"Don't Ask Don't Tell" Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

No one is here is responsible to teach or educate - just to chat it up on a video game forum.

Frankly, if a guy spouts out some crazy sh*t I am just going to write him off - I have enough going on in my life without trying to convert crazies on the internet.

If you feel so strongly about it, can I ask why you didn't take up the cause to help ease him into another viewpoint?

darrenl wrote:
Seth wrote:
darrenl wrote:

I'm just sayin guys...the way you handled him could have been better. Not your most graceful way of handling someone with a polar opposite view.

This is the teacher/student thing that annoys people, btw. It's like you're asking people to yell "you're not my dad!"

...am I wrong for pointing this out? Please address my point, not apparent issues with learning from others.

You're not wrong, but you're going to take flak if people interpret your statements as talking down to them. The reaction to FiveIron's statements was a mix. I thought that the humorously-dirty-yet-intelligent one wasn't that bad. It was pretty enlightening.

Seth wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Please address my point, not apparent issues with learning from others.

Thanks Seth...I missed those posts. Sorry about that.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

He deserves the same respect that someone who thinks that black men want nothing more than to rape white women or that that gypsies need to be put down; none. It's 2011. 2011! Educate? Seriously, educate? How many thousands of opportunities have people already had that they have willfully ignored? How many times has FiveIron heard that homosexuality is not, in fact, a choice, and is not, in fact, a dysfunction of any sort? Do you honestly believe that simply repeating it one more time on a forum was going to change his mind?

Bigots deserve public shame, and nothing more. I feel about these people the same way I feel about people who would walk into a room and proudly announce their KKK membership.

Yes. Seriously. Educate. If your position is one of truth as you claim, then you should have no issues doing so.

...and thanks PR and Rubb Ed for linking those for Five. I appologise to both of you for implying you weren't trying to confront Five in a respectful and open way despite the tone of his post.

darrenl wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

He deserves the same respect that someone who thinks that black men want nothing more than to rape white women or that that gypsies need to be put down; none. It's 2011. 2011! Educate? Seriously, educate? How many thousands of opportunities have people already had that they have willfully ignored? How many times has FiveIron heard that homosexuality is not, in fact, a choice, and is not, in fact, a dysfunction of any sort? Do you honestly believe that simply repeating it one more time on a forum was going to change his mind?

Bigots deserve public shame, and nothing more. I feel about these people the same way I feel about people who would walk into a room and proudly announce their KKK membership.

Yes. Seriously. Educate. If your position is one of truth as you claim, then you should have no issues doing so.

...and thanks PR and Rubb Ed for linking those for Five. I appologise to both of you for implying you weren't trying to confront Five in a respectful and open way despite the tone of his post.

No. There is nothing I could say that has not been repeated thousands of times already. I can't count the number of times I've heard how incredibly high the teen suicide rate is for homosexual teens or read stories about gays being insulted or beaten up or generally abused. There was a front-page story on CNN last week about how a man lost his house when his partner of 40+ years died; since they were gay, he couldn't get survivor benefits, and he had to sell his house while grieving the loss of what he considered to be (even if the law didn't) his husband. These stories are repeated again and again, and everybody has heard them, and we are not at the point where people need "educating". Seriously, have you not heard all this over and over? Do you really believe just repeating it 15,000 more times is going to help?

60 years ago, many people were overt bigots about skin color because it was considered socially acceptable in many places to proudly walk around with that kind of prejudice. Today, that sort of public bigotry would get you shunned, shouted down, and pushed aside. The problem with bigotry against gays and lesbians is that it is still tragically socially acceptable in far too many social circles, and what needs to happen is not "education"; what needs to happen is that a spotlight needs to be shined on these people so they can be recognized for what they are: bigots. We need to stop being polite and friendly with bigots of all kinds, and let them know their views are completely shameful and unacceptable in modern society, and shout them back to their holes. "Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or be in the military" needs to be held with the same kind of scorn and disdain that "black people can't use my water fountain" is held with today.

They are bigots, and need to be treated as such.

Internet forums are bad places for education, in my opinion. The format and accessibility turn them into a room full of armchair quarterbacks. Yeah, this particular room seems more congenial and educated than most and there's a certain degree of trust and respect that is difficult to find elsewhere, but it's still a forum that's geared more toward quick communication than serious educational debate. Not everyone is here for the same reasons, and not everyone will read the same words in the same way (let alone as intended).

/jumps off the train as it goes off the tracks

I prefer to think of myself as an armchair general, thank you very much!

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

60 years ago, many people were overt bigots about skin color because it was considered socially acceptable in many places to proudly walk around with that kind of prejudice. Today, that sort of public bigotry would get you elected to congress.

FTFY...

No matter how much education and exposure you get, there will still be pockets of hate; often large enough to elect large scale political representation.

darrenl wrote:

Yes. Seriously. Educate. If your position is one of truth as you claim, then you should have no issues doing so.

Education only works if the person you are trying to educate is receptive to analyzing all the data given to him or her and potentially willing to modify their views based on that analysis.

The notion that gay people wake up one day and choose homosexuality over heterosexuality is absurd. I can no more fall in love with or be sexually aroused by a woman than I can sprout wings and fly to work each morning.

Those facts, however, do not matter to many who are convinced that gays are repulsive to God and a blight on America.

Or don't think they should be in positions of leadership or even in the military.

darrenl wrote:

Instead of shutting down Five's statement with humor, humiliation, and the usual GWJ P&C Echo-Chamber-Pile-on...why not take the opportunity to educate and respectfully direct him to resources and studies that will help him understand the latest understandings of homosexuality.

That's becoming a bit of a theme, and I think it's not well-founded. I assumed FiveIron was trolling and just ignored him. I can't speak for whether the folks who responded in jest thought FiveIron was sharing an honest opinion, but I'd be surprised if nobody else's troll-sense was triggered. As noted above, there were respectful attempts to engage an individual who didn't credibly come for a discussion.

There are plenty of folks within the community who hold minority opinions (indeed, even vociferously in opposition to the majority) on various fronts. Overall, I think that GWJ P&C does an admirable job finding ways to constructively discuss issues even when there's passionate disagreement. When I no longer think that's the case, I'll go elsewhere.

Pred, Nomad, +1's to both of you

darrenl wrote:

So...here's a suggestion.

Instead of shutting down Five's statement with humor, humiliation, and the usual GWJ P&C Echo-Chamber-Pile-on...why not take the opportunity to educate and respectfully direct him to resources and studies that will help him understand the latest understandings of homosexuality.

...just a suggestion though.

Actually, what I did was present a thought experiment to him, albeit couched in humourous language, to show him that his assertion, when followed through, wasn't logical.

He says "Homosexuality is a choice"

I say "If that were true, you would be able to choose it."

I am educating him that his position is not consistent with his experience of the world.

I never have been fond of the "tone" argument, that the onus is one the party not saying the ridiculously offensive thing to be as kind and accommodating as possible to the party making the offensive statement. If I meet someone who feels that women who dress sexually deserve to be raped, the onus is not on me to hold that person's hand through the discovery process, and hug it out with them. I'm not the one taking the ludicrous and offensive position.

So while I have the option to do so, if I have the patience, I do not have to do so. We're not talking about tax code reform, we're talking about aspects of basic human dignity. I am in no way required to give every single bigoted statement I hear the same amount of time and consideration to rational, reasoned ones, and to assert as much doesn't raise the level of conversation. It is not my job to, upon meeting (say) a member of Stormfront.org, try to calmly and rationally explain to him that i'm not a hyper-violent, rape-mongering subhuman. If I take the position that the Irish are without worth and deleterious to our country as a whole, it is not someone else's job to kindly point me towards JFK and kindly wait and cajole me until I reach a "Eureka!" moment! As Rev said, "educating" requires those who make the statements being willing to be educated, and frankly, there's a category of statements that can be made (let's go with "Mexicans are shiftless, lazy, violent misogynists" for instance) that are so ludicrous on the face of them that one can safely assume that the person making it has no interest in "education".

Basically, the "tone" argument makes the case that the offense is not the bigoted statement, but the reaction to the bigoted statement, and treats any and all speech or statements of having the same worth and value in a discussion of ideas. I vociferously disagree. If we're talking about world history, and my position is firmly that Jews have been at fault for all major catastrophes in the 20th/21st century, my position does not have the same worth as "World War I was caused by a series of eminently avoidable events". We can argue over whether or not it was a bigoted statement (which is where, I'm willing to bet, much of the difference lies here), but making the argument that people need to be kinder and more understanding towards bigotry is frankly ludicrous.

Jonman wrote:
darrenl wrote:

So...here's a suggestion.

Instead of shutting down Five's statement with humor, humiliation, and the usual GWJ P&C Echo-Chamber-Pile-on...why not take the opportunity to educate and respectfully direct him to resources and studies that will help him understand the latest understandings of homosexuality.

...just a suggestion though.

Actually, what I did was present a thought experiment to him, albeit couched in humourous language, to show him that his assertion, when followed through, wasn't logical.

He says "Homosexuality is a choice"

I say "If that were true, you would be able to choose it."

Or choose against doing it? Doesn't your example in fact prove it is a choice, albeit one with strong internal motivation?

Phoenix Rev wrote:
darrenl wrote:

Yes. Seriously. Educate. If your position is one of truth as you claim, then you should have no issues doing so.

Education only works if the person you are trying to educate is receptive to analyzing all the data given to him or her and potentially willing to modify their views based on that analysis.

The notion that gay people wake up one day and choose homosexuality over heterosexuality is absurd. I can no more fall in love with or be sexually aroused by a woman than I can sprout wings and fly to work each morning.

Those facts, however, do not matter to many who are convinced that gays are repulsive to God and a blight on America.

Or don't think they should be in positions of leadership or even in the military.

I actually agree with Phx Rev here. If I believe homosexuality is morally wrong based on the Bible, no amount of education will change that. However, I do not accept the premise that the belief that it is immoral implies or excuses discrimination and hatefulness toward that group of individuals. It is possible, even scriptural mandated, that all others are to be treated with love and respect, no matter what sin they struggle with. If the Bible instructed us to love all the non-sinners, there would be no one left to love (Christians included).

Nomad wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Actually, what I did was present a thought experiment to him, albeit couched in humourous language, to show him that his assertion, when followed through, wasn't logical.

He says "Homosexuality is a choice"

I say "If that were true, you would be able to choose it."

Or choose against doing it? Doesn't your example in fact prove it is a choice, albeit one with strong internal motivation?

If I assert that I have a free choice between X and Y, then I choose X 100% of the time, there is no evidence that I could choose Y. However, if i was trying to prove to someone that I could choose Y if I wanted, I could demonstrate that fact by freely choosing Y.

Jonman wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Actually, what I did was present a thought experiment to him, albeit couched in humourous language, to show him that his assertion, when followed through, wasn't logical.

He says "Homosexuality is a choice"

I say "If that were true, you would be able to choose it."

Or choose against doing it? Doesn't your example in fact prove it is a choice, albeit one with strong internal motivation?

If I assert that I have a free choice between X and Y, then I choose X 100% of the time, there is no evidence that I could choose Y. However, if i was trying to prove to someone that I could choose Y if I wanted, I could demonstrate that fact by freely choosing Y.

Just because one lacks the desire to do something does not eliminate volition, correct? There are many things I don't think I would ever choose to do, but I still have the choice.

Jonman wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Actually, what I did was present a thought experiment to him, albeit couched in humourous language, to show him that his assertion, when followed through, wasn't logical.

He says "Homosexuality is a choice"

I say "If that were true, you would be able to choose it."

Or choose against doing it? Doesn't your example in fact prove it is a choice, albeit one with strong internal motivation?

If I assert that I have a free choice between X and Y, then I choose X 100% of the time, there is no evidence that I could choose Y. However, if i was trying to prove to someone that I could choose Y if I wanted, I could demonstrate that fact by freely choosing Y.

So really what needs to happen is the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage and homosexuality in general need to get together and make sweet same-sex love. That is the only way that homosexuality can be proven to be a choice.

I am submitting this proposal to my congressman.

Nomad wrote:

Just because one lacks the desire to do something does not eliminate volition, correct? There are many things I don't think I would ever choose to do, but I still have the choice.

Except that, in this case, the assertion is that the desire itself is a choice.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Just because one lacks the desire to do something does not eliminate volition, correct? There are many things I don't think I would ever choose to do, but I still have the choice.

Except that, in this case, the assertion is that the desire itself is a choice.

Bingo. Hence my reference in my original post to getting a full-on glass cutting boner.

SallyNasty wrote:

So really what needs to happen is the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage and homosexuality in general need to get together and make sweet same-sex love. That is the only way that homosexuality can be proven to be a choice.

I am submitting this proposal to my congressman.

You know, I really need to jump through the hoops to become a US citizen, so I can, like you, Sassy Sally, submit outrageous proposals to my congressman.

Jonman wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Just because one lacks the desire to do something does not eliminate volition, correct? There are many things I don't think I would ever choose to do, but I still have the choice.

Except that, in this case, the assertion is that the desire itself is a choice.

Bingo. Hence my reference in my original post to getting a full-on glass cutting boner.

SallyNasty wrote:

So really what needs to happen is the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage and homosexuality in general need to get together and make sweet same-sex love. That is the only way that homosexuality can be proven to be a choice.

I am submitting this proposal to my congressman.

You know, I really need to jump through the hoops to become a US citizen, so I can, like you, Sassy Sally, submit outrageous proposals to my congressman.

In the meanwhile, feel free to submit it to your MP

Nomad wrote:

Just because one lacks the desire to do something does not eliminate volition, correct? There are many things I don't think I would ever choose to do, but I still have the choice.

The problem is that the reverse is constantly asked or forced upon those of us who are gay. "How do you know? You might not have found the right woman yet," or "You know, the right man might change your mind."

Jonman's statement, flippancy aside, is asking you to take on the burden of proof, since it's ultimately on your head to prove your assertion true by showing that sexual attraction can be flipped to the opposite side of the spectrum.

As I've said before, while I can't speak for every gay person, I know I did try to force myself to be straight when I started to truly realize that I wasn't going through a phase. So I've already made the attempt, and nothing I did made me any more physically attracted to women.

I'm sure you don't have any interest in trying this experiment, which is fine. But it might interest you to give it a shot and see exactly what goes through your mind, because that'll give you a little insight into what I thought when I did everything I could to find women attractive, since I'm sure it would be very similar.

Rubb Ed wrote:

I'm sure you don't have any interest in trying this experiment, which is fine. But it might interest you to give it a shot and see exactly what goes through your mind, because that'll give you a little insight into what I thought when I did everything I could to find women attractive, since I'm sure it would be very similar.

Anecdote! -- I made out with a guy.

Twice, actually. With about a decade in between the two.

I did not enjoy either experience.

And I'm actually significantly more comfortable with my sexuality and the sexuality of those around me because of it.

Rubb Ed wrote:

Jonman's statement, flippancy aside, is asking you to take on the burden of proof, since it's ultimately on your head to prove your assertion true by showing that sexual attraction can be flipped to the opposite side of the spectrum.

You raise a good point in your use of the word 'flipped'.

The "homosexuality is a choice" crowd have to not only contend with the difficulty of proving that a straight guy can decide to be aroused by other men, but even more difficult, proving that the same guy can decide to stop being attracted to women.

This might be a little off-topic, but where do you guys come down on the trans-gender (not trans-sexual) issue in the military? My university was considering bringing ROTC back to campus (after the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell), but a number of campus groups quickly pointed to the military's refusal to make allowances for people whose physical parts belonged to one sex, but mental status belonged to the other as being discriminatory and against our school's values. Admittedly, my school was really liberal, so it seemed like groups just wanted to pounce on the military, but I wondered for a while as to how the military could make allowances for trans-gender individuals.

Jonman wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:

Jonman's statement, flippancy aside, is asking you to take on the burden of proof, since it's ultimately on your head to prove your assertion true by showing that sexual attraction can be flipped to the opposite side of the spectrum.

You raise a good point in your use of the word 'flipped'.

The "homosexuality is a choice" crowd have to not only contend with the difficulty of proving that a straight guy can decide to be aroused by other men, but even more difficult, proving that the same guy can decide to stop being attracted to women.

I heard/read/saw something once that suggested it wasn't a binary thing but rather a sliding scale from completely straight to completely gay. Most people were found to be somewhere between the middle and completely straight. So it doesn't seem to make sense to think of it as an either/or situation.

The uncomfortable though is that if you do happen to be halfway, what you go looking for very much becomes a choice.

Grubber788 wrote:

This might be a little off-topic, but where do you guys come down on the trans-gender (not trans-sexual) issue in the military? My university was considering bringing ROTC back to campus (after the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell), but a number of campus groups quickly pointed to the military's refusal to make allowances for people whose physical parts belonged to one sex, but mental status belonged to the other as being discriminatory and against our school's values. Admittedly, my school was really liberal, so it seemed like groups just wanted to pounce on the military, but I wondered for a while as to how the military could make allowances for trans-gender individuals.

Anyone curious about seeing the training material and other supplemental info that every Soldier has to be a part of this summer can read about it on the Army Don't Ask Don't Tell website.

LouZiffer wrote:

Does it have to be uncomfortable for someone to have more options?

I meant uncomfortable in the sense that there is still a choice involved. Not that I'd personally would like to condemn anybody to celibacy if their sexual preference isn't approved of, but this seems to be the argument made by the "it's a choice" group.

Lucan wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:

Jonman's statement, flippancy aside, is asking you to take on the burden of proof, since it's ultimately on your head to prove your assertion true by showing that sexual attraction can be flipped to the opposite side of the spectrum.

You raise a good point in your use of the word 'flipped'.

The "homosexuality is a choice" crowd have to not only contend with the difficulty of proving that a straight guy can decide to be aroused by other men, but even more difficult, proving that the same guy can decide to stop being attracted to women.

I heard/read/saw something once that suggested it wasn't a binary thing but rather a sliding scale from completely straight to completely gay. Most people were found to be somewhere between the middle and completely straight. So it doesn't seem to make sense to think of it as an either/or situation.

Rubb Ed does a good job of including this in his use of the word spectrum.

The uncomfortable though is that if you do happen to be halfway, what you go looking for very much becomes a choice.

Does it have to be uncomfortable for someone to have more options?

IMAGE(http://www.britishblogs.co.uk/images/813084.jpg)

Nomad wrote:

Just because one lacks the desire to do something does not eliminate volition, correct? There are many things I don't think I would ever choose to do, but I still have the choice.

Are we talking about the actual act of a homosexual sexual encounter or are we talking about someone who identifies as being homosexual/gay and having the innate desire to bond physically, emotionally, intellectually and soulfully?

I guess I could, if necessary, engage in a sexual encounter with a woman. However, it would be completely unsatisfying for me and for her and would not change the fact that I have a keen, sentient understanding that I am a gay man that has bonded to another man and is living in a loving, caring, compassionate, committed and passionate relationship with that man. Having sex with a woman no more makes me a heterosexual than attending a Seder meal makes me an Orthodox Jew.

A sexual act spawns from one's sexual orientation, not the other way around.

LouZiffer wrote:
Lucan wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:

Jonman's statement, flippancy aside, is asking you to take on the burden of proof, since it's ultimately on your head to prove your assertion true by showing that sexual attraction can be flipped to the opposite side of the spectrum.

You raise a good point in your use of the word 'flipped'.

The "homosexuality is a choice" crowd have to not only contend with the difficulty of proving that a straight guy can decide to be aroused by other men, but even more difficult, proving that the same guy can decide to stop being attracted to women.

I heard/read/saw something once that suggested it wasn't a binary thing but rather a sliding scale from completely straight to completely gay. Most people were found to be somewhere between the middle and completely straight. So it doesn't seem to make sense to think of it as an either/or situation.

Rubb Ed does a good job of including this in his use of the word spectrum.

The uncomfortable though is that if you do happen to be halfway, what you go looking for very much becomes a choice.

Does it have to be uncomfortable for someone to have more options?

IMAGE(http://www.britishblogs.co.uk/images/813084.jpg)

Only if you're unwilling or forget the lube.