You make a good point here. Though there is definitely a correlation, it's not an inevitable thing. Though there is still the question of s.exual tension and having to separate people. I'd never let "straight" (that term always strikes me as stupid for some reason) girls and boys sleep in the same tent on a camping trip, for example.
And while I certainly disagree with you about s.exuality not affecting any aspect of your life other than what goes where, you're right that effeminacy/tomboyishness aren't tied in with h.omosexuality in every instance, though you can't deny there's a definite tendency. Though girls who insist on acting like men also weird me out. Would you ever date a girl that could beat you up? I wouldn't in a million years.
Collin, you keep talking about how uncomfortable ga.y people make people you, as well as people who don't follow their set gender roles and this confuses me. Its people like you that shall hold our society back for generations to come. Why do you care how someone acts? Why do you think it matters how effeminate or masculine someone is? That honestly has nothing to do with how a person is inside. One of my best friends is ga.y and he's more effeminate then me, and he could still hold his own in a fight. I've seen him knock out a guy half a foot taller then him. I'm a "tomboy", and I'm still girly, wear dresses and makeup and love fashion or whatever, and there is no doubt in my mind I could kick your as.s it doesn't matter, gender roles were created by religious bigots to impose their dominance over women, they are outdated and crude.
*Sigh* And so the conversation comes full-circle. I won't reply to you because I refuse to resort to name-calling and intellectual bullying.
That wasn't meant to be an insult, merely an observation. Nothing annoys me more then h.o.mophobia and misogyny.
*Grunt* Well thanks. Though one man's observation is another man's bullc.rap. You don't know me, or my character, or how I treat other people. You don't even know my full name. And you certainly don't know whether or not you could "kick my A.ss." So if you'd tone down the meaningless demagoguery it'd be appreciated.
I can assure you I'm neither h.omophobic nor mysogynistic, so you can stop your crusade. I'm merely making an attempt to bring reality to bear on a society taken by the illusions of a Liberal agenda. S.exuality does mean something, and recognizing that does not make someone scum, it makes them "observant." Unless your definition of the word only extends to those who take any chance to spew ridiculous trash at people they don't know in any way.
h t tp:/ /theologoholic.file s.wordpress.co m/2012/05/boom-roasted.j pg?w=500
Wow, you're another entertaining one. Can't say I've ever been called a rabble-rouser before. I'm a lot of things, ignorant ain't one of them. The lower classes aren't always uneducated contrary to popular belief. And I believe you have missed my point. Did you know that smarter people tend to be more accepting and open minded? That's all I'm asking of you, to accept and welcome others, no matter how uncomfortable they make you. Hom.ose.xuality isn't an entirely "liberal" thing. It shouldn't determine someone's political stance, and it certainly shouldn't determine how others treat them. Recognizing someone's se.xuality and alienating someone's se.xuality are two different things. If I wanted to call you out or start a "crusade", believe me, it would be much more brutal. I've met all kinds of people, and I've found they fall into set forms with minor variations, I call your form Dia-sakerente. I have no problem with you, only your ignorance. There's too much hate in the world and I refuse to add to it. Don't feel bad about it, it can be hard to step out of your comfort zone, but I have faith in you. Hopefully, everyone will soon see how we're all just human beings and should hold no prejudice towards each other. Probably not in our lifetimes, but eventually.
Perhaps with the passage of time I shall come to see your magnificent effulgence for what it is and shed my current ignorance, denounced by your infallible moral sense, bowing to your beautiful conception of how this religiously intolerant and corrupt world ought to be, and thanking you without end for mercifully sparing me the extention of your "brutal" power which I undoubtedly deserve to receive for the sheer atrocity of my actions.
As for now, I believe you're a pretenious fool.
Perhaps with the passage of time I shall come to see your magnificent effulgence for what it is and shed my current ignorance, denounced by your infallible moral sense, bowing to your beautiful conception of how this religiously intolerant and corrupt world ought to be, and thanking you without end for mercifully sparing me the extention of your "brutal" power which I undoubtedly deserve to receive for the sheer atrocity of my actions and my unaccepting, slimy Bourgeoisie heart.
As for now, I believe you're a pretenious fool.
Wow, there is no getting through to this one. You just take words and sort them out how they best fit your propaganda. I don't really mind, pertinacity can be an admirable quality if you know how to utilize it. Once more, I'm not trying to insult you, but apparently once you open that door, there's no closing it. How am I supposed to talk sense to someone who can't even look past their own pride? There are two sides to everything, and I can see that you believe me to be ignorant, all talk, only repeating what I hear from the news, but I can assure you that is not the case. I've seen too many people get ostracized, and even brutalized for who they are to accept the least bit of scorn. Who are you calling a pretentious fool? I don't speak out of my as.s, I'm just as capable of making a rational decision as everyone else, and the decision I'm making now is to laugh my as.s off. I don't have time for hostility, I'm plain sick of it to be honest. It's easier to throw insults around then admit to being unable to display basic empathy. Once more, I don't blame you, I don't know you, nor do I care to, but this is getting ridiculous. I don't even know what to say, so I guess I'll just stay silent so as to avoid further conflict. Good day, sir, and spurk tusa agus duilshas stalcach amaidi a dearg-ghráin tarcaisne.
I had to get a point across, but yes that was all true. Thank you. It was very hard to obtain. Congratulations to your brother from me.
De Gustibus Non est Disputandum.
Those Special Agents work in the the Office of the Inspector General which does not deal in clandestine operations Gryffindor.
Ahhhh, but the key word there is, Agent. So my point is, the CIA does have Special Agents. Where ever they work. They could work in the Janitor's office for all I care.
Sorla: I totally agree with all that you have said. Oh and Collin and Gryffindor, you continually show us that reverse evolution is truly possible. You are two of the most misogynisitic and homophobic people I have ever heard.
GRYFFINDOR as the son of a female Naval Academy alumna, I fear for the future of our military if selfish and egotisitical people like you climb up the ranks! I'd love to hear what you think of the repeal of DADT!
Wow I should come to the News&Issues forum more often. This thread is hilarious.
Here are my thoughts (to save you time, just agree since I am always right :P):
1. I think that anybody [Christian] who doesn't allow "g.ay" people to enter the boyscouts or be leaders or whatever is unconsciously accepting the view that g.ayness is an identity, rather than accepting the Biblical criticism of s.odomy which is an act. Effeminate men are not criticised in the Bible anywhere. Nor indeed are men who think themselves as "q.ueer". What Abrahamic religions criticise and always have criticised are actions. So if you say that 'g.ay' people can't be boy scout leaders, are you claiming that the person has committed s.odomy? What proof do you have? If they are openly preaching for it is one thing, but if someone appears to be g.ay (based on certain prevalent characteristics or stereotypes), then what are they being prohibited for?
The very reason that Abrahamic religions' reasoning against s.odomy falls on deaf modern Western ears is because the followers are accepting the premise that s.exuality, and specifically h.o.mos.exuality, is an identity. This is not a fact. This is one highly politicized sociological theory amongst many. It is NOT something that has been accepted historically. It is NOT self-evident. There is a history behind why s.exuality is being treated as a part of one's identity (consider that this is a very modern phenomenon about 60 years old, not accepted by a very large portion of the world). To treat it as such is, for Abrahamic religions, shooting yourself in the foot.
So to say that g.ay people can't be boy scout leaders is accepting a premise that is inherently flawed.
2. If it wasn't obvious, I don't think g.ay people shouldn't be allowed to be boyscout leaders, regardless of who funds it. But that is NOT because Christianity is okay with s.odomy, but because a) boy scouts probably don't sleep around all that much; and b) being g.ay/qu.eer is not "being", it is an ACT, and if you ban people on the basis of "being g.ay" then you are claiming that it IS a part of one's identity; and c) I am sure that pro.mi.scuous boys are allowed into the boy scouts, or those who are addicted to p.orn, and s.odomy is a sin just like those (and according to Christianity, or at least Protestant American Christianity, all sins are equal). Based on the Christian belief that we are all sinners,
3. If someone is uncomfortable around effeminate people, they will have to learn to deal with it or avoid them. Being effeminate is not a crime or a sin, and while you can probably train yourself to avoid it, since it is common from a VERY VERY young age, it is probably something that can be considered, at least theoretically, as part of 'who you are'.
4. Men and women are clearly different. Anyone who denies that is denying both the obvious and not-so-obvious biological signs. For instance, women give birth (so do l.es.bians, even if they choose not to). Men don't. Men generally grow facial hair. Women generally don't. To try to ignore these differences and proclaim that we contribute the same way to society, or can perform all roles equally, is to ignore reality. Men and women are innately equal, and from a religious perspective, all are born equal, but that is in a spiritual sense (which is what ultimately matters in a religion with the afterlife). Religions such as Christianity grant women and men the highest degree of equality because they claim that we are created by one God and will be judged by Him in terms of piety (or our choices). In a purely materialistic or biological sense, men and women are not equal. A pr.egnant woman is EASILY overpowered by a man. It is an obvious statistical fact that more women are r.aped than men (though I do not know if more women are s.educed than men). Even between people of the same gender, people are not biologically 'equal'. Some are weak, some are strong, some are blind, some are disabled, some are elderly, some are intelligent.. naturally, we are all different, and if you judge by any standard except a religious one, there is no real reason to believe we are equal. Of course, I do think people are equal, but we are clearly not horizontally equal. We are vertically equal. Without a proper understanding of why we are equal, it is possible that we will soon begin to devalue the feeblest and weakest members of society. This is already happening amongst the elderly, as people begin to discard those who no longer contribute to society in a quantitative manner, or amongst people who will a.bort a foetus because it will probably be born disabled in some sense.
Anyway, I know someone will misunderstand this, so the long story short is: We are all different but equal.
4. Most people nowadays won't hire a Muslim (or even an Arab) who has a beard, especially in sales and such. This is because they will come across to ignorant or naive people as 'te.rr.orists' or dangerous and will damage the company's ability to make money. If private companies have the right to refuse someone on the basis of their combined facial hair and descent, why can't what is a privately sponsored club refuse people on other bases? If the Church was smart, it wouldn't do it, of course, for the reasons I stated above, but if we are talking about rights, discrimination exists everywhere, both unwritten and written. I don't agree with either one of these discriminations BTW, but q.ueer rights' groups have a tendency to blow things way out of proportion and take over the media in their attempts to seem victimized. If it's really such a big deal, make your own club, I mean sheesh.
And lastly, before anybody calls me a h.o.mop.hobe: thinking that s.exuality is not an identity is NOT h.om.oph.obia. I have no problem with g.ay people. I have several g.ay friends, in fact. (We can never get that close because they treat the key aspect of their identity as their s.exuality, whereas although I am straight, I never talk about 'straightness', so we have some fundamentally different ideas about the most important aspects of a person. Nevertheless, we're on good terms.) One of the most interesting things to observe is how a minority group has managed to redefine h.om.ose.xuality into an aspect of your identity, and thus define h.omop.hobes as people who reject that theory, thereby hindering any attempts to view q.ueerness is any light except for the one that they have developed over the past 60 years. Collin, for instance, disagrees with many key aspects of Islam and denies its truth, but I do not call him an Islamophobe because he does not hate on it or hate Muslims for what they have chosen to follow, but rather, critcises what he thinks is false. Disagreement is not hatred. I apologise if I have offended anybody, and if I said something that comes across as hateful, I really did not mean it hatefully. I only hate spicy food...and Russians. LOL just kidding :D
*sigh* I hate forums like this when people can't tell when you are being sarcastic or not.
NewsJunkie: Please do insult me more. Congrats to your mother for graduating the academy. So that being said I'd like to share my family history.
Mom(dead): Naval Academy graduate of 1984, served as the XO aboard a ballistics submarine. Honorably discharged with full benefits.
Dad: FBI, thats all he says. So for all I know, he could be a Janitor. Navy Seal honorably discharged for lung surgery.
Uncle: West Point Graduate: currently still serving as a Combined Arms Operations Officer
Grandfather and Great grandfather(both Dead): served as pilots in Vietnam.
Cousin:(son of my uncle) finished sophomore year of the United States Air Force Academy.
Me: yet to be determined.
DADT: for those who don't know is the military policy Don't Ask, Don't tell. Which allowed L.G.B.T. to serve openly in the United States Armed Forces, signed in 1993, repealed 2010. The repealing of the ACT doesn't ban the discrimination of se.xual orientation.
AS for my opinion, there shouldn't be an ACT. No laws. Should be common sense. It is someone else's privacy. If someone causes a problem with it, it is their fault, not the governments. Should be handled by the commanding officer. Just like marriage and abo.rtion. I don't care either way. I just want the government to step out of our business for the time being because this doesn't solve anything.