Why Is It Okay To Hate Openly Gay People?

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:35 am

Roy wrote:So gay people can't be open about their sexual preferences in the military. Ok. As far as I'm concerned, sexual preferences aren't something to be open about ANYWAYS be you straight, gay, or giant fucking frog. So I'm not sure what the fucking problem is at all.

A straight man is allowed to talk about his girlfriend back home.

A gay woman is not. A gay man is not allowed to talk about his boyfriend back home, but a straight woman is. If you're arguing straights shouldn't be talking sexual preference either, then you have to ban that equally harshly. That's not going to happen.

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:49 am

What Roy is doing is a classic derailing tactic-saying "well it's bad when anyone does it!" and then saying we should do nothing at all because any positive change would be a negative. Meanwhile, the privileged group gets to keep its privilege, and the marginalized group remains as such.

He doesn't actually support removing the rights of straight people to express their sexuality-he just doesn't want gay people to have that right.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:19 am

Cielingcat wrote:What Roy is doing is a classic derailing tactic-saying "well it's bad when anyone does it!" and then saying we should do nothing at all because any positive change would be a negative. Meanwhile, the privileged group gets to keep its privilege, and the marginalized group remains as such.

He doesn't actually support removing the rights of straight people to express their sexuality-he just doesn't want gay people to have that right.

tldr, Roy is a douche.

Anyone who says gay people should just never imply that fact via word or deed is an arsehole. Those fuckheads like to pretend that they aren't bigots because they don't preach open hatred. But denying the right to talk about yourself honestly when straight people have that right is still bigotry.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:43 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote: tldr, Roy is a douche.

That isn't news. It's pretty much a given.

violence in the media · Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:47 pm

This conversation reminds me of the dinner scene in The Family Stone where Horseface's character (that girl from Sex in the City) is questioning why Mama Stone wished all her sons were gay. The character was trying to argue it from the point of "why would you want to make life more difficult for your children, because being gay is hard" but it came across as incredibly bigoted. It seemed like the same sort of argument in the comment from earlier about genetically engineering people to not be gay, and the character's responses in the movie were really unsatisfying. I was hoping for some sort of eloquent defense of the right to differ from the norm, but all I got was pretty much just offended indignation.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:13 pm

People in the U.S. intelligence services used to be fired for being gay, on the grounds that they were a security risk. Because they could be blackmailed more easily than straight people. Because they would be fired if anyone found out they were gay.

Then people realized that was stupid.

Nowadays you get scrutinized if they have reason to believe you're closeted, because that does make you more vulnerable to blackmail. Openly gay agents are fine.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:43 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:People in the U.S. intelligence services used to be fired for being gay, on the grounds that they were a security risk. Because they could be blackmailed more easily than straight people. Because they would be fired if anyone found out they were gay.

Then people realized that was stupid.

Nowadays you get scrutinized if they have reason to believe you're closeted, because that does make you more vulnerable to blackmail. Openly gay agents are fine.

Not just gay people, all kinds of "moral" issues were treated the same way. My uncle got fired from army intelligence for pot smoking, on the grounds that he could be blackmailed over his pot smoking, because if it got out he would lose his job.

As far as I know, it's still like that. You can get fired for being a socialist, because it's blackmail point, because they'd fire you for being a socialist. And so on. Military intelligence really is an oxymoron. If they genuinely wanted to keep their agents from being blackmailed they'd adopt a "we don't give a flying rat's ass what you do" policy. And then tell their agents that if someone tried to blackmail them to laugh in their face, since worse comes to worse, they'd just be issued new identity.

-Username17

Sunwitch · Post by **Sunwitch** » Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:48 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:You can get fired for being a socialist, because it's blackmail point, because they'd fire you for being a socialist. And so on. Military intelligence really is an oxymoron.

No one takes issue with flagrant circular reasoning in the military, apparently? I'd like to see examples/stories about that. Not because I doubt you, but because my eyes haven't been rolling hard enough recently.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:53 pm

There is a simple fix for the gay issue. Ban religion. That seems to be the root cause of the problems. So outside of your house(church, mosque, synagog,etc) religion is banned as it is on many forums on the internet. So you keep your religion to yourself. When religion is finally once and for all divorced from laws in this country, then maybe it will be able to get anywhere forward to the 19th century.

1st step, remove all the blue laws. I hate drunks as much as the next guy, and wish drinking was banned, but if you are going to allow it, then fucking let them have their beer at 8am Sunday mornings. The sooner the get drunk, the sooner they pass out and the rest of us don't have to deal with them.

Then any issue about being gay will go away shortly after because that is only bound by religious BS anyway.

Seriously, if someone isn't trying to fuck you, then what difference does it make who they want to fuck. Seriously, all politicians should be atheists. They would have no religion of their own to force onto others, and could then look at them all equally without giving favor to any...because they will all give favor to the corporations that put them in office...and you KNOW that any news media like say Viacom would put someone in office to keep any hot topics around forever!

This is about like Black History Month...which are both like a scab. If you keep picking at it then it will never heal, so fucking leave it alone!*

*(This isn't directed at the people in this thread, but people in general that have nothing else better to do than worry about who someone else is fucking. Money and sex is all this country understands....the USA is just a big whore.)

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:09 pm

Shadzar, you're an idiot. That's really all there is to say in response to that post.

violence in the media · Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:10 pm

edit: Woah, big image!

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:34 pm

While the military clearance has some circular logic, it's supposed to be based upon things that would have other consequences like crimes or relationship issues. If you cheat on your wife or taxes or gamble, these things could be used against you.

But the result is that if you're open in your relationship, that's actually a point off as well, because... I have no idea why, but it is. Or lots of little things, like misdemeanor drug use. Or completely legal sexual kinks or porn usage. But not drunk driving, strangely.

But most of them are because of our stupid drug laws or blue laws.

-Crissa

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:56 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
As far as I know, it's still like that. You can get fired for being a socialist, because it's blackmail point, because they'd fire you for being a socialist. And so on. Military intelligence really is an oxymoron. If they genuinely wanted to keep their agents from being blackmailed they'd adopt a "we don't give a flying rat's ass what you do" policy. And then tell their agents that if someone tried to blackmail them to laugh in their face, since worse comes to worse, they'd just be issued new identity.

-Username17

They've really cut back on most of that sort of stuff. If you're up front about it, they don't care either.

However they do not like addictive behaviour, so any signs of cocaine use for example and you're out on your arse.

They also don't like people who break the rules. Even a huge pile of parking fines can rule you out of contention.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 7:07 am

violence in the media wrote:

edit: Woah, big image!

Amen to that!

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:53 pm

RobbyPants wrote:It's not just that they can't be themselves. They can get discharged from the military if they are found out. That's the problem.

Well that is a problem, but for the military, not the individual. They want to sack soldiers on the basis of something other than competence, and that's less people fighting to give the US more oil.

IGTN wrote:
Roy wrote:So gay people can't be open about their sexual preferences in the military. Ok. As far as I'm concerned, sexual preferences aren't something to be open about ANYWAYS be you straight, gay, or giant fucking frog. So I'm not sure what the fucking problem is at all.
A straight man is allowed to talk about his girlfriend back home.

A gay woman is not. A gay man is not allowed to talk about his boyfriend back home, but a straight woman is. If you're arguing straights shouldn't be talking sexual preference either, then you have to ban that equally harshly. That's not going to happen.

Perhaps not. But it has just as much impact on troop morale, so perhaps it should.

Cielingcat wrote:What Roy is doing is a classic derailing tactic-saying "well it's bad when anyone does it!" and then saying we should do nothing at all because any positive change would be a negative. Meanwhile, the privileged group gets to keep its privilege, and the marginalized group remains as such.

He doesn't actually support removing the rights of straight people to express their sexuality-he just doesn't want gay people to have that right.

Wow. Now I know assuming makes an ass out of you and me, but you've somehow managed to make it an assuyou. Fuck if I know how, but you managed to make an ass out of you and you.

So you presume to know what I'm doing better than I myself do? Fuck you and suck a barrel of cocks. Have a vat of pussies too.

Let me explain something to you. And I'm going to do so very slowly and use small words, because you are clearly fucking brain dead if you got 'Roy hates gay people' out of all that.

A fair number of the people I associate myself with are gay or bisexual. I have openly insulted those bigoted about sexual preference in defense of them and in general despite the fact that I myself am heterosexual. In fact I made a point of dismantling them, just because I could.

Now I am a lot of things, but someone who hates people with different sexual preferences is not one of them. At the same time though it's fucking irrelevant to bring it up regardless. And that's what I'm calling people on. The straight ones too.

Now you can hurk durk Roy is a forum troll all you fucking want, but guess what dumbfuck? I'm not trolling.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:59 pm

What? What do you mean it's not a problem for the individual?

"You're fired!"

"Oh. I guess it's your problem and not mine."

WTF?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:06 pm

Shadow Complex!

-Username17

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:10 pm

RobbyPants wrote:What? What do you mean it's not a problem for the individual?

"You're fired!"

"Oh. I guess it's your problem and not mine."

WTF?

*military kicks gay person out*

*military now has one less soldier*

*on the macro scale, removing gay people means a lot less soldiers*

Chances are, those people can get a less dangerous job. They're in the military because they want to. So lol, no.

IGTN · Post by **IGTN** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:29 pm

Roy wrote:Chances are, those people can get a less dangerous job. They're in the military because they want to. So lol, no.

In this economy?

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:49 pm

Yes, they can get a less dangerous job. But maybe they want that job. Maybe they want to go through one of those training programs to set themselves up for college later. It is their problem.

Yes, kicking them out of a volunteer military also affects the military itself, but you can't say straight face that this isn't a problem for the individual.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:59 pm

RobbyPants wrote:Yes, they can get a less dangerous job. But maybe they want that job. Maybe they want to go through one of those training programs to set themselves up for college later. It is their problem.

Yes, kicking them out of a volunteer military also affects the military itself, but you can't say straight face that this isn't a problem for the individual.

My point was that there are other jobs than the military. There are not other places to serve one's country. Someone who needs a job can go elsewhere. Someone who needs soldiers needs to not sack the good ones they have.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:21 pm

Hey Stupid Roy:

If you were in the military, you must, legally, inform any employer that you were in the military.

Then you must, legally, inform them of your discharge status, which in this case is "dishonorable."

People don't like to hire people with dishonorable discharges. So yes, it's really a problem for the person being kicked out.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:21 pm

Roy wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:Yes, they can get a less dangerous job. But maybe they want that job. Maybe they want to go through one of those training programs to set themselves up for college later. It is their problem.

Yes, kicking them out of a volunteer military also affects the military itself, but you can't say straight face that this isn't a problem for the individual.
My point was that there are other jobs than the military. There are not other places to serve one's country. Someone who needs a job can go elsewhere. Someone who needs soldiers needs to not sack the good ones they have.

We have a volunteer military. Think about that. Anyone that is removed from it had once deliberately chosen to be a part of that military fully knowing what that came with.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:42 pm

Kaelik wrote:Hey Stupid Roy:

If you were in the military, you must, legally, inform any employer that you were in the military.

Then you must, legally, inform them of your discharge status, which in this case is "dishonorable."

It's not a dishonorable discharge. IIRC it's a "Discharge: Medical: Homosexual".

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:00 pm

Neeeek wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Hey Stupid Roy:

If you were in the military, you must, legally, inform any employer that you were in the military.

Then you must, legally, inform them of your discharge status, which in this case is "dishonorable."
It's not a dishonorable discharge. IIRC it's a "Discharge: Medical: Homosexual".

Well that's in some ways worse, since at least if it didn't have homosexual in the name they could get hired by people who don't care about the army. Instead of relying on getting hired by 5% of all companies that are run by homosexuals.