yet they don't support them because gays are disgusting deviants who desere no protection or consideration.

"Live and let live" is more "Live and let live in inferiority" in this case. That doesn't necessarily mean you hate or fear anything, but you definitely sympathize with those who do for whatever reason.

And straight white males do face challenges in life, but those challenges are not brought about artificially by intolerance and discrimination based on who they are. "Everyone faces challenges in life so it's okay if we make
or keep it deliberately harder for this particular group." is flawed logic.

A predictable response. Those arguments were completely valid and many veterans and active service members recognize the policy change as a steaming load of BS. Studies correctly done showed that combat troops didn't want this. But their opinion is overruled as usual. Naturally problems are swept under the rug, as when the powers that be make such a change, everybody fully support it or risks their career. As one is exposed to something more and more? Maybe you're forgetting the purpose of the military but this nonsense doesn't belong there. Standards and time for training is sacrificed on this charade. What other nations do isn't our concern. Most of these other nations are too busy cutting their forces at every corner to balance their budgets anyway. A narrow view of life you say? I'm afraid it's simply a realistic view.

It seems you haven't looked too hard then. Of course the greater problem is with military leadership in general today. Thing's have gone donehill since the Clinton era. But I'm sure you would deny this too, despite statistics like the Navy reliving a record number of commanders in 2011. And somehow, I'm not surprised you would support affirmative action polices. Even in the military when lives are on the lines.

I hate to break it to you, but "anti-bullying" laws and "hate-crime" laws are nonsense. A crime is a crime and it the race or sexuality of those involved shouldn't matter. That is real justice. Job discrimination goes both ways. How many lousy employees have saved their career by saying they are being discriminated against? How many of the big bad "majority" have been passed over in order to fill some bureaucrat's quota? I'm not interested about what the left will do to buy your vote. With the state of the economy and the world, this stuff doesn't matter anyway.

"Living in inferiority" is people not wanting to know your personal life? Or is it the government not defending you if somebody makes you feel bad? Why should you even be bothered by any of that? In the Western world you really don't have it nearly as bad as you think you do so don't expect my sympathy.

Modifié par ReconTeam, 26 mai 2012 - 09:39 .

[android654]

Tazzmission wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

Its probably one of the lanterns..Props to DC if they play the racecard and go with John Stewart.

am i the only gl fan who thinks theres a big stereo type regarding john?

why does it always have to be the black guy?

Well, all I know about John is from JLU and I really liked the guy, so I wouldn't mind if it was him.

[Blacklash93]

ReconTeam wrote...

A predictable response. Those arguments were completely valid and many veterans and active service members recognize the policy change as a steaming load of BS. Studies correctly done showed that combat troops didn't want this. But their opinion is overruled as usual. Naturally problems are swept under the rug, as when the powers that be make such a change, everybody fully support it or risks their career. As one is exposed to something more and more? Maybe you're forgetting the purpose of the military but this nonsense doesn't belong there. Standards and time for training is sacrificed on this charade. What other nations do isn't our concern. Most of these other nations are too busy cutting their forces at every corner to balance their budgets anyway. A narrow view of life you say? I'm afraid it's simply a realistic view.

It seems you haven't looked too hard then. Of course the greater problem is with military leadership in general today. Thing's have gone donehill since the Clinton era. But I'm sure you would deny this too, despite statistics like the Navy reliving a record number of commanders in 2011. And somehow, I'm not surprised you would support affirmative action polices. Even in the military when lives are on the lines.

I hate to break it to you, but "anti-bullying" laws and "hate-crime" laws are nonsense. A crime is a crime and it the race or sexuality of those involved shouldn't matter. That is real justice. Job discrimination goes both ways. How many lousy employees have saved their career by saying they are being discriminated against? How many of the big bad "majority" have been passed over in order to fill some bureaucrat's quota? I'm not interested about what the left will do to buy your vote. With the state of the economy and the world, this stuff doesn't matter anyway.

"Living in inferiority" is people not wanting to know your personal life? Or is it the government not defending you if somebody makes you feel bad? Why should you even be bothered by any of that? In the Western world you really don't have it nearly as bad as you think you do so don't expect my sympathy.

Studies "correctly" done usually means "showing the results I want to see" these days. You can't have a single study done that supports a certain viewpoint any way without the other side saying it's filled with conservative/liberal bias and then them picking holes in it that probably don't exist.  And "many veterans and soldiers" could easily be nothing more than a vocal minority.

And I'm not surprised you constantly try to fabricate correlations between things you don't support and irrelevant issues. Budget and personel cuts? Lowering fitness standards? Clearly wanting to let gays talk about themselves like everyone else is related to funding and basic standards... somehow. Clearly it's all just part of the big bad governement deciding to bog down our military. You know, I could say the decline of the military after the end of Clinton era is partly due to DADT being established in that time period, but that's pretty stupid as that is actually the effect of many other factors.

And paying attention to what other nations do is entirely relevant. What does and doesn't work for them is likely true for us. Pretty much every study that observes a country that has moved past a DADT-esque policy says that they have transitioned very smoothly and it has become a non-issue. In fact we can look at our own history and seeing that we've won almost every war we've ever been involved in without DADT and it would seem we're perfectly capable of doing well without it.

I would not deny the military is on decline as it seems everything else is, anyway. Nor do I support affirmative action policies (where did I say that?). Nor am I pro-abortion. Nor do I support significantly increasing tax-rates for the wealthy. Nor do I even see gay marriage as undebatable even if I am for it. But don't let me stop you from these kind of assumptions.

And getting rid of disgust and fear (which are the only concievable things that would make such policies necessary), is quite relevant to the military. Soldiers (among many other law/safety enforcing professions) are trained to repress those feelings and ideally it gets to the point where they no longer feel them. Makes the job easier for everyone.

I realize that every crime against another is often of hate regardless of the nature of the person, but the cause of that hate is the defining factor in what constitutes as a hate crime. Commiting a crime against someone who has done no offense to you and is targeted simply because they are who they are deserves extra severity because it further discourages those who would commit crimes for similar reasons. It makes an example out of discrimination and bigoted actions. The worst and most silly type of crime is one commited where the one who commits it is provoked by irrational feelings that have nothing to do with the the target personally.

Job discrimination laws have also saved and secured many jobs of worthy employees. Jobs don't grow on trees these days especially and allowing anyone to get fired for nothing related to the job is plain wrong. But apparently we should just let people and their financial income be at the mercy of the personal views of the employers if it keeps a few lazy people from making excuses. Because humans must be utterly incapable of investigating and properly judging the criteria for job discrimination.

These laws are going to exist whether someone likes it or not so you might as well include every group widely subject to discrimination. Right-wingers don't aggressively fight these laws in any remote way and never have, but enough will put up a fight when people they don't approve of are to be included in them to the point where it becomes an issue. I think their intentions are very much beside the laws themselves when they make issue of a specific group.

Not wanting to hear someone's personal life is not nearly quite institutionalizing that they can't talk about it or express it in any way. It's not like they usually go out of their way to make conflict or flaunt it. We all hear things we don't want to every now and then, but it is expected we tolerate and cope with it like adults. I'd expect soldiers, who deal with things they don't enjoy all the time, to be especially more mature about it.

I am not kidding myself that gays have usually had it just as bad as racial and creed groups have outside of the points in history and modern countries where you can/could be imprisoned and/or put to death for being gay (though if sexuality/gender-identity weren't something you could hide or were immediately obvious I'm not so sure that would be the case then), but social issues do not delay themselves for the state of the economy or whatever big issues arise. There will always be big issues facing every country at any point in time. No group is going to wait 5-10 years for pushing for what they want and nor should they have to. I honestly wonder if you or anyone would be saying this if a racial issue similar in nature to these problems was in place of gays. Something tells me all this marginalizing would not be happening.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 28 mai 2012 - 09:04 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

Blacklash93 wrote...
Studies "correctly" done usually means "showing the results I want to see" these days. You can't have a single study done that supports a certain viewpoint any way without the other side saying it's filled with conservative/liberal bias and then them picking holes in it that probably don't exist.  And "many veterans and soldiers" could easily be nothing more than a vocal minority.

And I'm not surprised you constantly try to fabricate correlations between things you don't support and irrelevant issues. Budget and personel cuts? Lowering fitness standards? Gays did it! I could say the decline of the military after the end of Clinton era is partly due to DADT being established in that time period, but that's kind of stupid. And paying attention to what other nations do is entirely relevant. What does and doesn't work for them is likely true for us. In fact we can look at our own history and seeing that we've won almost every war we've ever been involved in without DADT and it would seem we're perfectly capable of doing well without it.

I would not deny the military is on decline as it seems everything else is, anyway. Nor do I support affirmative action policies. Nor am I pro-abortion. Nor do I support significantly increasing tax-rates for the wealthy. Nor do I even see gay marriage as undebatable even if I am for it. But don't let me stop you from these kind of assumptions.

And getting rid of disgust and fear (which are the only concievable things that would make such policies necessary), is quite relevant to the military. Soldiers (among many other law/safety enforcing professions) are trained to repress those feelings and ideally it gets to the point where they no longer feel them. Makes the job easier for everyone.

I realize that every crime against another is often of hate regardless of the nature of the person, but the cause of that hate is the defining factor in what constitutes as a hate crime. Commiting a crime against someone who has done no offense to you and is targeted simply because they are who they are deserves extra severity because it further discourages those who would commit crimes for similar reasons. It makes an example out of discrimination and bigoted actions. The worst and most silly type of crime is one commited where the one who commits it is provoked by irrational feelings that have nothing to do with the the target personally.

Job discrimination laws have also saved and secured many jobs of worthy employees. Jobs don't grow on trees these days especially and allowing anyone to get fired for nothing related to the job is plain wrong. But apparently we should just let people and their financial income be subject to the personal views of the employers if it keeps a few lazy people from making excuses. Because humans must be utterly incapable of investigating and properly judging the criteria for job discrimination.

These laws are going to exist whether someone likes it or not so you might as well include every group widely subject to discrimination. Right-wingers don't aggressively fight these laws in any remote way and never have, but enough will put up a fight when people they don't approve are to be included in them to the point where it becomes an issue. I think their intentions are very much beside the laws themselves when they make issue of a specific group.

Not wanting to hear someone's personal life is not nearly quite institutionalizing that they can't talk about it or express it in any way. It's not like they usually go out of their way to make conflict or flaunt it. We all hear things we don't want to every now and then, but it is expected we tolerate and cope with it like adults. I'd expect soldiers, who deal with things they don't enjoy all the time, to be especially more mature about it.

I am not kidding myself that gays have it just as bad as racial and creed groups have (though if sexuality/gender-identity weren't something you could hide or were immediately obvious I'm not so sure that would be the case then), but social issues do not delay themselves for the state of the economy or whatever big issues arise. There will always be big issues facing every country at any point in time. No group is going to wait 5-10 years for pushing for what they want and nor should they have to. I honestly wonder if you or anyone would be saying this if a racial issue similar in nature to these problems was in place of gays. Something tells me all this marginalizing would not be happening.

Really now? How long are you going to continue this? In many cases studies are politically motivated, especially when those commissioning them is looking to implement a specific policy. I simply place more value on the opinion of a frontline soldier than some politician in DC, some activist groups, or some supply clerk in some depot in Nebraska.

Yes I'm sure you don't see any negative consequences from this or political correctness in general. Nothing wrong there, just move along, etc. Are you aware of how this matter was handled prior to DADT? Arguably that was better than DADT and certainly it was better than the current policy. We observe what our allies (and others) do of course but what works for them doesn't work best for us and vice-versa.

You say you don't deny the decline, but you would deny any sort of negative influence of political-correctness based policy on the military. That is part of the problem. Getting rid of disgust and fear? Not only is this irrelevant to the larger picture, neither you or the government has the right to tell people what to think on this matter. They should repress their views? In that case why shouldn't gay soldiers not bring up the matter of their sexuality or make a big deal about it?

Somebody who murdered a man to steal something from him should be punished just as severely as somebody who killed a man due to race or whatever. Somebody who's that extreme in their views isn't going to be discouraged by this idea that they will be punished worse. You never see hate crime charges against the minority party even when race was a factor either. What we are talking about are motivational factors in a crime, it is not something that should be treated as a separate crime onto itself.

I'm not denying that anti-discriminatory laws are a good thing in many respects, yet they aren't perfect either. And frankly, something like sexuality is far easier to abuse. Also, where do you draw the line? When somebody claims they are being discriminated against by not being able to use the bathroom of the opposite sex, are you supposed to violate others right to privacy? You are aware that lawyers and lawsuits all cost money correct? Money that not all businesses have to spend everytime they want to fire an employee.

The military is in some ways a self-correcting system, and if somebody gets too far out of line their fellow enlisted men or an officer gets them to put an end to it, through official or less-than-official means. Putting into place layers of bureaucracy and regulation that would protect certain divisive behavior isn't a fix for anything.

Though I disagree, I'm aware how some are be more concerned with today's "social activism", etc. than the big issues. And I can understand some of the wants in regards to civil unions etc. Yet there is no basis for any of these comparisons to race, and such is rather disrespectful to civil rights movements.

Modifié par ReconTeam, 28 mai 2012 - 09:16 .

[Elhanan]

Sorry, but being gay is a choice; being born on Krypton is not. And the Soap Opera that is sexuality, romance, and other like items being a primary discussion for a comic book has never been really my thing; reason I gave up on Supergirl ages before giving up on comics.

[Homebound]

ReconTeam wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...
Studies "correctly" done usually means "showing the results I want to see" these days. You can't have a single study done that supports a certain viewpoint any way without the other side saying it's filled with conservative/liberal bias and then them picking holes in it that probably don't exist.  And "many veterans and soldiers" could easily be nothing more than a vocal minority.

And I'm not surprised you constantly try to fabricate correlations between things you don't support and irrelevant issues. Budget and personel cuts? Lowering fitness standards? Gays did it! I could say the decline of the military after the end of Clinton era is partly due to DADT being established in that time period, but that's kind of stupid. And paying attention to what other nations do is entirely relevant. What does and doesn't work for them is likely true for us. In fact we can look at our own history and seeing that we've won almost every war we've ever been involved in without DADT and it would seem we're perfectly capable of doing well without it.

I would not deny the military is on decline as it seems everything else is, anyway. Nor do I support affirmative action policies. Nor am I pro-abortion. Nor do I support significantly increasing tax-rates for the wealthy. Nor do I even see gay marriage as undebatable even if I am for it. But don't let me stop you from these kind of assumptions.

And getting rid of disgust and fear (which are the only concievable things that would make such policies necessary), is quite relevant to the military. Soldiers (among many other law/safety enforcing professions) are trained to repress those feelings and ideally it gets to the point where they no longer feel them. Makes the job easier for everyone.

I realize that every crime against another is often of hate regardless of the nature of the person, but the cause of that hate is the defining factor in what constitutes as a hate crime. Commiting a crime against someone who has done no offense to you and is targeted simply because they are who they are deserves extra severity because it further discourages those who would commit crimes for similar reasons. It makes an example out of discrimination and bigoted actions. The worst and most silly type of crime is one commited where the one who commits it is provoked by irrational feelings that have nothing to do with the the target personally.

Job discrimination laws have also saved and secured many jobs of worthy employees. Jobs don't grow on trees these days especially and allowing anyone to get fired for nothing related to the job is plain wrong. But apparently we should just let people and their financial income be subject to the personal views of the employers if it keeps a few lazy people from making excuses. Because humans must be utterly incapable of investigating and properly judging the criteria for job discrimination.

These laws are going to exist whether someone likes it or not so you might as well include every group widely subject to discrimination. Right-wingers don't aggressively fight these laws in any remote way and never have, but enough will put up a fight when people they don't approve are to be included in them to the point where it becomes an issue. I think their intentions are very much beside the laws themselves when they make issue of a specific group.

Not wanting to hear someone's personal life is not nearly quite institutionalizing that they can't talk about it or express it in any way. It's not like they usually go out of their way to make conflict or flaunt it. We all hear things we don't want to every now and then, but it is expected we tolerate and cope with it like adults. I'd expect soldiers, who deal with things they don't enjoy all the time, to be especially more mature about it.

I am not kidding myself that gays have it just as bad as racial and creed groups have (though if sexuality/gender-identity weren't something you could hide or were immediately obvious I'm not so sure that would be the case then), but social issues do not delay themselves for the state of the economy or whatever big issues arise. There will always be big issues facing every country at any point in time. No group is going to wait 5-10 years for pushing for what they want and nor should they have to. I honestly wonder if you or anyone would be saying this if a racial issue similar in nature to these problems was in place of gays. Something tells me all this marginalizing would not be happening.

Really now? How long are you going to continue this? In many cases studies are politically motivated, especially when those commissioning them is looking to implement a specific policy. I simply place more value on the opinion of a frontline soldier than some politician in DC, some activist groups, or some supply clerk in some depot in Nebraska.

Yes I'm sure you don't see any negative consequences from this or political correctness in general. Nothing wrong there, just move along, etc. Are you aware of how this matter was handled prior to DADT? Arguably that was better than DADT and certainly it was better than the current policy. We observe what our allies (and others) do of course but what works for them doesn't work best for us and vice-versa.

You say you don't deny the decline, but you would deny any sort of negative influence of political-correctness based nonsensical polices on military. That is part of the problem. Getting rid of disgust and fear? Not only is this irrelevant to the larger picture, neither you or the government has the right to tell people what to think on this matter. They should repress their views? In that case why shouldn't gay soldiers not bring up the matter of their sexuality or make a big deal about it?

Somebody who murdered a man to steal something from him should be punished just as severely as somebody who killed a man due to race or whatever. Somebody who's that extreme in their views isn't going to be discouraged by this idea that they will be punished worse. You never see hate crime charges against the minority party even when race was a factor either. What we are talking about are motivational factors in a crime, it is not something that should be treated as a separate crime onto itself.

I'm not denying that anti-discriminatory laws are a good thing in many respects, yet they aren't perfect either. And frankly, something like sexuality is far easier to abuse. Also, where do you draw the line? When somebody claims they are being discriminated against by not being able to use the bathroom of the opposite sex, are you supposed to violate others right to privacy? You are aware that lawyers and lawsuits all cost money correct? Money that not all businesses have to spend everytime they want to fire an employee.

The military is in some ways a self-correcting system, and if somebody gets too far out of line their fellow enlisted men or an officer gets them to put an end to it, through official or less-than-official means. Putting into place layers of bureaucracy and regulation that would protect certain divisive behavior isn't a fix for anything.

Though I disagree, I'm aware how some are be more concerned with today's "social activism", etc. than the big issues. And I can understand some of the wants in regards to civil unions etc. Yet there is no basis for any of these comparisons to race, and such is rather disrespectful to civil rights movements.

Oh Screw you guys! Im not reading all this crap! Let the gays be whoever they want to be!

Modifié par Hellbound555, 28 mai 2012 - 09:23 .

[Blacklash93]

ReconTeam wrote...

Really now? How long are you going to continue this? In many cases studies are politically motivated, especially when those commissioning them is looking to implement a specific policy. I simply place more value on the opinion of a frontline soldier than some politician in DC, some activist groups, or some supply clerk in some depot in Nebraska.

Yes I'm sure you don't see any negative consequences from this or political correctness in general. Nothing wrong there, just move along, etc. Are you aware of how this matter was handled prior to DADT? Arguably that was better than DADT and certainly it was better than the current policy. We observe what our allies (and others) do of course but what works for them doesn't work best for us and vice-versa.

You say you don't deny the decline, but you would deny any sort of negative influence of political-correctness based nonsensical polices on military. That is part of the problem. Getting rid of disgust and fear? Not only is this irrelevant to the larger picture, neither you or the government has the right to tell people what to think on this matter. They should repress their views? In that case why shouldn't gay soldiers not bring up the matter of their sexuality or make a big deal about it?

Somebody who murdered a man to steal something from him should be punished just as severely as somebody who killed a man due to race or whatever. Somebody who's that extreme in their views isn't going to be discouraged by this idea that they will be punished worse. You never see hate crime charges against the minority party even when race was a factor either. What we are talking about are motivational factors in a crime, it is not something that should be treated as a separate crime onto itself.

I'm not denying that anti-discriminatory laws are a good thing in many respects, yet they aren't perfect either. And frankly, something like sexuality is far easier to abuse. Also, where do you draw the line? When somebody claims they are being discriminated against by not being able to use the bathroom of the opposite sex, are you supposed to violate others right to privacy? You are aware that lawyers and lawsuits all cost money correct? Money that not all businesses have to spend everytime they want to fire an employee.

The military is in some ways a self-correcting system, and if somebody gets too far out of line their fellow enlisted men or an officer gets them to put an end to it, through official or less-than-official means. Putting into place layers of bureaucracy and regulation that would protect certain divisive behavior isn't a fix for anything.

Though I disagree, I'm aware how some are be more concerned with today's "social activism", etc. than the big issues. And I can understand some of the wants in regards to civil unions etc. Yet there is no basis for any of these comparisons to race, and such is rather disrespectful to civil rights movements.

Yes, I am the one perpetuating this discussion. You responding in turn has nothing to do with it. I shouoln't be arguing for my position like you do.

I remember you giving me one example about frontline soldiers in the military. He honestly sounded like he was oversensitive as hell and could not bear how his morals and views were being violated by others having the freedoms he did. If they are all like that then I have no sympathy.

I said I see no correlations between decisions that clearly hurt militaries and what you hold as an opinion is wrong for them. Nothing about PC was ever mentioned. But of course you have to get into that. Like I said before, if PC is the issue then don't pretend that driving back the goals of the group in question is the only way to go about fixing it.

American culture is different sure, but there is also a great diversity in the countries that have repealed such policies and all transitions seem to have been successful. Are America and its people so special that they would be an exception to this? If America was different, then the problem is the culture and not homosexuality, thus theoretically DADT could become obsolete in the future.

Getting rid of disgust and fear is not changing or repressing people's views. It's changing emotion. If one can still respectfully disapprove and be tolerant of whatever with no negative emotions attatched because they recognize the simple fact that the personal lives of others have no effect on them if they don't want them to then there should be no strong desire to remove themselves from a person they don't approve of. And one's sexuality is not comparable to an opinion; it is a core part of who someone is and not a viewpoint on something beside them.

If one kills a man unprovoked for who they are it is likely they would do it again. If you charge them simply for the act then you basically have taught them that their extreme views are still acceptable and to those like him and those who could grow to have such extreme views. That's not targeting the root of the problem. If right-wingers oppose the laws like that in general they should be working to remove them and not only making issue of it when others are being added to the list (by "others" I mean just gays for obvious reasons) of protected groups.

Anti-discriminatory laws are exploitable, but the protection it creates is far more important than what a few people would do to exploit it. Would trading the right keep a job regardless of who you are for companies saving a little money really be worth it? And I find your assertion that gays would be more likely to take advantage of the law than other groups rather offensive, honestly. Sexuality *might* be easier to exploit because it is a current hot-button issue and thus people are sensitive to it that's something that will fade in time. That's how this has worked with every group that has been added to the law ever.

Comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement is not an issue of if race and sexuality are comparable. That is not how I put it. Right-wingers will jump to that in order to distract the masses from the real comparison (or maybe they're just that thick). It is the challenges each group has faced, the prejudice and discrimination that caused those challenges, and how they were resolved. That is the real comparison.

But gays are icky deviants and black people are normal citizens so clearly any comparison that is even loosely connected to the two is offensive.

Seriously, discrimination by race is just as wrong as discrimination by sexuality. Treating someone unequally for who they are is the same no matter what the nature of the different identity is. As long as that identity is not hurting anyone it is just as wrong to deny equal treatment than whatever other identity. Again, this is not comparing race to sexuality.

What I was pointing out in the last post was how attitudes between the two are different even though the issue is essentially discrimination in general. People would not be marginalizing a major racial issue today if it was similar to what gays face making the conclusion that people do not view the discrimination between the two the same. And if you say or act that race and sexuality based discrimination are not comparable then you're bascially implying that discrimination is more justified in one case over the other. Like you said on hate-crimes, why should the intention or motivation or reasoning behind it matter?

Sorry, but being gay is a choice;

Not for me. Can't speak for others, but I don't particularly appretiate you saying it is for everyone nor the fact you felt the need to bring this into very personal, controversial territory that is entirely beside the current debate.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 28 mai 2012 - 10:40 .

[Clover Rider]

The US is becoming more pro-gay(really fast). Because we're YOUNG. This is reality, this is the future for the US. It isn't even really a political issue. This is an issue both right and left can agree on. Unless that right wing is the SOCIAL right. The fiscal right gives no f*ck, and the libertarian right? As much as I dislike them I know many of them stand well on this issue. And that libertarian right? That's the future of the right. Not the social one beamed out of retirement homes in Arizona and backwoods churches in Alabama. The American right is following Ron Paul, because right-wing Millenials are.

Does anyone else think this is so political? Do you know why in Yankee-Land they have so much gay rights? Because they are a bunch of pink hippies? Wrong. They are up here, whether right or left, about living and let living. They are not fans of the personal in the political. They don't like the idea of religion in politics. Ask a Connecticut Republican and he may mumble something about tolerance, but ultimately he'll tell you it's simply none of his business what people do in such a regard and go off to make money in New York or Stamford or wherever.

That to me? Is Apolitical. Only the talon of the Social Right has anything against this stuff. So let us try not to act like all Right-wingers are the badguy on this issue. More so since they have little to do with the future on it.

Modifié par Some Geth, 28 mai 2012 - 10:42 .

[Elhanan]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Not for me. Can't speak for others, but I don't particularly appretiate you saying it is for everyone nor the fact you felt the need to bring this into very personal, controversial territory that is entirely beside the current debate.

Guess you missed the part about Krypton, and only saw what you wanted to see. I was actually trying to return this thread back on topic; not on the meandering debate it has become. Being defensive may be creating bias in comprehension; just a thought.

And I am not the OP; nor the one that chose to write of 'personal controversial' topics in public forums.

[Blacklash93]

Elhanan wrote...
Guess you missed the part about Krypton, and only saw what you wanted to see. I was actually trying to return this thread back on topic; not on the meandering debate it has become. Being defensive may be creating bias in comprehension; just a thought.

And I am not the OP; nor the one that chose to write of 'personal controversial' topics in public forums.

I misunderstood, then. I apologize. And I'm not being defensive as really the guy I'm arguing with isn't going to change that the winds of the sociopolitical in America are blowing in my desired direction.

But I don't see how even passively making a joke about gay being a choice can be viewed as trying to get a thread back on topic. Quite the opposite, really.

But yeah I'll do what everyone wants and bow out here. Reco can have the last word if he likes. I apologize to the OP for moving this to a real-world issue, as well.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 28 mai 2012 - 11:01 .

[android654]

Jesus Fu*king Christ do you people get worked up over non sense. You guys took hours of your life debating something that's so ridiculous. Here I'll help you

1) You don't take a poll on giving people civil rights and protection. People should be treated equally and fairly by their respective governments.

2) Your personal prejudices have no place in dictating people's station in society.

3) It doesn't matter what an individual's opinion is on someone's sexual orientation is, since every organization should concern itself with getting the most qualified people they can for what ever position.

4) If you disagree with the above you're a bigot and don't belong in society in 2012.

There, saved you guys a bunch of time.

Also, just a reminder, but this is about a fictional character. No one's going to catch "the gay" because some guy in skin tight spandex and a fetish mask likes other guys.

[slimgrin]

Well, this got off topic. Know what would be cooler than a gay superhero? an androgynous one. I'm serious. Plenty of social commentary to be had there and no one gets offended.

[android654]

Or a bisexual one that swings evenly in both directions. They did it really well in Lost Girl, and it never comes off as catering too much in either direction.

[Elhanan]

Batman is already known to swing in many directions.... *bazibga*

[Seagloom]

slimgrin wrote...

Well, this got off topic. Know what would be cooler than a gay superhero? an androgynous one. I'm serious. Plenty of social commentary to be had there and no one gets offended.

I would like to see that. Gender and its role in society is rarely explored to any satisfactory degree. As long as androgyny was not the character's defining quality, anyway. That said, pushing too deeply into that territory will still offend people. Enough folks are comfortable enough with gender binaries that the moment said androgyne or genderqueer character crosses their personal boundaries, they will feel offended/repulsed/angry ect.