Good idea or not?

[phrogdriver]

I don't think it's an overwhelmingly religious issue. And many religions accept (to varying degrees) homosexuality. I'll grant that a greater percentage do not, though. The Episcopal Church supposedly allows gay priests (I'm not Episcopal, so not sure).

As far as limiting debate of morality to homosexuality.....I completely agree. The more frank discussions we have about contentious moral issues, the better chance that maybe we can solve them. Or at least come to some civil agreements on common ground.

If only people could speak rationally to each other about morality. Since morality is tied so closely to religion, or for those who aren't religious, to personal identity, discussions tend to get heated rapidly.

The problem is when this gets tied into the public sphere. For example, if government allows gay marriage, is it endorsing homosexuality? That's equivalent to pushing immorality in the eyes of many. One can make utilitarian arguments all day, but they are never going to convince someone who believes homosexuality is inherently immoral.

People have their own sacred cows and hot buttons. On top of that, they're often irrational. I've heard lectures about how gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage by a man who's been married three times. Must be the gays' fault.

On top of that, most religions have an evangelical side to them, i.e. they can't just stand aside and allow someone to descend into "sin." They have to "help" that person. This is usually a good thing, but in regards to hot-button issues, only aggravates the problem.

I'm a live and let live guy, but people who aren't make these issues very difficult to address on a rational basis.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Besides, people choose their religion, they don't choose to be gay.

I work with gays everyday and even though I disagree with their lifestyle, I get along with them. I've had many a beer or meal on a layover with gay FAs. It's live and let live.

However I will say that the premise that gays are born that way is just that, a premise on the part of some people. Studies fall both ways on this, many involve identical twins where one is gay and the other is not. Since identical twins have the same genetic makeup, they should either be both gay or both straight. Further if genetics makes someone gay, why are there people who are equally attracted to both sexes? Until the mythical "gay gene" is isolated and proven reliably by multiple researchers, I will contend that being gay is a choice and saying that they had no choice is a defense mechanism that originated by gays to justify their choice.

So saying substitute black for gay talk is BS, you have no choice over your skin color. Substituting gay for Christian is a more realistic comparison as both are choices. (This is not directed at you specifically phrogdriver but at the discussion in general.)

Just my humble opinion and I'll crawl back to my spectator hole with my popcorn while you guys continue the endless debate that will never be resolved (just like abortion or religious debates). I'll throw another log on the fire when I get bored. Have fun.

 

[Brett327]

Is disagreement equal or synonymous with discrimination though? Religion and sexual orientation are sets of moral beliefs and not everyone has the same moral code, so does disagreeing with one or the other necessarily mean you are automatically discriminating against them?

What PD said.

 

[phrogdriver]

So, you have clear memories of the day you "chose" to be straight? If the mood struck you, could you choose to be gay tomorrow? Just because genetics determine something doesn't mean environment does nothing. You can have a genetic predisposition to cancer, but not get it until it's triggered. Doesn't mean cancer is a choice. Besides, why would one "choose" a lifetime of discrimination?

 

[Brett327]

I work with gays everyday and even though I disagree with their lifestyle, I get along with them. I've had many a beer or meal on a layover with gay FAs. It's live and let live.

However I will say that the premise that gays are born that way is just that, a premise on the part of some people. Studies fall both ways on this, many involve identical twins where one is gay and the other is not. Since identical twins have the same genetic makeup, they should either be both gay or both straight. Further if genetics makes someone gay, why are there people who are equally attracted to both sexes? Until the mythical "gay gene" is isolated and proven reliably by multiple researchers, I will contend that being gay is a choice and saying that they had no choice is a defense mechanism that originated by gays to justify their choice.

So saying substitute black for gay talk is BS, you have no choice over your skin color. Substituting gay for Christian is a more realistic comparison as both are choices. (This is not directed at you specifically phrogdriver but at the discussion in general.)

Just my humble opinion and I'll crawl back to my spectator hole with my popcorn while you guys continue the endless debate that will never be resolved (just like abortion or religious debates). I'll throw another log on the fire when I get bored. Have fun.

If you querry the psychological community, they'll tell you (as with most things), homosexuality is a combination of nature and nurture. So, the notion of choice with respect to sexual preference gets kind of muddy. My question is, for those who are put off by the notion of homosexuality, why does it matter if it's a personal choice or not? We have to deal with a whole host of differences amongst the people we interact with - some choices, others aren't. I suspect that there are a host of things that would disgust you about your various heterosexual friends if you delved into the details of their lives.

 

[707guy]

I'm guessing it's just coincidence that as I'm reading this there is an ad for signing a petition to "speak out against the proposed marriage ban for same-sex couples in Minnesota"..........

 

[jmcquate]

Back to the origanal question posed by this thread, should an United States Navel ship be named after someone who by accounts of poeple who knew him did not enjoy his time in service and disagreed with our involvement in Vietnam, I'm guessing we all vote no. This is just a stunt by a San Fran Pol to get the Gay vote. Shame on the San Fran Pol.

 

[bert]

Back to the origanal question posed by this thread, should an United States Navel ship be named after someone who by accounts of poeple who knew him did not enjoy his time in service and disagreed with our involvement in Vietnam, I'm guessing we all vote no. This is just a stunt by a San Fran Pol to get the Gay vote. Shame on the San Fran Pol.

You spelled "Naval" wrong.

And "original".

And "people".

But otherwise you did great, Champ!

 

[jmcquate]

Spelling is overated. So you agree with me?

 

[bert]

Spelling is overated. So you agree with me?

I know it isn't happening which takes all the fun out of the discussion. But I bet the constituents of the SF board of supervisors (or whatever that organization's title is) are ok with it, and that is who they represent so I don't care at all that they wasted their time passing the resolution.

 

[jmcquate]

Yup.

 

[ea6bflyr]

I know it isn't happening which takes all the fun out of the discussion. But I bet the constituents of the SF board of supervisors (or whatever that organization's title is) are ok with it, and that is who they represent so I don't care at all that they wasted their time passing the resolution.

Unless the SECNAV decides differently.

-ea6bflyr

 

[MasterBates]

And not to get TOO far away from the OP, so feel free to PM me, but what exactly don't you "agree" with in the "gay lifestyle" (what the hell does that mean, anyway)?

I've been out camping in Yellowstone. Let me see if I can explain this.

I don't agree with the way the vast majority of gay men/women I know live. To include gay relatives. It's not that I don't get along with them, or deal with them, but I disagree with their lifestyle as much as I disagree with my relatives who basically live a trailer trash lifestyle, even though they have the means not to.

I grew up in a fairly gay area (Boston/Cape Cod) and got really sick of the "I'm gay and I'm in your face about it" gay people.

I hate how saying you don't like the gay lifestyle is just a step below being seen wearing a pointy white hat with eye holes, or holding a neo nazi rally.

It's not a religion thing to me, it's just a I don't like it. Combination of growing up around some real flamers (I guess flamboyant is the PC term) and not liking what they stood for in life. It's within their right to be gay. I don't have to fucking like it.

Seeing how Gay is now on the road to being another protected class, or another affirmative action category and quota, I also dislike that.

Hell, in some states, calling a gay kid a "flamer" in casual conversation can get you charged with a hate crime. I also fail to see why there should be specific legal protection for being gay, since any of the crimes that are covered in "hate crime" laws are already illegal, but they up the penalties.

I'm too fucking tired to search the actual laws, but I know in MA, assault and battery was already illegal. But do it to a gay man that you hate, vice a straight man you hate, and you may be looking at more jail time.

All animals are equal, but some seem to be more equal than others. And that's not right.

I've had gay Sailors work for me. 3 of the 5 I knew were gay, were outstanding at their jobs, and did not throw the gayness in your face. I had no problems with them. 2 of the 3 I knew were gay when DADT was in effect, but they didn't proclaim their love for the cock publicly, and I didn't ask. Even though I knew. Doesn't mean I agreed with their lifestyle. Any more than I agreed with lifestyle of the Sailors who were great at work, but were wannabe thugs the moment the uniform came off.

I am allowed to not like the gay lifestyle. I've never let a Sailors gay/straightness affect my evals of them.

But, I am really sick of being called a bigot for not liking a lifestyle that I don't partake in, and wouldn't.

 

[Brett327]

No rational person thinks or believes that Harvey Milk will get (or deserves to have) a ship named after him. Next question.

 

[BACONATOR]

I've been out camping in Yellowstone. Let me see if I can explain this.

I don't agree with the way the vast majority of gay men/women I know live. To include gay relatives. It's not that I don't get along with them, or deal with them, but I disagree with their lifestyle as much as I disagree with my relatives who basically live a trailer trash lifestyle, even though they have the means not to.

I grew up in a fairly gay area (Boston/Cape Cod) and got really sick of the "I'm gay and I'm in your face about it" gay people.

I hate how saying you don't like the gay lifestyle is just a step below being seen wearing a pointy white hat with eye holes, or holding a neo nazi rally.

It's not a religion thing to me, it's just a I don't like it. Combination of growing up around some real flamers (I guess flamboyant is the PC term) and not liking what they stood for in life. It's within their right to be gay. I don't have to fucking like it.

Seeing how Gay is now on the road to being another protected class, or another affirmative action category and quota, I also dislike that.

Hell, in some states, calling a gay kid a "flamer" in casual conversation can get you charged with a hate crime. I also fail to see why there should be specific legal protection for being gay, since any of the crimes that are covered in "hate crime" laws are already illegal, but they up the penalties.

I'm too fucking tired to search the actual laws, but I know in MA, assault and battery was already illegal. But do it to a gay man that you hate, vice a straight man you hate, and you may be looking at more jail time.

All animals are equal, but some seem to be more equal than others. And that's not right.

I've had gay Sailors work for me. 3 of the 5 I knew were gay, were outstanding at their jobs, and did not throw the gayness in your face. I had no problems with them. 2 of the 3 I knew were gay when DADT was in effect, but they didn't proclaim their love for the cock publicly, and I didn't ask. Even though I knew. Doesn't mean I agreed with their lifestyle. Any more than I agreed with lifestyle of the Sailors who were great at work, but were wannabe thugs the moment the uniform came off.

I am allowed to not like the gay lifestyle. I've never let a Sailors gay/straightness affect my evals of them.

But, I am really sick of being called a bigot for not liking a lifestyle that I don't partake in, and wouldn't.

I hear you, and your argument sounds compelling, yet I've found that most people who feel that passionately about something that really shouldn't be an issue are almost "looking for a fight".

Just like a fellow JO who needs to tell everyone he's jewish and gets SUPER offended whenever an anti-semitic joke is uttered.... I was raised orthodox Jewish and spent half my day speaking hebrew. I don't give a shit about it and don't practice anything now. I am probably the most self-deprecatory person when it comes to humor and I've been told numerous times by this reform-raised jew that I was being offensive. Boo hoo. He goes out of his way to tell people he's offended by anti-semitic humor and that he's jewish and we need to cater to him. He can't just say he's not hungry at a squadron event, he has to say shit like "Well this food isn't Kosher so I CAN'T EAT IT! I'm Jewish!" He's "looking for the fight" in much the same way I imagine you are looking to find the obnoxious gay dude who's forcing his way upon you.

Look, Master, I've met you in person.... and I find it REALLY hard to believe that you've had MORE than one run-in with gay bunk-mates on the ship or elsewhere that came on to you forcefully. I think you're imagining what isn't there. No offense, but I imagine they might have a person or two in mind before you....

The fundamental issue that you have to accept is this: being gay (and there are generally two types accepted: born that way or forged in childhood abuse, but in BOTH cases it's NOT a choice) is NOT a choice. Just like the color of your skin or any other natural attribute. So just like the color of someone's skin, saying you "just don't like it" sounds pretty fucking offensive in a certain context. I think you may need to take a minute and evaluate whether someone is "forcing" their way upon you, or if maybe you're imagining a crusade based on someone maybe just letting slip that they are gay. They all aren't trying to sleep with you, and they all don't need your personal approval. Just some acceptance and the ability to do their job and make their own way in this world without discrimination.