• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Good idea or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BACONATOR

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
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.


I would say until it's proven that it is a choice, we MUST believe it isn't. The ONLY evidence we have these days is that, manifestly, it is NOT a choice talking to EVERY gay person who would be willing to take part in a study. So, until we can address the science on a genetic, biological level, we can only take the observations from the subjects of the study. As far as I'm concerned, the above issue about choice was correct in ONE part: Gays are either born that way, or their behavior changed as a result of childhood sexual abuse, but in BOTH cases, it is NOT a choice when questioning the individual.

It seems like the obvious question.... but if it was a choice, why the HELL would ANYone choose such a difficult life full of discrimination and intolerance?
 

villanelle

Nihongo dame desu
Contributor
MB, you seem to have met every asshole, aggressive, boundary-less gay man alive. Perhaps you think most gays are that way because when you notice that behavior, you associate it with your preconceived notions of gayness, but when you just meet a guy who seems cool and you have a nice chat about motorcycles or hunting or sports, you don't realize that you've just chatted with a gay person who is perfectly normal and respects typical societal norms about appropriate social interaction.

I've met probably more than my fair share of gay guys, having spent a number of years dancing (not the pole kind). And 98% of them were regular, decent, normal folks, many of whom you wouldn't have known were gay until you asked or met their boyfriend. The other 2% were aggressive an inappropriate and amoral. But guess what? I'd say that 2% of straight men are those same things. 2& of straight men can't take no for an answer, and are pushy even when it's clear their target isn't interested, and all the things you seem to dislike about what you believe is standard gay behavior, but is really only deviate behavior. It's just that you aren't the target of the 2% of straight guys like this, so you don't really notice it. Trust me; it exists.

I'm sensing a lot of confirmation bias in your posts. You think gays are a certain way and you disagree with their "lifestyle" so when you see someone who matches your low opinion of gays, you note it as proof.

Being gay=being black my not be a valid comparison, but I've always related being gay to being in an inter-racial relationship. No one can really say whether it's a choice who you fall in love with, but some people fall in love with someone who is of a different race. But no matter what your religion or your upbringing or whatever else says about it, if you've got a problem with a black man and a white woman (or whatever racial combination), then in my book, that makes you a bigot. And if you say that it's okay but you don't want to see it, or that you have white friends who date black women and you are still friends with them so you must be just fine even though you think their relationship is wrong, or whatever else, by my personal definition, if you are anti-interacial marriage, then you are a bigot. And to say that they "shouldn't throw it in your face" and you're fine with them dating that black girl as long as you don't see it, or they shouldn't proclaim their love of black pussy publicly because that's gross... well, I think everyone knows what kind of reaction that would get.

I don't expect to change your mind, but know that a lot of people see if like I do. More and more everyday, thankfully. And just as I won't change your mind about it, you won't change my mind about the fact that a lot of what's been said in this thread is, IMO, bigoted, and that my heart aches for gay sailors and prospective sailors who have to read and hear these things.
 

BackOrdered

Well-Known Member
Contributor
@villanelle

*Sigh* And no, inter-racial marriage is also worlds apart from gay marriage, striking several far deeper cords. Is that really the first thing that bings into your head when you see a mixed couple. Geez, there are no genealogical consequences to being gay that your children will live with and pretty much "wear" in public. While the parents may be seen in the same light (again not phyically), a gay couple doesn't invite their kids to a one way pass to the KKK's shit list for life. No where were either gay parent 3/5 human in The Constitution, no where were scores of great great grandkids a product of gay rape during their great great grandparent's gay enslavement. Read a book on slave times before you respond. It's apples and oranges, cats and dogs.
 

villanelle

Nihongo dame desu
Contributor
@villanelle

*Sigh* And no, inter-racial marriage is also worlds apart from gay marriage, striking several far deeper cords. Is that really the first thing that bings into your head when you see a mixed couple. Geez, there are no genealogical consequences to being gay that your children will live with and pretty much "wear" in public. While the parents may be seen in the same light (again not phyically), a gay couple doesn't invite their kids to a one way pass to the KKK's shit list for life. No where were either gay parent 3/5 human in The Constitution, no where were scores of great great grandkids a product of gay rape during their great great grandparent's gay enslavement. Read a book on slave times before you respond. It's apples and oranges, cats and dogs.

Honestly this is part of the issue I have with the left, I don't see your cursade against bigots doing any more but adding to the problem of ignorance.

It may strike far deeper cords for you, but I doubt that's the case for your average gay person, and for plenty of straight people as well.

They've never been 3/5 of a person but they are denied the legal rights of other citizens (namely, marriage, and all the things associated with that). And if you think kids don't bear stigma from having gay parents, I don't know what world you are living in. Sure, those consequenes aren't geneological, but what possible difference could that make. The kids don't have to shove a pencil in their hair to prove something, but that doesn't mean that kids of both groups don't suffer because of how society views their parents.

I think your post actually strengthens my comparisions. Kids of gay couples and kids of inter-racial couples face awful consequences. Both groups have faced legal (and even constitututional, though in the case of gays it is thus far only state constitutions) discrimination.

Where are you getting apples and oranges? Because I'm seeing Golden Delicious and Granny Smith.

And I didn't compare gays to slaves. I compared views about how being gay is unacceptable with views about inter-racial relationships being unacceptable. But if you're trying to point out that one group has a entrenched history of horrific abuses, maybe you are the one who needs to brush on on your reading, because the world has certainly been very cruel to gays in both recent history (e.g. Matthew Shepard) and dating back pretty much as far as slavery (e.g. sodomy being a capital offense in colonial Rhode Island).
 

BACONATOR

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
This is the most absurd statement I've ever read.

This is the second most absurd statement I've ever read.

So because all the evidence proves the first quote and none of it proves your contention, that's absurd?

As for the second quote... yeah, since the source is from a doctor, clearly it's absurd as well.

I'm sure as an airline pilot, you are the authority on behavioral psychology. How am I an authority? I'm not: my points were merely parroting actual qualified sources.
 

BackOrdered

Well-Known Member
Contributor
It may strike far deeper cords for you, but I doubt that's the case for your average gay person, and for plenty of straight people as well.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me the genological consequences gay parents pass to their kid that the kid can't denied or renounce. You can't renounce genetics and the kids have no say into who that makes them phyically and the social assumption that it brings. But you are about to pound your leftist fists anyway and say "uh uh."
 

scoolbubba

Brett327 gargles ballsacks
pilot
Contributor
This thread got to be quite absurd.

You don't like gays? Stop going to gay bars. If someone is flamboyantly gay in the Navy, it's unprofessional. Just like being "flamboyantly straight" will get you sent to sensitivity training.

There won't and shouldn't be a USS Harvey Milk until there is a USS *insert every Navy and Marine Corps MOH awardee here.* Then we can move on to the Navy Cross. And so on and so forth. SECNAV saw the backlash when he picked a socialist union thug to name a ship after. The picks since then have been much more conventional. People do care about what their ships name is, and the message got across.
 

villanelle

Nihongo dame desu
Contributor
I'm still waiting for you to tell me the genological consequences gay parents pass to their kid that the kid can't denied or renounce. You can't renounce genetics and the kids have no say into who that makes them phyically and the social assumption that it brings. But you are about to pound your leftist fists anyway and say "uh uh."

And I specifically said that there are no genealogical consequences. I'm just not sure how the lack of that one thing means that the entire comparison isn't valid. So you can shake your rightist head and say "nu-uh", just because there is one insignificant difference in the way the two groups are discriminated against.

I don't expect to change your mind. But you certainly aren't going to change my mind about the fact that I think that saying you (global) disapprove of homosexuals or homosexuality is bigoted. So you think I'm a raging, PC-obsessed leftist, andI think I've stated what I think of those who believe some of the stuff posted in this thread, so I guess we're all clear on where we stand.
 

gparks1989

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
I'm still waiting for you to tell me the genological consequences gay parents pass to their kid that the kid can't denied or renounce. You can't renounce genetics and the kids have no say into who that makes them phyically and the social assumption that it brings. But you are about to pound your leftist fists anyway and say "uh uh."

But aren't those genealogical consequences only debilitating because of how societ views them? Unless you're referring to a higher propensity for sickle cell anemia or something. You also can't renounc/deny that your parents are homosexual, which no doubt invites disgust, disapproval, and pity.
 

BackOrdered

Well-Known Member
Contributor
But aren't those genealogical consequences only debilitating because of how societ views them? Unless you're referring to a higher propensity for sickle cell anemia or something. You also can't renounc/deny that your parents are homosexual, which no doubt invites disgust, disapproval, and pity.

Keep living padawan, keep living...

Not that I approve, but you think that parental denial is new?
 

BackOrdered

Well-Known Member
Contributor
What do you mean? Denying that my parents aren't who thy are?

*Sigh* So young.

I really don't know where to begin if you never heard of people denying family members. It is a jacksass choice to make in most cases, but a choice some children make regarding thier parents. The operative word being choice.
 

707guy

"You can't make this shit up..."
Why is it that in this day and age if you voice an opinion that "I don't care for..." or "I personally don't like..." or "I don't agree with..." that you're labelled as a bigot, homophob, race hater, anti-semetic, etc, etc, etc... An opinion is just that - an opinion. If I express disagreement with any "group" as long as I don't go out of my way to discriminate against them what's the big deal? Are we so f'ed up in this country that we can no longer express an opinion without the fear of be labelled something? Such a sorry state of affairs.

Personally I don't give a rat's ass what you do when you're not working with me. I have an issue when whatever it is you do outside of work affects the performance of your job. Especially when other folks have to work twice as hard to make up for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top