Obama and the Gay Military...

[Yoink]

My apologies if this video has already been linked in this thread, but it seems relevant. An 86 year old veteran of WWII talks about the gay-marriage fight in Maine. If you can watch this without tearing up a little, you're made of sterner stuff than me.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Twin studies point strongly to either genetics or fetal hormone levels playing a large part. So while it might not have been proved, if one were to examine it on the preponderance of the evidence, it would much more likely be true than not.

And more to learn in the future, doubtless. What one must be careful of, and I hope the researchers are, is the societal and non material factors at play that lead to self classification as one or the other, see my pont on Mr Stipe (lead singer for R.E.M.) as a hint to that. Are we dealing with a systemic included middle that is arbitrarily discluded? (Is that even a word)?

If this research is exploring and identifying a genetic trait (or a "not" one) with reference to an environmental and subjective societal framework, are we comparing apples to oranges? I honestly don't know. Such an approach may also be "the best that can be done" at the moment.

DR

 

[BobTheDonkey]

And more to learn in the future, doubtless. What one must be careful of, and I hope the researchers are, is the societal and non material factors at play that lead to self classification as one or the other, see my pont on Mr Stipe (lead singer for R.E.M.) as a hint to that. Are we dealing with a systemic included middle that is arbitrarily discluded? (Is that even a word)?

If this research is exploring and identifying a genetic trait (or a "not" one) with reference to an environmental and subjective societal framework, are we comparing apples to oranges? I honestly don't know. Such an approach may also be "the best that can be done" at the moment.

DR

Even if we allow that sexual orientation is a choice, what makes one choice worthy of revile and disgust and the other not? In other words, what makes your "choice" to be heterosexual more "correct" than another person's choice to be homosexual?

 

[GreyICE]

And more to learn in the future, doubtless. What one must be careful of, and I hope the researchers are, is the societal and non material factors at play that lead to self classification as one or the other, see my pont on Mr Stipe (lead singer for R.E.M.) as a hint to that. Are we dealing with a systemic included middle that is arbitrarily discluded? (Is that even a word)?

If this research is exploring and identifying a genetic trait (or a "not" one) with reference to an environmental and subjective societal framework, are we comparing apples to oranges? I honestly don't know. Such an approach may also be "the best that can be done" at the moment.

DR

The twin studies I have read all included options for rating of the person's hetero or homo sexuality that included bisexuality, in a variety of ways. There's no adapting one's study to every single participant lying through their teeth, but at the same time, that seems highly unlikely (the phrase 'grasping at straws' with regards to that comes to mind).

The social framework obviously provides a strong on people's self-images and self-reporting, at the same time that would seem to provide a universal bias across the board.

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#b&p91

(entire paper, the meta-study, good reading).

These results give reason to believe that there is some constitutional component to male homosexuality. However, the twin data are consistent not only with a purely genetic explanation, but also with one involving possible differences in the degree of shared prenatal environment between monozygotic and dizygotic twins (as explained earlier, monozygotic twins experience higher similarity in foetal hormone production, both in timing and in amount, than do dizygotic twins).

As quoted, it is not enough to determine if it is genetic or prenatal environment, but saying that there is not evidence to determine if the statement 'they were born that way' is true and the balance of the evidence is indeterminate is simply false. Studies done give reason to believe that prenatal factors play a large part.

Saying that it is neither 'proved' nor 'disproved' in the scientific sense is true, but that does not mean that we lack the evidence to draw any conclusions.

 

[Toke]

Quad4 72,
The gay/guy on your track team sound unusual.
I have only seen a guy hard in the showers once, and that was in 7.th grade.

People tend to get used to the situation, that is, showering with their preferred sex, without showing a reaction.
If you look at nudist beaches a hard-on is out of context as it is not a sexual situation and they rarely appear.

Don't you think almost all gays would be used to naked men in the showers without reacting like a teenager at his first sight of boobs?

(Hint: consider the percentage of gays and frequency of hard-ons in showers)

 

[ponderingturtle]

Don't you think almost all gays would be used to naked men in the showers without reacting like a teenager at his first sight of boobs?

Or seemingly based on the reactions here, some posters sight of any boobs ever.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Or seemingly based on the reactions here, some posters sight of any boobs ever.

Does that include man-boobs?

 

[Toke]

Does that include man-boobs?

I think that is a fetish.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I think that is a fetish.

Everybody needs somebody to love

 

[cwalner]

Quad4 72,
The gay/guy on your track team sound unusual.
I have only seen a guy hard in the showers once, and that was in 7.th grade.

People tend to get used to the situation, that is, showering with their preferred sex, without showing a reaction.
If you look at nudist beaches a hard-on is out of context as it is not a sexual situation and they rarely appear.

Don't you think almost all gays would be used to naked men in the showers without reacting like a teenager at his first sight of boobs?

(Hint: consider the percentage of gays and frequency of hard-ons in showers)

While purely anectdotal, I can speak for myself. As a gay man, I have never had an erection in a public shower. You are quite right, the context is not sexual, so sexual reactions gennerally do not occur.

Also when put into context of this discussion. If gay soldiers did get erections while showering in public, DADT would not even be neccesary to remove gays from the military. They would all out themselves during basic training and be weeded out before they got thier first post. The fact that there are not any stories of soldiers being kicked out because of getting aroused in the public showers shows that this issue is a complete fabrication.

 

[MikeMangum]

Your link has nothing to do with sexual or gender identity though,

I'm not sure I follow you.

The title of the article is "Gay brains structured like those of opposite sex" and opens with:

Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.

The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.

and later on says:

First they used MRI scans to find out the overall volume and shapes of brains in a group of 90 volunteers consisting of 25 heterosexuals and 20 homosexuals of each gender.

The results showed that straight men had asymmetric brains, with the right hemisphere slightly larger - and the gay women also had this asymmetry. Gay men, meanwhile, had symmetrical brains like those of straight women.

What's your definition of "gender"? Now I know that for some people "gender" is a fluid concept (it's a cultural construct!) and people can pick and choose their gender along a 24 axis continuum based on their mood, what they ate for breakfast, and last night's hockey scores. But for me, gender is, while not entirely binary, pretty straitforward for most people with standard XX or XY genotypes.

 

[MikeMangum]

Based on my nonsexual interactions with naked females, yes.

Yes and no. While closing my eyes and muttering "Dead puppies! Think of dead puppies!" almost always works now, it certainly didn't always work when I was younger.

 

[Dancing David]

I think he was getting at behavior (gay) versus condition of birth (female, black). I didn't see him asserting that choice was the issue, but that a particular behavioral trait is the issue. But maybe I missed my guess there.

"I was born that way" hasn't been proved, nor disproved, as far as I can tell. The combination of nature and nurture seems to answer most of the mail: initial tool set/predilection plus environment, given that part of the environment is how sexuality is defined or accepted in a given society. This still leaves us with, for example, equal oppotunity lechers like Michael Stipe (his own descriptive of himself some years ago) and thus the bisexual preference.

DR

I didn't see his staement that way, something to consider. I am considering it from the statement that black people and women can't choose, so....

 

[Quad4_72]

Do you disagree that you are immauture if you become a sissy over simply seeing a boner? Oh the horror! Almost compares to Zarqawi's beheadings.

Yes, I do disagree. Like I said, you can compare it to a woman having a man she doesnt know stare at her while she is showering. If she were to feel uncomfortable about that, would you call her a sissy as well? Here is the point I made and you dodged:
"Going with the shower situation, it felt to me like the gay guy was taking advantage of a situation to see a bunch of naked men and have sexual fantasies about it. Ask a group of women how they would feel if a guy was staring into their shower room and getting an erection. I can bet you they would feel about the same way I did."

As others have said, you'd be fine with the discrimination that blacks and women experienced if only they managed to conceal their blackness/womaness? Blacks could do a Michael Jackson, why didn't you advocate that?

I never once stated I would be fine with them being discriminated against if they could conceal their physical appearance. You made this up. I was merely stating that women and black people have struggled much more than gays because it is pretty damn hard to cover up if you are a black person or a woman. If you are gay, all you have to do is stop acting feminine.

Why is the shoe always on the bigot, not the other way around? Once again Quad, why should the military side with your views? What makes you so special?

Well, the military has already sided with my views actually.

 

[Quad4_72]

While purely anectdotal, I can speak for myself. As a gay man, I have never had an erection in a public shower. You are quite right, the context is not sexual, so sexual reactions gennerally do not occur.

Also when put into context of this discussion. If gay soldiers did get erections while showering in public, DADT would not even be neccesary to remove gays from the military. They would all out themselves during basic training and be weeded out before they got thier first post. The fact that there are not any stories of soldiers being kicked out because of getting aroused in the public showers shows that this issue is a complete fabrication.

Not sure how this discussion got to this point. I never made any statements about how soldiers should be kicked out for getting an erection in the shower. My anecdote was from college and I was using it as reasoning for why a straight man would be uncomfortable showering with a gay man. Most straight guys aren't cool with gay guys checking them out while they are naked. I compared this to a straight guy checking out a woman while she was naked and there was nothing she could do about it.

 

[linusrichard]

My apologies if this video has already been linked in this thread, but it seems relevant. An 86 year old veteran of WWII talks about the gay-marriage fight in Maine. If you can watch this without tearing up a little, you're made of sterner stuff than me.

My wife and I wept; thank you.

 

[funk de fino]

Like I said, being black or being a woman are COMPLETELY different things when compared to being gay. Being a woman or being black are physical traits that you were born with and cannot be changed. A gay man can choose at any time to not act feminine or dress like a homo if he so chooses to avoid harassment. Women and black people do not have that option and it is a disgrace to compare the struggles of women and black people to the struggles of trying to be accepted as gay.

WOW, caveman time.

 

[funk de fino]

If you are gay, all you have to do is stop acting feminine.

This is hiliarious.

 

[Quad4_72]

WOW, caveman time.

Elaborate. Give me a rebuttal to my assertion that it is easier to cover up being gay than it is to cover up being black or being a woman.

 

[Yoink]

Elaborate. Give me a rebuttal to my assertion that it is easier to cover up being gay than it is to cover up being black or being a woman.

The problem with your argument is that it takes us nowhere. You seem to be saying that because it's easier for gay people to "pass" as straight than it is for a black person to "pass" as white, it's therefore o.k. to discriminate against gays. That's just nuts.

It's pretty damn easy for Roman Catholics to hide the fact that they're Catholics. Does that mean it would be acceptable to ban Catholics from serving in the military? After all, some Protestants are probably not happy serving alongside Catholics, so it could be bad for troop cohesion. And it's not like you're "born" Catholic--it's pretty obviously a choice.

So...is it acceptable to discriminate against Catholics?