Jubbergun wrote:
A person's race isn't the same as identifying yourself by way of what activities you're inclined toward sexually. Just because you have an impulse to do something doesn't mean you should follow through with it. That's why it's socially unacceptable, not to mention illegal, to beat the living hell out of people just for being stupid. If you're going to make the argument that homosexuality is ok because "those people are born that way," you have to extend that argument to everyone else who is born with a preference for some type of deviant behavior. I have an urge to bed women, but just because I have that urge doesn't mean I have to give into my baser instincts and run around tossing the rod to any available strange, or breaking up marriages by screwing some guy's wife, or worse forcing my urges on others. Hell, Aestu seems to be heterosexual and he abstains completely from sex.
The bounds of tasteful behavior concerning homosexuality are ill-defined, mainly because the idea of it being an acceptable behavior in our society is very new, and we can't even have a rational discussion of what those bounds should be without some fucktard screaming "homophobe" when someone suggests that having parade where there are dozens of men in thongs walking down the street grabbing their own and/or each others junk and tongue-kissing each other goes a little beyond the realm of socially acceptable behavior. We don't have to have those conversations about heterosexual behavior because that is our traditional norm, and the boundaries of good taste are already well-defined.
My biggest problem with this is honestly the "you must embrace us" attitude. I'm really fucking tired of this "tolerance isn't enough, if you do not completely accept us you're a hater." If you wanna gay it up and toss a rainbow on your subaru and drive around with your 'partner' Reynaldo and his papillon fruiting it up all all over the place, that's your choice. No one cares, if we see it and don't like it, we can walk away from it. The minute the discussion turns to forcing interactions on people who have no interest in such interactions based on one party's behavior, I'm no longer sympathetic. To argue that the behavior should be excused because you believe the person in question is somehow compelled to engage in it doesn't hold water because there are people in our society that get medicated based on their compulsions.
If the sexual nature of people living with other people to whom they're sexually attracted creates no issues, and modesty and personal preferences don't matter, we should just go ahead and take it all the way and toss every soldier, regardless of gender and sexual preference, in together. The minute you try that, though, I guarantee that women (and probably a few men) will start a ruckus about having to share intimate conditions like communal bedding and hygiene facilities with people that are sexually attracted to them. If it's wrong for men and women to share facilities, then it's just as wrong to expect straight men to knowingly share a facility with someone they know is sexually attracted to their gender for all the same reasons. If you don't see that, it's only because you're blinded by your own personal preference for "advancing" homosexuals as a group, and you don't care at whom's expense that advancement comes. In fact, I detect an underlying, "well you deserve it anyway and the fact that you don't like it makes me happy" tone from many people arguing in favor of this. It's almost as if punishing people for having the temerity to disagree on this subject is as important as actually opening up the opportunity for homosexuals to serve openly.
I'm telling you that this isn't going to go smoothly, and there's going be negative consequences down the road if this change goes into effect. If you disagree, that's fine, but I'm going to remember and say I told you so.
Your Pal,
Jubber
Honestly, you do sound like a homophobe. Comparing murders to gay people, really? I can think of a difference. One you are killing the shit out of someone and taking their life, the other is two people of the same gender who enjoy having consensual sex and pleasuring each other. I don't think rape between same-sex people is any more acceptable than hetero rape. The first paragraph reads like being a homosexual is some sort of mental illness where sufferers are incapable of leaving their house without propositioning every dude they see for sex.
Have you ever even seen these parades and other obnoxious super gay shit you're talking about in real life? I live in a pretty progressive city, there are a bunch of bars and a gay village, I have never seen that shit in my life. I worked with one guy that was gay, the only reason I knew he was guy is because he had some pictures of him and his husband around his cubicle/desktop. He never tried to suck my dick, and honestly he was one of the people at the company that was awesome and knew his shit. One of my professors last semester was a lesbian. She was probably the best professor I've had at University so far, and yet, I didn't see any scissoring. Not a single fucking scissor, I got screwed.
Isn't the don't ask don't tell policy just forcing gay people to stay in the closet, and banning openly gay people from the military? There's a big difference between the exaggerated behavior you describe and not being able to say "Oh, my husband <blahblahblah>" casually in a conversation.
You seem pretty bigoted, the only thing I can agree with is some straight people being uncomfortable showering and whatever. Then again, is there a difference between a guy having to hide his sexuality to be in the military using his memories of your guys shower time as fap material different than him being openly gay using your guys shower time as fap material instead? At least with the latter you would know and could use facilities at different times. But at the same time, who uses imagination to fap nowadays anyways? right!?
