Don't Ask, Don't Tell is officially history!!

[The Thriller]

Love the sinner, hate the sin

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

<cues Goodbye Horses>

 

[moevillini]

actually I think most of us carry our personal baggage where ever we go...

and honestly, watch the tendency to over-generalize, Katie may bring her "personal baggage" into topics related to this particular issue, but her posts in other topics are "baggage free"

 

[One Brow]

Just from knowing a few soldiers and knowing their opinions. I am okay with getting rid of don't ask, don't tell and I hope I am wrong and there aren't any incidents. I guess we'll see.

I don't think any of them were alive, much less serving, during integration in the 1940s-50s. So, how do they know what they are comparing it to? Are they military historians?

 

[One Brow]

Transport yourself back in time to just before racial integration of the armies and ask yourself, "What's the big deal here? Why can't these guys who *want* to serve in the army be allowed to do so?

It wasn't even that bad. They were allowed to serve, but only in segregated units, and because some specialties were not numerous enough to allow segregated units, those specialties were not open to heavily pigmented people. The recent treatment differences in DADT are far worse.

 

[One Brow]

if being gay was genetic or whatever wouldnt the gay gene be extinct by now? its just a choice. easy peasy

You fail biology.

1) There are three or four different evolutionary mechanisms that could ensure the continued existence of gay people even though they do not reproduce. ONe of the recently defened mechanisms is sexually antagonistic selection.

2) There are some 15-20 biological differences between gay and straight men.

3) There is much time and much development between "gene" and "choice".

 

[One Brow]

also if homosexuality isnt a choice. pedophilia isnt either.

That may be true. There are studies that pedophilia is also not a choice.

However, any act of pedophilia involves a partner not capable of forming consent, and is thus an act of rape. Homosexuality does not bear that burden. soit's easy to explain why a government would ban acts of pedophilia. You need to explain why they should not recognize homosexual marriages.

 

[One Brow]

so what is different between a "pedophile" from germany who has a 14 year old girlfriend. is that relationship wrong?

Unless the girl's development has been considerably delayed, by the age of 14 she will have entered puberty, so the result is no longer pedophilia (the term hebephilia has been used for men who focus only on young teens).

I think 14 is probably too young for the age of consent, at least with an adult. Again, even if the desire is not a choice (this is harder to argue for hebephiles, since they are attracted to signs of sexual maturity), the partner does not have the capability to form consent at 14.

 

[moevillini]

well, I hope I'm not the ONLY one who's learned a new word here

 

[LogGrad98]

Unless the girl's development has been considerably delayed, by the age of 14 she will have entered puberty, so the result is no longer pedophilia (the term hebephilia has been used for men who focus only on young teens).

I think 14 is probably too young for the age of consent, at least with an adult. Again, even if the desire is not a choice (this is harder to argue for hebephiles, since they are attracted to signs of sexual maturity), the partner does not have the capability to form consent at 14.

I know people who are 30 who should not be able to give consent if it means their genes are to be propogated. Shallow end of the gene pool for sure.

 

[DutchJazzer]

You fail biology.

1) There are three or four different evolutionary mechanisms that could ensure the continued existence of gay people even though they do not reproduce. ONe of the recently defened mechanisms is sexually antagonistic selection.

2) There are some 15-20 biological differences between gay and straight men.

3) There is much time and much development between "gene" and "choice".

okay in all seriuosness point 2 and 3 could also be aplied to pedophiles?

 

[LogGrad98]

You fail biology.

1) There are three or four different evolutionary mechanisms that could ensure the continued existence of gay people even though they do not reproduce. ONe of the recently defened mechanisms is sexually antagonistic selection.

2) There are some 15-20 biological differences between gay and straight men.

3) There is much time and much development between "gene" and "choice".

I am not arguing either way in the genetic vs non-genetic gay debate as I have close friends and relatives that are openly gay and my opinion is live and let live, but you fail biology if you think these are foregone conclusions that everyone should know. There have been study after study conducted, including twins studies - one in particular involving every pair of twins in sweden I believe, and biological testing done that give conflicting results often enough that nothing definitive has been propogated among the scientific community. Measurements of development of particular brain structures and other "biological difference" are not definitive and have been show in other studies to possibly be an issue of correlation not being equal to causality. There is evidence that there is likely a genetic component, but it is FAR from a scientifically proven fact, with specific mechanisms described and observable in any way consistent enough to declare it a genetic trait. In fact far more often than a genetic cause is suggested in a study, environmental influences are shown as having higher correlation to homosexual behaviors (most studies show 10-30% possibility of genetic factors, 50-70% environmental, which suggests a genetic component, but shows far more likely to be environmental factors).

From wikipedia:

Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0–17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18–39% and the unique environment 61–66%. The individual's unique environment includes, for example, circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences. [...] In men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors.

I guess the conclusion is that neither side can claim scientific proof that they are correct, and likely the real answer is somewhere in between with some people truly genetically predisposed to homosexuality, with others being the result of environmental factors, and there is some suggestion that some may be the result of choice, if only indirectly.

 

[bordelais7]

LogGrad98 wins.

Love the win, hate the winner.

 

[Gameface]

Inter-racial relationships are clearly a choice, but that doesn't mean it's okay to forbid inter-racial marriage.

I personally don't think that the question of choice has anything to do with the question of individual rights. They are both very interesting issues to many people, but one does not depend on the other, in my opinion.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

Somebody help me out on this: I'm reading that like homosexuality, being a pedephile is not a choice. 60 years ago, blacks were fighting for the right to serve in a segregation-free military and current day has seen the homosexuals go through the same thing. 60 years from now is the next logical step in the PC movement going to be complete and total acceptance for Pedephiles because it's not a lifestyle choice?


I know that somebody is going to jump in and call me a hate-monger because I just linked gays to pedephiles so let me try to squash that right now. I realize there's a big difference and for the record, I am not against gays or their behavior. If they want to get married, fine. If it came up to a vote in Utah, I certainly wouldn't vote against it. I'm also not up in arms about the don't ask, don't tell repeal. I did like the rule because I like the theory behind trying to remove sexuality from the equation but I realized it was flawed. I had an uncle that was gay who I wasn't super close with but we did get along very well when we had chances to spend time together. His gayness never had any negative effect on our relationship. He died about 6 years ago from the Love Flu, but that's another story for another time.

My whole problem is this: Zealots on both sides of the equation scare the hell outta me. I'm so sick of the over-the-top PC crowd trying to force the issue of what "Normal" is, and what I MUST accept if I don't want to be considered a biggot. It may sound strange at this point in time, but I wouldn't be suprised at all to see a day when you are considered a biggot if you are not on board to champion the cause of those who "suffer" from Pedophilia.

 

[Scat]

My whole problem is this: Zealots on both sides of the equation scare the hell outta me. I'm so sick of the over-the-top PC crowd trying to force the issue of what "Normal" is, and what I MUST accept if I don't want to be considered a biggot. It may sound strange at this point in time, but I wouldn't be suprised at all to see a day when you are considered a biggot if you are not on board to champion the cause of those who "suffer" from Pedophilia.

+ rep given

 

[DutchJazzer]

I am not arguing either way in the genetic vs non-genetic gay debate as I have close friends and relatives that are openly gay and my opinion is live and let live, but you fail biology if you think these are foregone conclusions that everyone should know. There have been study after study conducted, including twins studies - one in particular involving every pair of twins in sweden I believe, and biological testing done that give conflicting results often enough that nothing definitive has been propogated among the scientific community. Measurements of development of particular brain structures and other "biological difference" are not definitive and have been show in other studies to possibly be an issue of correlation not being equal to causality. There is evidence that there is likely a genetic component, but it is FAR from a scientifically proven fact, with specific mechanisms described and observable in any way consistent enough to declare it a genetic trait. In fact far more often than a genetic cause is suggested in a study, environmental influences are shown as having higher correlation to homosexual behaviors (most studies show 10-30% possibility of genetic factors, 50-70% environmental, which suggests a genetic component, but shows far more likely to be environmental factors).

From wikipedia:

Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0–17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18–39% and the unique environment 61–66%. The individual's unique environment includes, for example, circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences. [...] In men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors.

I guess the conclusion is that neither side can claim scientific proof that they are correct, and likely the real answer is somewhere in between with some people truly genetically predisposed to homosexuality, with others being the result of environmental factors, and there is some suggestion that some may be the result of choice, if only indirectly.

as i was trying to say for a long time in this thread. there are studies that prove gayness is a choice and studies that prove gayness is genetetics.
maybe its the language barrier. maybe it stubborness.

 

[chemdude1232]

This will sound like back-pedaling, but does choice vs. genetics make the argument to repeal DADT any less valid? Not to sound crass, but I'm sure there are some people in the army that like having sex with fat women (as a choice). I don't like that, so does that make those soldiers any less effective at their job? No. It's merely a manifestation of their desires, caused by environment which, over time, have become innate to who they are.

Let's pretend that environment is the sole reason for homosexuality (which it isn't), therefore making homosexuality purely choice-driven. Are these people lesser? Absolutely not. All they want to do is serve the country, and until now, we (the general public) were criticizing that because of their sexual proclivities.

Are homosexuals more likely to help us "lose the war" because they are too busy staring at their fellow soldiers? I doubt it. Millions of heterosexual people go to work each day with members of the opposite sex, and yet you don't find an on-going orgy in cubicles across the nation.

 

[DutchJazzer]

This will sound like back-pedaling, but does choice vs. genetics make the argument to repeal DADT any less valid? Not to sound crass, but I'm sure there are some people in the army that like having sex with fat women (as a choice). I don't like that, so does that make those soldiers any less effective at their job? No. It's merely a manifestation of their desires, caused by environment which, over time, have become innate to who they are.

Let's pretend that environment is the sole reason for homosexuality (which it isn't), therefore making homosexuality purely choice-driven. Are these people lesser? Absolutely not. All they want to do is serve the country, and until now, we (the general public) were criticizing that because of their sexual proclivities.

Are homosexuals more likely to help us "lose the war" because they are too busy staring at their fellow soldiers? I doubt it. Millions of heterosexual people go to work each day with members of the opposite sex, and yet you don't find an on-going orgy in cubicles across the nation.

i think the choice vs genetics argument came into play when someone said that blacks in the 60 or something african americans where not allowed to serve. but nowadays its normal. and even frowned upon that it was that way in the 60's. so being black isnt a choice its genetics. so i guess thats why genetics vs choice argument camer in to play

i might be wrong. to lazy to go back and read the thread

 

[bordelais7]

Millions of heterosexual people go to work each day with members of the opposite sex, and yet you don't find an on-going orgy in cubicles across the nation.

Yeah, why is that?