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

[DutchJazzer]

You're kidding. You think they let just anyone pilot F-16s? Or drive a $3 million Abrams? Do you think they'd let mentally unstable people have access to munitions that can easily level a city?

ofcourse they have limitations but do you think someone with an iq of 140 0r 150 is flying an f16. or someone of 120-130 is driving a tank. no ofcourse not. just guessing avg iq. those couple of iq points that gay men have an advantage over does not matter in the army

 

[Stickler]

I guarantee you there are people with 140 IQ's driving tanks right now. Absolutely guarantee it without a doubt in my mind. 140 is remarkable, but not so much that it's remarkable. There are two people in my inner circle with IQ's that high.

Edited to add: I don't think I expressed myself very well there. But what I was getting at is that there are people from all walks of life in the military. There are infantry men with high IQ's. Life is a very mismatched thing. There are enough brilliant people going around, that it shouldn't be a surprise to encounter one in any particular job. There are bakers and handymen with 140 IQ's. etc.

You have an incredibly weird world-view, Dutch.

 

[chemdude1232]

ofcourse they have limitations but do you think someone with an iq of 140 0r 150 is flying an f16. or someone of 120-130 is driving a tank. no ofcourse not. just guessing avg iq. those couple of iq points that gay men have an advantage over does not matter in the army

I'd bet a crisp $10 bill that most of the F-16 pilots, B2 pilots, or F-22 pilots (God above, those Raptors are awesome) are a fare shake smarter than most people on Jazzfanz.

 

[KatieMCR]

Not that dutch deserves anymore response to his baseless stereotype that gay people are weak minded, but here are some interesting numbers and statements.

More than 14,000 service members have been fired under the law since 1993.

When asked about serving in a unit with a gay co-worker, the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) reported that 92 percent of service members believe the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”

According to the GAO, as of 2003, the military had discharged more than 750 mission-critical service members and more than 320 with skills in important languages such as Arabic, Korean and Farsi (GAO, Military Personnel: Financial Costs and Loss of Critical Skills Due to DOD’s Homosexual Conduct Policy Cannot Be Completely Estimated).

Today, there are at least 66,000 gay Americans serving on active duty and one million gay veterans in the United States, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA.

Admiral Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had served with gays since 1968.

Link

 

[DutchJazzer]

i guess i better stop this discusion cus i'm offending people. and i seem to be misunderstood. guessing there is a failure to communicate

on a side note:
now i have no data on iq of fighter pilots and or tank drivers.

we are just speculating here.

would like some stats on that just curious.

i would put money that it would be somewhere avg will be somewhere around 110-120 or maybe 115-125

 

[DutchJazzer]

Not that dutch deserves anymore response to his baseless stereotype that gay people are weak minded, but here are some interesting numbers and statements.

i dont hate you. hope you forgive me. from now one i will hold my opinion on this subject to myself. did not mean to offend you. i did and therefor i am sorry.

 

[Get Down]

It's a capital G, just so you know.
Thanks for your input, I appreciate it.

you should thank whatever god you think set you on the path of existence that anyone here is genuinely reaching out to you at all when you post things like this:

It's a start in that direction. Multiply that same garbage millions of times, yes I believe it not only does not help our Society, but it hurts. Obviously you dont think so.... but that's my take.

before lecturing us about "life and science"

you aren't looking for a conversation, you aren't looking to learn anything. you've a pitiable set of cliches for your core values and you're desperately trying to justify basing your life on a set of hallmark cards that don't hold up to the scrutiny of reality. this is your life, and you are invested. so you take to debating semantics on a utah jazz message board instead of seeking out more honed resources that would tear down every tower of rationalization you've ever built, every well-tread argument that's been grunted out by every drooling ogre over the past few centuries because it's hard to think and it's hard to realize that you've been lied to your entire ****ing life sooooo. perpetuate the illusion and throw the dictionary at anyone who bests you logically

you are blind and dishonest and there's nothing i want more than to tear down the system of ignorance that ***** out lost causes like you

 

[Jazzfan_Bayamon 2]

you should thank whatever god you think set you on the path of existence that anyone here is genuinely reaching out to you at all when you post things like this:



before lecturing us about "life and science"

you aren't looking for a conversation, you aren't looking to learn anything. you've a pitiable set of cliches for your core values and you're desperately trying to justify basing your life on a set of hallmark cards that don't hold up to the scrutiny of reality. this is your life, and you are invested. so you take to debating semantics on a utah jazz message board instead of seeking out more honed resources that would tear down every tower of rationalization you've ever built, every well-tread argument that's been grunted out by every drooling ogre over the past few centuries because it's hard to think and it's hard to realize that you've been lied to your entire ****ing life sooooo. perpetuate the illusion and throw the dictionary at anyone who bests you logically

you are blind and dishonest and there's nothing i want more than to tear down the system of ignorance that ***** out lost causes like you

Very tolerant of you there. Bravo.

 

[billyshelby]

I can't bother to read this thread. Can someone give me a boxscore? Let me guess: Beantown still hates gay people, Marcus and Clutch are fighting the PC backlash, One Brow is dissecting posts line by line (and probably winning since we seem to have the same liberal views on these issues), Kicky found a legal angle, Trout's running 50/50 on good jokes to bad, Archie has posted few rimshots, KEK and Marty have chimed in with their usual sound opinions without being interested in getting too involved, Bordy/roseparkjazzfan has picked his moments well, Katie is strident (not criticizing exactly), and aint is delightfully absent. What did I miss?

 

[DutchJazzer]

I can't bother to read this thread. Can someone give me a boxscore? Let me guess: Beantown still hates gay people, Marcus and Clutch are fighting the PC backlash, One Brow is dissecting posts line by line (and probably winning since we seem to have the same liberal views on these issues), Kicky found a legal angle, Trout's running 50/50 on good jokes to bad, Archie has posted few rimshots, KEK and Marty have chimed in with their usual sound opinions without being interested in getting too involved, Bordy/roseparkjazzfan has picked his moments well, Katie is strident (not criticizing exactly), and aint is delightfully absent. What did I miss?

the dutchjazzer vs the gay world debate

lol

 

[KatieMCR]

I can't bother to read this thread. Can someone give me a boxscore? Let me guess: Beantown still hates gay people, Marcus and Clutch are fighting the PC backlash, One Brow is dissecting posts line by line (and probably winning since we seem to have the same liberal views on these issues), Kicky found a legal angle, Trout's running 50/50 on good jokes to bad, Archie has posted few rimshots, KEK and Marty have chimed in with their usual sound opinions without being interested in getting too involved, Bordy/roseparkjazzfan has picked his moments well, Katie is strident (not criticizing exactly), and aint is delightfully absent. What did I miss?

Pretty close. Beantown has been MIA in this thread though.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Gay or straight, a man is a man and sexual dimorphism still applies.

Unless you're a dude that wants to golf against chicks cuz you couldn't hack it with the men, right?

 

[Get Down]

Very tolerant of you there. Bravo.

i am being 100% honest that i made these types of bogus equation arguments in 5th grade. i wrote an essay titled "The White Plight" and it was about reverse racism and "who are the real bigots here???" 5th grade. jazzfanz is a bigoted 5th grader

 

[KatieMCR]

Pretty close. Beantown has been MIA in this thread though.

I was wrong. Beantown did post. I just didn't notice, since I have him on ignore. So no clue what he said.

 

[chemdude1232]

I was wrong. Beantown did post. I just didn't notice, since I have him on ignore. So no clue what he said.

Beantown said

So gays cant be water boarded in the military now?

.

 

[NUMBERICA]

This is called conversation. It is usually what people do when they at least want to understand the other person's point of view. It does not work well when one, or both of those people are angry. Why are you so angry and hung up on this thread when it does not affect you? And another thing... how do you know it does not affect me? You don't even know me and you are assuming this in regards to me and others.

This is a two way street here. I don't assume that all people who don't support my faith or religion are hating on me. Try it, it helps take the edge off the nerves.

By the way, Katie would not bring it up, if Katie did not want a conversation on the topic. Katie really has not been too riled up from this thread, so others might want to follow her show of calm here.

You're right about Katie. This is one of the worst places you could come to have a reasonable, civil discussion of LGBT issues. I mean, come on, a SPORTS-themed website based in a region that is one of the reddest and whose primary religion is one of the most significant anti-homosexual religions today? That's what this is, and the views on this site are reflective of that.

However, I don't particularly care how kooky a person's religion is as long as the tenets it puts forth universally engender respect for others. I am guilty of not always following that basic tenet myself but I will admit to that and I think there's also something to be said about reacting to disrespect in kind.

I all but know the mere of existence of homosexuality does not negatively affect you except perhaps that you view it as some pestilence that it's not. Or you're annoyed. Gay marriage doesn't de-value or nullify your or anyone else's marriage. Unless you want to put forth something to show how it legitimately and negatively impacts your life, I'm going to (continue) to call your bluff. You own the burden of proof in this discussion.

I really don't care what the root is of your LGBT views are. I'm telling you calmly and as civil as I can that I find your views on the matter willfully ignorant, condescending, and offensive.

My initial point stands. Treating or viewing certain people like they're the disease of society isn't exactly what I would call respectful or kind. Even though I'm sure you're perfectly agreeable face-to-face and an otherwise nice and cool person.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

you should thank whatever god you think set you on the path of existence that anyone here is genuinely reaching out to you at all when you post things like this:



before lecturing us about "life and science"

you aren't looking for a conversation, you aren't looking to learn anything. you've a pitiable set of cliches for your core values and you're desperately trying to justify basing your life on a set of hallmark cards that don't hold up to the scrutiny of reality. this is your life, and you are invested. so you take to debating semantics on a utah jazz message board instead of seeking out more honed resources that would tear down every tower of rationalization you've ever built, every well-tread argument that's been grunted out by every drooling ogre over the past few centuries because it's hard to think and it's hard to realize that you've been lied to your entire ****ing life sooooo. perpetuate the illusion and throw the dictionary at anyone who bests you logically

you are blind and dishonest and there's nothing i want more than to tear down the system of ignorance that ***** out lost causes like you

I have learned plenty in this thread, there are a few decent people on this board that do not get offended with someone that has a different point of view than them if it is approached in an open way. I don't plan on changing my mind, just like everyone else, but I do like to know how others think, and why. There is nothing wrong with understanding the people around me every day. I have also learned.... already knew, some people are hotheads and are extreme on both sides of this "discussion".

In regards to the science "lesson"... if someone wants to use "science" as their foundation or backup to their argument on either side... know what you are talking about and use it right. Basically..... Think about it with the big picture, as well as a narrower view to see if it makes sense.

I thank you for taking the time to help me because you care about me so much.
Please, begin tearing down "the system of ignorance" around me. Wait, do you care about me, or am I a lost cause? Make up your mind.

If you have something useful to say about what I said, go right ahead. So far you have only told me I am wrong, ignorant, blind, dishonest, a lost cause, and only have cliche's from hallmark cards at my disposal. You are amazing that you can see all of this from a few posts on a jazzfanz board.
Why are you not researching my side of the argument more fully instead of trying to argue with someone on a jazzfanz board? You can't break down my broken logic unless you understand where I'm coming from.

Just so you know, if you cannot agree on the meaning of words, it is difficult to come to an understanding in a conversation. The semantics discussion should happen before anything useful can come from any conversation..... otherwise it is just a waste of time as both sides do not understand eachother when words are used with different meanings or interpretations.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You're right about Katie. This is one of the worst places you could come to have a reasonable, civil discussion of LGBT issues. I mean, come on, a SPORTS-themed website based in a region that is one of the reddest and whose primary religion is one of the most significant anti-homosexual religions today? That's what this is, and the views on this site are reflective of that.

However, I don't particularly care how kooky a person's religion is as long as the tenets it puts forth universally engender respect for others. I am guilty of not always following that basic tenet myself but I will admit to that and I think there's also something to be said about reacting to disrespect in kind.

I all but know the mere of existence of homosexuality does not negatively affect you except perhaps that you view it as some pestilence that it's not. Or you're annoyed. Gay marriage doesn't de-value or nullify your or anyone else's marriage. Unless you want to put forth something to show how it legitimately and negatively impacts your life, I'm going to (continue) to call your bluff. You own the burden of proof in this discussion.

I really don't care what the root is of your LGBT views are. I'm telling you calmly and as civil as I can that I find your views on the matter willfully ignorant, condescending, and offensive.

My initial point stands. Treating or viewing certain people like they're the disease of society isn't exactly what I would call respectful or kind. Even though I'm sure you're perfectly agreeable face-to-face and an otherwise nice and cool person.

NUMBERICA, The problem with explaining my reasoning on this issue it two-fold. First, it would be the mother of all posts times 5 to clearly state what I would like to say to limit misunderstanding. Second, it is like building a house from the roof down.... when you start a conversation on one of the last parts, the foundation is missing..... and you dont end up with a house, you end up with a roof. When you get to that point people say you only have a roof, and your house sucks and is flawed. If you want to start that,(a discussion starting at the foundation) I dont mind a PM discussion that may take a while.... but it always starts with the foundation.... and after time will get to the reasoning you want. If you dont want to be bothered with something that big, as most people are, you will tell me "no, just answer the question". This is question 100, and the other 99 are all linked to the answer to 100. Your call, but I don't feel like continuing the discussion as most people see this as a war at the moment.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Dutch,

While I think I can sortof see where you are going with this, you are pretty extreme, and rude about it.
I hope it is the language barrier.
We are all people, no matter what situation we are in, or what we choose to believe.
There should be more respect from both sides on this touchy subject.

Later all... I am done with this thread. Thanks to those who were calm in their reasoning.
I'm going back to the B-Ball side of this place.
PM me if you actually want to have a conversation.
If you want to tell me I'm stupid.....please respond to this post to do so.

 

[One Brow]

Brow here is your original quote. ... then in the post above you recant. ... I could not find a single study that identified biological differences other than brain structures ... Nice back-pedal though.

I didn't recant anything. I was happy to explain to you your misperceptions of what I wrote. When a person says that three or four mechanisms were available, the automatic implication is that there is not a definitive mechanism. When a person says there are biological differences, there is no implication of causation, just correlation. By the way, I notice you didn't dispute the 15-20 number. Perhaps, before you make assertions of "back-pedaling", you should be more certain of what is and is not being claimed. So far, you have been unimpressive in that regard.

I love how you dismiss differences in "brain structure" as being less than overwhelming. The brain is the source for our behavior. That's where you would expect any physiological effects associated with being homosexual to show other, correlated effects. If being gay was a choice, you would not expect to see such effects in the brain.

It was very difficult to find a list of differences. It was well-hidden in this obscure place called Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biolo...iological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbians