The Gay Thread

[Mister Jack]

Gay rights and public perception of gays in general is a pretty divisive topic in the US right now. Here's the thread to discuss your viewpoints about new legislation, news events, or just the current state of how our society treats homosexuals in general. Keep in mind that if you have a more conservative viewpoint, you are not permitted to use any slurs or hate speech, but I'd like to think that everyone who comes here is classy enough to talk about this controversial topic without getting too personal.

[B.Linus]

Spicy!

 

I view it the same as i view heterosexuality, except, you know.....gay.

[TheMightyEthan]

I am very happy with the repeal today of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[Mister Jack]

I am very happy with the repeal today of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

 

With the state of our military campaigns, you'd think they'd have repealed it way sooner. Still, better late than never.

[staySICK]

While I'm glad that we're making a shuffling of the feet in the proper direction, I find it very telling that we'll allow homosexuals to openly fight and die for this country before we'll allow them to marry. Oh wait, two losing quagmires. That's right.

 

Why would you want to go and serve a country that continues to treat you as a second class citizen?

[Mister Jack]

It sounds bad when you say it that way, but there are still plenty of gay people who can appreciate that they're probably still way better off in this country than they would be in certain other countries.

[Mudkip3DS]

In honor of today's repeal… I give you this tasteless song parody.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO46cpow_BY

 

 

I'm gonna keep round my genitals

I'm gonna chow down his genitals

I love you most of all

My favo' homo sexual

 

If you brought a big brown bag of them home

I'd jump up and down and hope you'd toss me a cockshot

 

I'm gonna keep well my genitals

Cart off and sell his genitals

I love you most of all

My favo' homo sexual

 

Oh oh taba homo sex-ual

 

I tried to kick his balls but my foreskin flew right off

I'm red as a beet 'cause I'm so embarassed

 

Sleep a lot eat a lot brush em like crazy

Run a lot do a lot never be lazy

Sleep a lot eat a lot brush em like crazy

Run a lot do a lot never be lazy

 

Oh oh dum do dum de dooby do

Oh oh dum do dum de dooby do

Oh oh dum do dum de dooby do

oh yeah

Oh badumday oh dum do dum de dooby do

Oh badumday oh dum do dum de dooby do

 

I throw away my used condom and I ate the wrapper

And when they told me what I did I burst into laughter

 

I know that you'll feel better

When you send us in

Your letter an'

Tell us the name of your

Your favorite homo-sexual

 

 

After taking many minutes to play around with the wording, I don't regret typing any of the above one bit.

[Mudkip3DS]

On a more serious note, while I am glad that DADT got repealed today, I'm a bit saddened that this was the only issue that the Republicans (or rather, just a few of them) were willing to leave their party's position and vote their opinions honestly. Meanwhile, the DREAM Act was killed a week ago through yet another Republican filibuster.

 

Well, at least one of the good bills got passed. Let's hope for an upsurge in people willing to enlist in the armed forces, now that DADT's been repealed.

[AcidCrownie]

I don't understand politics. Don't ask/Don't tell was put in place because of discrimination. And now 15 years later, it's discrimination?

 

Make up your mind.

[staySICK]

yea, the DREAM act got killed, the bill for 9/11 first responders (seriously..wtf???)

 

anyway, back to the gay.

 

 

 

 

 

@Acid: DADT was always discrimination in the guise of prevention.

[Mudkip3DS]

I don't understand politics. Don't ask/Don't tell was put in place because of discrimination. And now 15 years later, it's discrimination?

 

Make up your mind.

 

It was more of a bittersweet compromise, to be honest. Bill Clinton, back when he was elected in 1992, wanted to turn over the ban on homosexuals in the military completely, similar to how Truman ordered the military back in 1948 to remove the segregation of blacks into their own battalions and to integrate immediately. (Of course, while the Pentagon gave the big thumbs-up, the actual process of carrying that out was messy and took years, but that's beside the point…)

 

Clinton, however, ran into the problem of social conservatives and people in the military protesting this, and members in his own party were even coming close to desert him. DADT was a bittersweet compromise, in the sense that it technically gave both sides what they wanted, but it satisfied neither.

 

The gay community saw the policy as demeaning and even then, still discriminatory (because they were not even allowed to speak up), while those who wanted gays banned in the military protested the DADT restraints (because they went too far, apparently).

 

Hopefully, this answers your question.

 

(For more information: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/12/18/132163478/ending-militarys-gay-ban-lets-obama-fulfill-another-clinton-promise)

[AcidCrownie]

Well, that's the thing. They were allowed to say that they're gay. DADT is (read: was) just a way of avoiding conflict within the ranks. It just seems like it was a pointless thing to worry about, seeing that the mindset of military guys isn't going to change. They're still going to be "picked on" to use grade-school terminology.

[staySICK]

Well, that's the thing. They were allowed to say that they're gay. DADT is (read: was) just a way of avoiding conflict within the ranks. It just seems like it was a pointless thing to worry about, seeing that the mindset of military guys isn't going to change. They're still going to be "picked on" to use grade-school terminology.

 

 

huh? Under DADT, to come out as homosexual mean getting discharged, so no they weren't allowed to say they were gay.

 

To date, just under 13,000 troops have been forcibly discharged under DADT.

[AcidCrownie]

Well, that's the thing. They were allowed to say that they're gay. DADT is (read: was) just a way of avoiding conflict within the ranks. It just seems like it was a pointless thing to worry about, seeing that the mindset of military guys isn't going to change. They're still going to be "picked on" to use grade-school terminology.

 

 

huh? Under DADT, to come out as homosexual mean getting discharged, so no they weren't allowed to say they were gay.

 

To date, just under 13,000 troops have been forcibly discharged under DADT.

 

They were only subject to dismissal if they caused conflict in the ranks. My cousin had this come up when he was serving in the Marines. A buddy of his "came out". A few of the guys took offense to him being around, but they were moved to other platoons/areas before any major stir happened. Lots of the guys ragged on him and carried on in the typical brochacho way, but the gay guy handled it all in a way that didn't cause conflict, so no action was taken. (Although, to be realistic, he mostly likely had a sharp eye looking out for him at all times.)

[staySICK]

really I don't understand how in the guidelines he was allowed to stay in, but good for him, I guess,

 

 

the act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specifies that service members who disclose they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct shall be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces"

 

--wiki

[AcidCrownie]

really I don't understand how in the guidelines he was allowed to stay in, but good for him, I guess,

 

 

the act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specifies that service members who disclose they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct shall be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces"

 

--wiki

 

There is that when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces" clause, so maybe they loop-holed around that. I'm sure there are similar situations, though.

 

Let's just chalk this one up to government ambiguity.

[staySICK]

sounds good.

 

[TheMightyEthan]

Honestly, imo DADT is more discriminatory than an outright ban. At least with an outright ban you're being honest about what you're doing.

[Mister Jack]

Not that it helps gay people who wanted to join the military.

[TheMightyEthan]

I'm speaking philosophically, keep your "real world" considerations out of this.

[Dayvie]

I've got a gay relation question I've been wondering about: does the negative use of homosexual words generally offend gay people?

For example, if one was to call something/someone they dislike or a bad situation 'gay'.

[TheMightyEthan]

It depends on the person. It offends me (but I'm not gay, so that doesn't really answer your question...)

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I've got a gay relation question I've been wondering about: does the negative use of homosexual words generally offend gay people?

For example, if one was to call something/someone they dislike or a bad situation 'gay'.

 

It depends on the person just like most everything else. I know plenty of gay people that don't care because they grew up with people saying it and by the time you hit 20 barely anyone says it anyways.

[RadiantViper]

I've got a gay relation question I've been wondering about: does the negative use of homosexual words generally offend gay people?

For example, if one was to call something/someone they dislike or a bad situation 'gay'.

 

That's really a pretty wide question. In general the community and any sort of organization are against it, but as others have said when it comes down to specifics, some people care and some don't. But I would say, "in general", yeah it's offensive.

 

I personally care a fair bit, but I don't tend to point it out if it's not a big deal. Mostly cause I'm not an arguer, or trying not to be one anyways.

[diedan]

I've got a gay relation question I've been wondering about: does the negative use of homosexual words generally offend gay people?

For example, if one was to call something/someone they dislike or a bad situation 'gay'.

For me, the issue isn't being offended, it just pisses me off. It doesn't make any sense when there are already so many other words to express displeasure or negativity that one would choose to use a word that is associated with a group of people's sexual orientation. Ultimately, I think that anytime you co-op a phrase or word that would otherwise be positive and use it to harm and/or refer to something in a negative way, it's juvenile and ignorant. I don't see how it's any different than using racial epithets.

 

And I will call people out for doing it.

 

And I know I can't speak for the entire LGBT community, as I'm sure there are people who use the words jokingly, but as heterosexual person, it upsets me when I see that kind of thing happening.