posted
Back to the subject of bonobo apes (which was mentioned early on in this thread to defend homosexual behavior as natural) bonobo apes do indeed participate in a variety of sexual behavior often. Both same-sex and opposite-sex. They seem to make no distinction, freely enjoying both hetero- and homosexual sex. These creatures are supposedly our closest relatives.
So what are we to learn from this? If we learn anything, it is that we all have the capacity to be bi-sexual. Even those who are homosexual.
If that is the case, and a person believes that homosexual sex is sinful, then it makes sense that we can, in fact, influence our rising generation to be either hetero or homo.
Which brings up implications about the effects we can have on the sexuality of our society. And if you *do* in fact believe that homosexual sex is sinful, then you will want to do all you can to encourage the rising generation to be heterosexual and to not encourage homosexual attraction.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that is why many who feel homosexual sex is sinful want to keep society from recognizing and rewarding homosexual unions. Many who support gay marriage assure that society moving in that direction will not encourage an increase in homosexual relationships. They say homosexuality is inborn rather than something that is learned through experience. Likely it is a complex combination of both and only on occasion entirely one or the other.
We live in a society that favors heterosexual relationships. Take fairy-tales for example. That is what kids grow up on, and they never feature homosexual love. It may be that if our society favored either form of sexual bonding equally, there would be far more children growing up to prefer same-sex over the opposite sex as compared to the proportions now.
Now, my concern is not so much with continuing the human species, my concerns are more religious in nature. And I completely understand that if someone doesn't hold these beliefs, they may see nothing wrong with the scenario described above. At least nothing rationally wrong.
But still, this constitutes a rational reason for an opposition of gay marriage--assuming one already understands the belief that some hold that homosexuality is sinful. They aren't hoping homosexuality will "go away", but they don't want to encourage more of it either.
posted
I'm not sure it works. A lot of prominent right wingers have children that are gay. How can they explain that? Most gay people are raised by straight people. Plus as it stands now, most young people do not want to be gay. Gays get made fun of, beat up, teased. And, even if gays stopped being teased and picked on, most people would STILL not become gay because most guys consider other guys to be repulsive. Girls might be a bit different, they are a little more fluid than men are. Homosexuality in men still equals weak, which is what these extreme groups prey on when they are trying to "Reverse" homosexuality. But, I kind of wish they had gay faery tales.... I have one in a story of mine. I really don't think that seeing homosexuality as normal will have that much of an influence on kids that are straight.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess as society changes, we will know. Society has been slowly moving in that direction for several decades now. I don't see why it would stop, in spite of the recent vote. If not in this generation, then in the next. I mean, seriously. Just imagine how society would have reacted if gay marriage were placed to a vote in the 50s. Obviously things have changed *a lot*.
So, Syn, do you side with the idea that people are what they are from birth? What do you think of the Bonobos example? Do you think that maybe we have so few homosexuals because society favors heterosexuality so strongly?
quote: A lot of prominent right wingers have children that are gay. How can they explain that?
Rebellion?
Seriously, I have no idea. I still believe that some causes of homosexuality are inborn. But I also think that humans are complex critters.
Either way, I look at the inability to be attracted to the opposite sex as a disability, like deafness. (I don't know how many homosexuals are unable to be attracted to the opposite sex and how many simply prefer the same sex of the two.)
Even if our society were kinder to homosexuals (while I am against encouraging homosexuality, I am firmly against cruelty and unkindness) it is still a society that is far easier to live in if you are hetero. Just as a hearing society is hard for deaf to live in. The deaf get along great when they only have to deal with other deaf, or in a society where everyone is fluent in sign language (like in Martha's Vineyard, the Deaf utopia of years past). But unfortunately, such a society just isn't realistic.
The big difference is that in our society we do not commit violence on the deaf. That is because while most people look at being deaf as undesirable, no one feels threatened by it. Might they be more threatened if deafness were a choice that might be attractive to the rising generation for some reason or other? Or maybe if subtle influences in one's childhood could trigger it?
If homosexuality will *not* increase in a homosexual-friendly society, then homosexuality will always be in the minority and society will always favor the majority. I agree that in this situation it doesn't make sense to be against gay marriage. If homosexuality does increase in a homosexual-friendly society, then it becomes more mainstream, more common, and thus more reflected in the society. Then I see a reason to be against encouraging/rewarding homosexual relationships.
And if we are like bonobos, I think the second is more likely.
posted
My theory as to why rigid straights tend to raise gays is because they send their children the message that it's not okay for boys to express "feeling". The father thinks "Well, if I'm not allowed to express my anima (the female side of every male), then why should I let my kids do it?" Sending this kind of stringent demand upon kids causes an internal conflict that can only be balanced in two ways:
1) Homophobia 2) Homosexuality
The reason why homosexuality is less common in females than in males is because females are generally permitted to express both their emotive side and their rationality side, though the former faculty is emphasized and therefore often develops more strongly. Females, therefore, are more psychically balanced than males.
posted
That's it. It really doesn't matter what causes gayness. The Freudian model doesn't really hold true. I don't think it's child abuse that causes it, otherwise, sadly more people would be gay if that was the case. Perhaps all humans are inherently bi, that does make sense. Women are obviously more fluid then men. There is something called compulsary heterosexuality in which someone said that because people are surrounded by heterosexual images gayness is disencouraged. That could be true on a certain level. There are men that find women revolting in a sexual way, same wome some women. Then you have folks that just think, well, whatever comes along and the sort of people who or bi because it's fashionable. Really, I think it depends on a lot of factors. It is possible to be exclusively gay and still fall for someone of the same sex. There's a different between what a person has an attraction for and what they end up dating or marrying. Once again, it's complex. But does it even matter? Gay people just exist and have existed since there have been humans. We can either force people to conform which hasn't worked and causes more problems then it solves or accept the fact that some people are gay and perhaps there is a reason and pattern for that.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter what causes it because there's nothing inherently wrong with being gay or bi, just as long as we realize that homophobia propagates homosexuality. Ironically, if the right-wing wanted to purge homosexulity, all they would have to do is send out the message that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay. Sounds ridiculous? I think so too, but it's true!
I'm not using a Freudian model, since Freud seems to insinutate that there's something wrong with letting our primal urges run free.
I'm moreso holding up a Neo-Jungian model that says that who we are is who we are, independently of our social morality.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: We can either force people to conform which hasn't worked and causes more problems then it solves or accept the fact that some people are gay and perhaps there is a reason and pattern for that.
Certainly we cannot "force people to conform". That is pretty obvious when we really see what has happened and what is happening. My question is, can we accept the fact that some people are gay without encouraging homosexuality? I think we can. But it is a fine balance. It is one that I hope to find. The problem is, no one will be able to decide where the line is. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: just as long as we realize that homophobia propagates homosexuality. Ironically, if the right-wing wanted to purge homosexulity, all they would have to do is send out the message that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay. Sounds ridiculous? I think so too, but it's true! [Wink]
Huh. I've never heard anyone say that before. I don't think it is true though. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But how do you think homosexuality is being encouraged? Writing books about it or making shows about it doesn't really encourage it.....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Writing books about it or making shows about it doesn't really encourage it.....
I disagree. I think these are exactly the sorts of things that shape our thinking. I guess I say this because I know what a strong effect stories and TV had on my mind growing up.
I think one of the things that discourages homosexual tendancies is the inner feeling of "no, I won't think that". I really think this is how a lot of people who are capable of being bi-sexual grow to be entirely or almost entirely heterosexual.
posted
It is encouraged with every bit of acceptance as being normal. It is encouraged when it is legally defined as being equal with heterosexual unions. It is encouraged when it is taught as acceptable behavior. It is encouraged when it is displayed as a majority when it is in the minority, when it is considered just another facet like gender and color.
Lines must be drawn, lines obviously marked in different places by different people. You may say there's nothing wrong with homosexuality; others say there's everything wrong with it, that it is contrary to God's design.
You may not understand it. But plenty of people don't believe my faith either, and I can deal with that. Why are some homosexuals so desperate for the world to agree with them?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it IS another facet like colour or gender. It IS just another thing on the spectrum of humanity. Gay people are tired of being considered sick or sinful all the time, they've had to put up with this for years and refuse to take it anymore. Homosexuality is a variation.
At least books about it help to make a person who has homosexual feelings feel less like a freak. When I was young, I don't really think I had a sexuality, but I recall being more attracted to women than men, I had a little platonic crush on Jacklyn Smith as a kid but y'all really don't need to know that. *flees*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in order to make my counter-intuitive theory seem more intuitive we need to suppose that people have the potential to be bi. If they repress the gay part of themselves, they will either hate gays because they hate that part of themselves, or they will one day become gay to rebell against the persecution that caused them to repress it and therefore become completely gay as opposed to the more balanced "bi".
posted
Strawcatz wrote in reply to the comment "homosexuals are cut off from succeeding generations"
quote: I fail to see how one can make a moral argument out of this astute observation. Surely straight couples who are either sterile or plan not to have children are not exempt from marrying each other. So, I ask, since when was marriage primarily about the propagation of the species: a species that is in no danger of running of steam now that the population has breached the 6 billion mark.
Card's argument about acutal homosexuals is not a moral one. He believes that their lack of investment in succeeding generations makes their relationship to society different.
Where he does make a moral point is in response to gay activism. Do you agree that there is a difference between behavior toward homosexuals and attitude toward the gay activism agenda? I'm sure you tolerate individual Christians, while not liking the group agenda.
I agree that repression is a major cause of homosexuality. I faced this myself as a teen. "Straight" people say "I don't have an inkling of attraction to members of my sex." So when I had even an inkling, even though equal or less than the attraction to the opposite sex, I began to believe I had a "problem."
That our society is pro-heterosexual is not a simple matter of tradition and predjudice. It is because one of the main purposes for society is to shelter and instruct children. As I mentioned before, homosexuals have to make an effort to participate in this investment. Of course there are heteros who can't have children. Most go through a grieving process over it. Some can have children and choose not to. But these are not in the majority.
P.S. Most couples only find out they are infertile after marriage, they don't get married because they are infertile. Then there are those who are singly infertile- like the lady in Steel Magnolias. I knew someone like that. They aren't infertile so much as have an illness that makes pregnancy virtual suicide. On those counts I must appeal to our theology that the fallen condition of this life does not limit what can be accomplished in the life to come.
What bothers me is the law (in Utah) that permits first cousins to marry if they are too old to have kids (55). I just think that's jacked.
[ January 09, 2005, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if Mr. Card is suggesting that gay couples be permitted to pursue civil unions that have similar legal rights to straight couples then we don't disagree fundamentally on the problem.
I just believe that raising kids is contingent rather than necessary to marriage. Surely if striaghts are allowed to adopt, gays should be permitted too, provided they are competant. So, the point still seems rather moot to me.
As for agendas, I believe there is something wrong when one group wants to supress the realization of the needs of another. I could just say "that which the Christians put out are coming back at them by the people they would persecute" but this doesn't solve the problem. I believe that a middl-way is possible, where Christian values can be maintained without infringing on the freedoms of gays.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: What bothers me is the law (in Utah) that permits first cousins to marry if they are too old to have kids (55). I just think that's jacked.
I think it's stupid that first cousins are normally not allowed to marry. The idea that first cousins marrying have significaltly greater chances of creating children with birth defects, etc. is a myth.
The actual studies that have been done indicate that marrying a first cousin is no more risky than marrying a non-cousin. And there's a lot of people that can be studied concerning this. The taboo does not exists in many parts of India and China. In fact, 1/4 of all marriages in the world are between first cousins.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to have sex with men because I watch Will and Grace and The Birdcage. For Christ's sake, people you don't TURN gay any more than you turn straight! You either are or you aren't.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps for some people. But I believe that the majority of people could go either way if they wanted to. I certainly believe I could.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The factors that determine whether we become gay or straight are partially biological and partially environmental, I think. But as for the environmental factors, it doesn't really make sense to consider it a "choice" if it's a choice that is made on a subconscious level.
posted
I think people have a lot of tendencies for a lot of things, and I do think both nature and nurture play a part. Just like plenty of "dry alcoholics" who have a predisposition toward addiction; it doesn't mean they have to follow that path, but it is much harder for them than others.
But tendencies do not a person make. And many people believe that it IS possible to overcome all things––with divine help.
I agree with the earlier post that OSC rails on gay activitists and not homosexuals in general. He has reaffirmed time and time again in loving and respecting the person, even if you disagree with their behavior.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
! That is rather interesting... Why do you feel that MPH? I started off completely asexual, got attracted to girls after high school and fell for a boy in college. I'm a shapeshifter though... And a bit complicated... It confuses me a little because it's just... not exactly normal and you can't really win because you will get hated by a lot of sides for it.
As for cousins marrying, ew! They are related. They share genetic material. There is something revolting to me about that...
But, if he were so respectful why does he throw around terms like adolescent behaviour and in another article he stated that gays are like children pretending to be adults? That's not very respectful to me.
Plus, a lot of people have tried to use divine intervention to change their sexuality. What groups like Exodus International doesn't want people to know is that they seldom do follow up studies because it's not a sure-fire guaranteed cure. It often has tragic results.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hatrack is a great place for people to come to learn understanding and compassion. There are some who don't want to listen, though, and they rarely stick around here.
Heh, I wonder if that's why OSC doesn't post any more.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't think people choose their sexuality any more than they choose their weight. For some people, conforming to the norm is easy. For others it is not. For many, it is not possible because they feel it is not the most important thing to focus their creative energies on.
I think there is a variant within homosexuality where gays worship a particular woman, but because she is taken/old/dead they view all other women as second-raters. I could be wrong, no gays have told me this. But I'm thinking of the fixation on Judy Garland and Marilyn Monroe etc. They definitely find some women attractive, but I could be wrong about them finding them sexy.
[ January 10, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's because they identify with those women? Judy Garland did not have such an easy life, and neither did Marilyn Monroe, but I doubt it's sexual in nature. Besides, not all gay men harp on Marilyn, Judy, Cher (Though, why Cher? She can't sing! They joke about her sometimes on Stupid Will and Dumb Grace) I used to have little platonic crushes on men sometimes back in college. I still do. It's embarassing, but perhaps it's because they are SO INTELLIGENT and are where I would like to be right now.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But nobody really knows how their Deity REALLY wants them to live their life or if infact they really have an opinion on the matter either way, they can only take their beliefs and conscience as guidance.
How do you know? It is the height of human arrogance...because God hasn't spoken to me, he must not speak to anyone. Because I don't have God's direction in my life, no one does.
Personally, I don't know exactly what God wants me to do with my life. However, it is elitist in the extreme to assume that if its not me, then its no one. How do you know that God does not speak to the Pope, the Prophet, or even ordinary people? And that people wouldn't be better of by following their advice?
What irritates me most is the hypocrisy of the progressive/liberal movement that proclaims open-mindedness, but in fact is just the opposite at any challenge to their own views. The Supreme Being is themselves, their sense of morals is what they believe to be right and wrong.
I find it hard to believe after reading Card's books on civilization, society, and hypothetical alien civilizations, one could be so close-minded.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
There is a presumption that universal truth does not exist and, therefore, we can do whatever our bodies tell us to. But others believe there is more to life than what we see. They believe certain behaviors have negative consequences for people, societies and beyond--even if there seems no apparent reason against it--and such a mandate comes from the source of universal truth.
That's the problem with "that's what I feel, so it must be right" mentalities. We feel a lot of things. My young son feels like touching a hot stove occasionally, but it doesn't make it right.
(But those first few, blister-free seconds...a real hoot!)
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, once again, what sort of negative consequences does homosexuality have for society and the individual? The reason why I object to these ideas so strongly is becomas they have a negative impact on millions of gays historically and in this day and age. A good example-Isn't it foolish to discharge people from the military who can read and speak Arabic because they are gay?
Universal truth is... a bit... questionable.. again, it depends... there are a lot of biblical things that have been misproven, a lot of scientific ideas have shattered. It's hard to find what is the universal truth without looking at multiple sides and stories...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Biblical things have been misproved? I think all that has been proved is that some people don't believe all of the bible.
I gave my reasons previously. It's okay if you don't accept them. I think homosexuality is discrimination against the opposite sex.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think homosexuality is discrimination against the opposite sex.
To quote William Cosby Junior:
"That's the dumbest thing I ever heard!"
What? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How in the world does having two guys get married discriminate a woman? How does two women getting married discriminate a man? What the hell? Are you serious?
Straight people lose absolutely nothing by letting gays get married. Ok, maybe a few of the church reservation lists get longer. Whoodidee doo. What's a week or two added to a year anyway?
We're not talking about diamonds here. If you let out a bunch of diamonds onto the market, the price will go down, right? But it doesn't work like that with marriage. People don't feel like their marriage means any less when people get divorced in a week, etc. That makes those other people's marriage worth less.
If people think that their bond loses any of its signifigance because of something other people do then they don't have a true understanding of their own bond.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
This is a somewhat idiotic move considering the fact that they don't have enough translators for Arabic. Really they ought to put aside the whole gay thing in the first place. Not only is it unconstitional, it's unnessasary. Many gays have large amounts of self control.
And, I should not even dignify that with a response, but how is homosexuality discrimination against the opposite sex? Isn't heterosexuality discrimination against the same sex? Think of how hostile many heterosexual men get if someone even HINTS that they are gay.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 543 Arabic linguists and 166 Farsi linguists graduated from their 63-week courses, according to a DLI spokesman. That was up from 377 and 139, respectively, in the previous year.
If the numbers are up (by a lot) does 26 really make a difference?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is impossible for a normal, healthy male to go a long period of time without an orgasm. If he goes too long, his body takes care of it in his sleep.
quote:Men have orgasms in their sleep if they aren't having them in any other way because they *need* to have orgasms
There is no medical necessity to orgasm, strictly speaking. Nocturnal emissions when there has not been an ejaculation for some time are very common among men, but their frequency varies from person to person and from one age to another.
Common doesn't mean necessary. I happen to think that orgasms are generally good things, and there is evidence that having regular orgasms may be beneficial for both men and women (decreses risk of prostatitis, relieves uterine cramping, elevates mood, possibly extends average lifespan, etc.).
But if the sperm are not released by ejaculation (either intended or unintended), they can be reabsorbed by the body. This is exactly what happens after a vasectomy, when it works. After a successful vasectomy, there is no external outlet for the sperm, and that doesn't seem to be associated with any short- or long-term problems.
[I clarify this point in particular because I have heard men ask about increased risk of cancer after vasectomies, which does not in fact occur. Does seem to be an urban legend floating about, although it's a tangential issue for this thread. Carry on. ]
posted
There was only 80-100 in 1991 (Arabic Linguists out of DLI) But they had started their course before Gulf War I.
P.S. It is possible that people are going in to get a great free education that they can use in the private sector and then announcing they are gay to get out of the rest of their commitment.
[ January 15, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is discrimination? Making a judgement about someone based on the category they belong to. Saying "I can never be attracted to any man" sounds pretty discriminatory to me.
I also believe that gays want the benefits of sociologic distinction without submitting to any kind of systematic study. I know many are willing to. I guess it's a standoff, because we can't understand them until the majority of them are willing to come out. But most who won't come out do so because they fear not being understood.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They probably fear being ostracised, a very realistic fear to have, considering. Straight men are waaaaaaaaaaaay more likely to discriminate against gay men because of their fear of being considered homosexual. How many times do straight guys beat the crap out of a gay guy for coming on to them? People do stuff like this all the time, it's not the same thing. Most straight women don't get attracted to other women, are they discriminating? Discriminating is a conscious thing, like gripping your purse if a large black man passes. But as for being attracted to certain kinds of people, men, women, Asians, people with tattoos and piercings or died hair, that's entirely different.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Straight men are waaaaaaaaaaaay more likely to discriminate against gay men because of their fear of being considered homosexual. How many times do straight guys beat the crap out of a gay guy for coming on to them?
I wonder how accurate this perception is. The only anti-gay violence in my hometown was done not because anybody was hit on, but because there was a perception that the guy was gay. That's it.
After all, people aren't violent to blacks or hispanics because they are afraid that they themselves are black or hispanic.
I know it is conventional wisdom, but I am not convinced that the root of anti-gay discrimination is fear of being homosexual yourself. I wonder if the word homophobia has been bandied around enough that people have accepted it without any real evidence.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the numbers are up (by a lot) does 26 really make a difference?
It's a war. We basically need as many of everything as we can get. Do you realize what any sort of discrimination can do in wartime? Imagine if Jewish scientists stayed in Germany. England would be a wasteland right now.
And look at how they treated blacks in WWII. The tuskegee airmen were almost never alowed to fight, but once they were they never lost a single bomber to enemy action. Do realize what an accomplishment that was for an American bomber escort? In the early parts of the war 2/3 of every crewmember on a bomber died. A single bombing run cost the lives of 60 bombers (that's 600 men either dead or captured).
Do you really think we can afford to lose translators in a foreign war? 26 may seem like a small number, but that's 26 more platoons of men who can communicate with the people there properly.
quote:P.S. It is possible that people are going in to get a great free education that they can use in the private sector and then announcing they are gay to get out of the rest of their commitment.
Wow.
Do you realize how stupid that is? You don't... you can't... what the... wow...
*blinks*
quote:What is discrimination? Making a judgement about someone based on the category they belong to. Saying "I can never be attracted to any man" sounds pretty discriminatory to me.
Can you guys hear the stuff you're saying? If they're not going to be happy with the opposite sex, they're not going to be happy. It's not discrimination any more than ugly people get discriminated in the dating world. Should we make it illegal for shallow people to have an opinion?
And it's not like everyone in the world is gay. There are, as the saying goes, plenty of other fish in the sea. What IS discrimination is saying that that guy can't let his life insurance benefits go to that other guy because they're both guys.
Saying that those two women being in love isn't allowed is discrimination. Since when are Christians anti-love anyway?
quote:I wonder if the word homophobia has been bandied around enough that people have accepted it without any real evidence.
It's not even the right word. Homophobia is the fear of things that are the same. Homosexualphobia is the more accurate word (although I don't know if greek lets you use two suffixes).
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
David Sedaris is gay. And I think his books are funny. Very funny. I would use the word hilarious..........but I don't think I know how to spell it right, unless I just did.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like him, but even better is Augustun (sp) Burroughs. He had a messed up life though, but the way he writes about it is funny as hell. I'd want to write half as good as him.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People in the military accuse women of gettting pregnant to get out. Proclaiming you are gay to get out is much less involved than that. And it is stupid, but if you think that makes it less probable you must not have any authentic experience with the military.
Also, do you know what happens if you register to get language training and you don't do well in your classes? You get reassigned to meat cutting or gym equipment maintenance, or some other specialty with a very short training period. I know many people who would rather that a few people they are never going to see again believe they are gay than spend the next three years making sure all the basketballs on base are at their proper inflation.
[ January 15, 2005, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:David Sedaris is gay. And I think his books are funny. Very funny. I would use the word hilarious..........but I don't think I know how to spell it right, unless I just did.
That man is so funny. I love listening to him on NPR.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. It is possible that people are going in to get a great free education that they can use in the private sector and then announcing they are gay to get out of the rest of their commitment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow.
Do you realize how stupid that is? You don't... you can't... what the... wow...
*blinks*
I was getting a tiny vibe similar to this when I read the article as well. It seems a little too much. They gain language and training and THEN tell their superiors that they are gay? Think what you will of the military for kicking them out, but they blatantly disobeyed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
but y'all really don't need to know that. *flees*
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Naughty celia.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
But they had started their course before Gulf War I.
