quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: If any of my co-workers felt the need to explicitly express to me the fact that they are gay, I would feel uncomfortable and wonder if I am supposed to detail any information about my sex life just to be polite.
If you have ever mentioned your wife or girlfriend then you already have detailed your sex life.
I refer to my significant other as my partner. I know that this leads people to make assumptions, but that is entirely on them. I really prefer to refer to my partner by name, but obviously that only works if the person I'm speaking to already knows said name.
Note, I'm not saying that all gay people should do this, or even that it would help anything (In fact, it probably would've counted as telling under DADT anyway, simply because of the assumptions it leads to) but I do think it's interesting how loaded the way we convey info about our personal lives is.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um... yes? It can be hard not to. Depends on the conversation. But like I said before, if I'm discussing my partner in enough depth that I need a pronoun, I would hope the person I am speaking to would know my partner's name. And it's not a gender-neutral name. So that sort of answers the question right there, doesn't it?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: If any of my co-workers felt the need to explicitly express to me the fact that they are gay, I would feel uncomfortable and wonder if I am supposed to detail any information about my sex life just to be polite.
You (assuming male): "I'm going camping with my girlfriend this weekend."
Male Coworker: "Yeah? My boyfriend hates camping so I haven't been in a while."
You: "I prefer reverse cowgirl position."
Coworker: "Ummm... okay."
Yeah, it's usually about perception of the listener.
I was sitting at the LGBTQ booth on National Day of Silence a few years back when a kind older gentleman came up to talk.
"You know, I don't have a problem with gay people; they deserve the same rights and respect as anyone else. But why do you have to shove things down other people's throats and be so in-your-face about things?"
I presented to him two situations: 1) You are chatting with a new male coworker at lunch when his phone beeps and he says, "Excuse me, it' my girlfriend, I need to take this call." 2) You are chatting with a new male coworker at lunch when his phone beeps and he says, "Excuse me, it's my boyfriend, I need to take this call."
Clearly, the gay man is all in your face about being gay, and he doesn't need to be so forceful and out there about it huh?
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everywhere you turned, homosexual and lesbian members of the military “came out” very publicly to celebrate what the media is heralding as a huge victory for human rights - the demise of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Why the huge media splash? Most Americans, after all, are either indifferent or opposed to gays openly serving in the military. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” served most Americans well - it kind of fit the prevailing public mood on homosexuality, which is this: *“What you do in private is your business, just don’t shove it in my face.”
posted
Haha, as if "indifferent" to gays serving in the military is a different stance from "in favor of," and it only counts if you actively want and push for gays to serve. He'll, I don't stump for gays to join the military- I'm indifferent to the notion. I just want them to be *allowed* to.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was reading a webpage discussing how things are so much worse in Massachusetts for allowing gay marriage. As I read, I was disgusted that people exist who honestly thought these things were bad. On the list- gay teachers put up pictures of the their spouses, increased support for gay teens and anti-bullying measures, increased PDAs in public such as handholding, gays "outing" self at restaurant and if denied service complaining. Part of me thought, surely this is satire, but looking at rest of webpage, I don't think it was.
Not linking because I don't want to send traffic there and I don't think it would be hard to find if anyone really wanted to.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No no no, I'm not a bigot, because I'm only unfair to people who are different then the majority. It's not difficult, I mean, if they wanted to be treated fairly, they should just be like everyone else for god's sake.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that on top of: "I am actually a minority *victim* of "PC" bigotry." Because I shouldn't be discriminated against for liking discrimination.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marissa Gaeta, petty officer 2nd class of Placerville, California, is shown kissing her girlfriend Citlalic Snell, also a naval officer, of Los Angeles, in the rain at Virginia Beach. Behind them is the USS Oak Hill, an amphibious landing ship from which Gaeta has just disembarked after 80 days at sea.
By being selected as the crew member to make the traditional "first kiss" ashore, Gaeta stepped off the ship and into the history books.
It was a groundbreaking meeting of same-sex lips, the first since the ending of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in September, under which gay service personnel were not permitted to be open about their sexuality.
"It's something new, that's for sure," Gaeta told reporters after the kiss. "It's nice to be able to be myself. It's been a long time coming."
David Bauer, commanding officer of the USS Oak Hill, predicted before it happened that the kiss would largely be a non-event. "It's going to happen and the crew's going to enjoy it. We're going to move on," he said.
Both women are navy fire "controlmen" who maintain and operate weapons systems on ships - although their job title seems a little inappropriate in the circumstances. They met at training school where they shared a room.
Snell was dressed in a leather jacket, scarf and blue jeans having been on a break from her guided-missile destroyer, the USS Bainbridge.
She said it had been difficult at the start of their two-year relationship under the "don't ask, don't tell" regime. "We did have to hide it a lot in the beginning, a lot of people were not always supportive. But we can finally be honest about who we are."
Omigosh, the just and loving God shall surely chastise us with terrible natural disasters for permitting such shame!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know Rakeesh, and I'm not saying I've never done this. But when you decide to mock a group of people rather than voice your support for a development, it only reinforces that group's belief that they are the real ones under attack, and they need to hold firm.
One's mind being changed often happens silently as they continue to experience what motivates the other side. If it's love, then change can take place, if it's hate or smug condescension, they dig in.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But when you decide to mock a group of people rather than voice your support for a development, it only reinforces that group's belief that they are the real ones under attack, and they need to hold firm.
When it comes to groups of people who are never not going to think that they are under sinister attack by agenda-wielding ungodly cabals, put at the top of the list people who preach that their Pat-Robertsonian god is going to inflict natural disasters on us or turn off the literal angel-powered asteroid deflection shield above our country for doing things like letting gays marry and serve openly in the military.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll try to put it more in a more serious way than Samprimary, though I agree with him: people who believe that God will kill, maim, or make miserable hundreds, thousands, or millions of people because a given nation becomes less intolerant of homosexuality, because it doesn't worship the correct deity in the proper way, I very much doubt they're going to change their minds about those beliefs for any amount of rhetoric, whether it's peaceful and loving or hostile and sneering.
For those that are on the fence, well I genuinely do think it's useful to encourage society in general not just to heap scorn on such stupid beliefs, but also not to let anyone forget just how hateful those kinds of beliefs are. That sort of thinking ought to be, I think, as roundly condemned as say stoning a woman to death for adultery. I don't think it's very helpful to meet that sort of thinking with loving understanding.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'll try to put it more in a more serious way than Samprimary, though I agree with him: people who believe that God will kill, maim, or make miserable hundreds, thousands, or millions of people because a given nation becomes less intolerant of homosexuality, because it doesn't worship the correct deity in the proper way, I very much doubt they're going to change their minds about those beliefs for any amount of rhetoric, whether it's peaceful and loving or hostile and sneering.
The number of people opposed to SSM for this reason is vanishingly small. Most people are closer to what you describe as "fence sitters," but (as BB suggested) they are also very used to being lumped in with Fred Phelpsian-style insane bigots, and they (somewhat rightfully) feel rather attacked by mockery like you displayed here.
They're also wrong, but mocking them by acting like they are completely over-the-top hateful monsters is not the best way to deal with them, in my opinion.
Re: the actual story... it's wonderful and adorable. I misted up the first time I saw the video.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the number of straight-up far right religious-social issues people *is* small, the power they exert on American politics is just shall we say disproportionate. We see an excellent example of that now: when was the last time evangelicals, a minority even in the Republican party, didn't wield great power in deciding who will be their candidate?
As for the fence-sitters, well how do we *not* make them feel attacked? They already feel attacked. There's value to making them feel some sense of shame, too. Should that be the only tool? No.
But, it's strange how we're expected to mince around the sensibilities of fence sitters but they are not expected to accord any such courtesy. Perhaps there would also be some benefit to reminding them that they aren't the only people who are offended by the social ideas of others. So often it's couched the other way, as though the people seeking a change are attackers, rather than those standing for the status quo being seen as continuing a long standing attack on homosexuals.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could be mistaken; it has been some time since I argued here really frequently. But I think I see some people in favour of mocking and attacking those opposed to SSM on the grounds that they should be ashamed, who were opposed to mocking and attacking theists.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the fence-sitters, well how do we *not* make them feel attacked? They already feel attacked. There's value to making them feel some sense of shame, too. Should that be the only tool? No.
There are fence sitters, but there are also "people making up their mind" also "people who are willing to change their mind if shown the right things the right way."
I do not base my behavior on the bar set by the other side. We can't label every opponent of SSM as a bigot or close minded. Some just haven't heard anything but objections, they don't know any openly gay people, they're ignorant. You can mock them, and they will turn into granite, at which point people will start picking up weapons. Or you can let them see that their wrong beliefs make them into angry hateful people they don't want to be, while your beliefs leave you with a sense of peace and their effect is softening.
I recognize that sometimes the real bad people play the victim card, while labeling the virtuous as the aggressors. I recognize that sometimes you need to plant your feet in the dirt and say you will not be moving. But I cannot think of a moment in my life where mockery repaired something broken in me, can you?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I could be mistaken; it has been some time since I argued here really frequently. But I think I see some people in favour of mocking and attacking those opposed to SSM on the grounds that they should be ashamed, who were opposed to mocking and attacking theists.
Maybe the idea is that we should mock/attack views that are morally wrong, but not views that are just factually mistaken or unjustified.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are progressives supposed to be happy about the repeal of DADT? I do not even know why this issue is considered a left-wing one.
The American military - like every other military - is a fundamentally conservative organization. It even goes beyond being conservative into plainly imperial. How could any left-winger deny that? (Yes, conservatives, I know you disagree, but I'm not trying to disagree with you at the moment)
What exactly is the reasoning here? "How dare you tell me I cannot participate in a war I have spent the last 10 years criticizing and lamenting because I'm gay..." or "How dare you tell me I cannot pilot a drone to blow up an Afghani wedding because I am gay..."
I think it is a sign of the fundamental disorientation and confusion of American liberals. As if "personal choice" were the only criteria for progressive action. "I choose to serve in the military, and therefore I should have the right to."
Except personal choice is not the basic criteria for progressive thought and action; rather, we should be concerned with justice, truth and universality.
Personal choice is the moral criteria of late capitalism, to put on my Marxist hat. The desire for the repeal of DADT is conservative, not progressive.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's more of an issue which, due to the fact many of the conservatives in our country also identify with a religion that condemns homosexuality, more progressives support than conservatives. It's neither a liberal nor conservative issue, so to speak, it's a human rights issue. The intricacies of our current political climate make that difficult to see, though. I know many republicans (in the military, no less!) who strongly opposed DADT. I know at least one gay republican.
For that matter, I know *many* democrats who not only support(ed) the recent wars, but actively desired to serve in the military and participate therein. I also know democrats who opposed the war, yet still desired to serve in the military, because they felt it important to do so for one reason or another.
Our current parties are far too bloated to provide any coherent list of values which all their members universally subscribe to. It's difficult enough when talking about such things as economics, taxation, and foreign policy, bringing lifestyles and human rights into the picture only makes the water muddier, so to speak.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's neither a liberal nor conservative issue, so to speak, it's a human rights issue.
I don't like that term either, if only because it is so easily pressed into service for issues like this.
I do not mean to speak of Democrats and Republicans, but progressives and conservatives. Democrats from OSC to Obama are perfectly capable of being conservative.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you contend that a policy forbidding human beings to openly express their sexual relationships with other human beings, and sometimes arbitrarily punishing them for their desire to enter into such relationships, is not a human rights issue?
Not that saying "it's a human rights" issue automatically means that the right in question should be granted. For example, I don't think adult humans should have the right to have sexual relations with little children, no matter how much they may desire to do so. But it is a issue that transcends politics, or political parties IMO.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone is phlegmatic about the Iraq war, or if someone thinks American foreign policy is basically ok with some contingent corruption and isolated bad choices spoiling it, then yeah, I can see how DADT would be a bad thing.
But if the Iraq war is as bad as liberals have been saying for the last decade, if drone strikes are as creepy as liberals say, if American interventions against democratically elected governments are as inexcusable as many liberals say...
If all that is true, then concern over the end of DADT is roughly analogous to saying that the main problem with the KKK is that it refuses admission to black people. What, isn't that a human rights issue too? Shouldn't black people have the right to join the KKK?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second, wait a second...I was fine with leaving things lie, since you effectively declared your, "I'ma rant for awhile," but 'interventions against democratically elected governments'...goodness. Which ones?
On the edge of my seat for this one, there's so many to choose from but that one's just so juicy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I know the US military wasn't involved in any of the South American coups. As the first paragraph (vaguely, I admit) suggests, I was speaking about American foreign policy in a broad sense. I assume it is no secret that the CIA has been involved in toppling various democratically elected governments, but if you want examples, I'd be happy to provide them.
quote:Foust: I think your comments demonstrate profound ignorance about the scope, nature, and mission of the U.S. military.
To be fair, in my initial post I said I was speaking to people who already agree that the U.S. has a history of being involved in rotten wars. Why the clamor for one's "right" to be involved in these wars?
quote:Also, the KKK is not a government organization.
I'm not talking about the Constitutional status of DADT. I'm talking about the contradiction between liberal's views on American foreign policy and their demand for more people to comfortably be a part of it.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The number of people opposed to SSM for this reason is vanishingly small.
Are you citing specific numbers, or is this an assumption?
I don't have a study handy per se, no, but then again, what I was objecting to was terminology that ultimately would make this sort of debatable.
I was NOT saying that the number of people opposed to SSM on the grounds that it is immoral is vanishingly small. Last study I remember showed that they were pretty overwhelmingly against SSM. The part I was disputing is that a significant number of evangelicals think that God is punishing America because we are too tolerant of homosexuality.
If I recall the data correctly, the number of evangelical christians opposed to civil unions is dramatically lower than the number opposed to SSM, to the point that the "opposed" were only slightly over 50%. Do you think that any evangelical okay with civil unions would think that God is punishing us because he hates The Gays?
And of the 55% or 60% or whatever it was of evangelicals that do oppose civil unions as well, do you think that all of them hit this Phelpsian level of insanity? Do you think half of them do?
This is the part I don't think I could get numbers on, and it's sorta the crux of the issue. I don't know of any survey of evangelicals opposed to SSM that believe that god is punishing us for being too accepting of gays. Do you?
I do know that most other churches frequently criticize and disavow any affiliation with Phelps, though, so that's something.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: ... Why the clamor for one's "right" to be involved in these wars?
quote:Originally posted by Foust: ... But if the Iraq war is as bad as liberals have been saying for the last decade, if drone strikes are as creepy as liberals say ...
Technically, you're already involved as a taxpayer and as a voter that elected the government.
The decision to make drones strikes and to start/continue the Iraq war was a decision made not by the military by itself, but by the civilian government. Just sayin'
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Technically, you're already involved as a taxpayer and as a voter that elected the government.
The decision to make drones strikes and to start/continue the Iraq war was a decision made not by the military by itself, but by the civilian government. Just sayin'
I really don't understand your point. Honestly. Could you make it more clear for me?
Edit: Assume I'm stupid. What is the relation of your point to what I'm saying?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Faust, I think that Mucus's point is that we bear as much responsibility for what our soldiers do as the soldiers do themselves. We sent them there.
Your point is ridiculous. Having a military does not mean that we have to use the military for evil.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wait a second, wait a second...I was fine with leaving things lie, since you effectively declared your, "I'ma rant for awhile," but 'interventions against democratically elected governments'...goodness. Which ones?
On the edge of my seat for this one, there's so many to choose from but that one's just so juicy.
Russia 1918 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état 1953 Iranian coup d'état Guatemala 1954 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960 Iraq 1963 Brazil 1964 Republic of Ghana 1966 Chile 1973 ??? Argentina 1976 Nicaragua 1981-1990
posted
Oh, I didn't realize the span of this theme was 'ever'. If I had, I wouldn't have said that (nor have I ever denied-in fact I've been ashamed of-our shall we say spotty record on fostering democracy when we have a direct interest one way or another). I rather thought we were speaking of a generation or two's length of time, and if we are, that accusation becomes much less of a slam dunk and in fact gets positively uncertain.
Anyway, I do love the notion of the American military as an imperial institution. I mean, they're invading, conquering, and annexing and occupying territory all over the place. Everyone knows that! Likewise everyone also knows that wherever the American military goes, oppression, brutality, and injustice just spread like wildfire. Heh.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Half of those examples are within my lifetime. All are within a generation or two. So what if we don't usually invade militarily? We prop up whatever government is good for business and frequently that US-sponsored government is oppressive, unjust, and brutal. For example, Saddam Hussein. I know you know about that one.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Why the clamor for one's "right" to be involved in these wars?
Is there to be no room for fighting for rights that may be abused? If you believe in freedom of speech, you accept the occasional necessity of defending the Nazi Party's right to march through Jewish neighbourhoods. If you believe in freedom of medicine, you accept that people will occasionally get high on marijuana and do badly on their exam the next day. And if you believe in freedom of sexuality, you accept that some gays will want to join the military, and fight for their right to do so even if you think it's a bad idea.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, I do love the notion of the American military as an imperial institution. I mean, they're invading, conquering, and annexing and occupying territory all over the place. Everyone knows that! Likewise everyone also knows that wherever the American military goes, oppression, brutality, and injustice just spread like wildfire. Heh.
Yup. And all the resources and taxes from our annexed subjects flows back to us, into the heart of the Imperium, to fuel our engine of destructive oppression. We certainly don't spend overwhelming amounts of our own wealth to try and improve and stabilize other areas, because, really, what would be the point? That's not the way you get ten people to sacrifice on the altar of our Immortal God King each day.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps not, but the resources of those countries certainly do go to line the pockets of corporations. Which is quite possibly worse than lining our treasury. We spend public blood and treasure to smooth the way for private interests.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, I do love the notion of the American military as an imperial institution. I mean, they're invading, conquering, and annexing and occupying territory all over the place. Everyone knows that! Likewise everyone also knows that wherever the American military goes, oppression, brutality, and injustice just spread like wildfire. Heh.
Yup. And all the resources and taxes from our annexed subjects flows back to us, into the heart of the Imperium, to fuel our engine of destructive oppression. We certainly don't spend overwhelming amounts of our own wealth to try and improve and stabilize other areas, because, really, what would be the point? That's not the way you get ten people to sacrifice on the altar of our Immortal God King each day.
We were terrible at Empire. As soon as we took the Philippines we set a date to give it back. As soon as we took Cuba, we passed a law saying we couldn't annex it. Every country we've conquered in war (Germany, South Korea, Japan) we've spent billions to revitalize and demanded nothing back but loan payments.
Does that make taking places over better? No, an invasion or conquest is still an invasion or conquest, but let's not pretend like there aren't degrees, and that those degrees don't matter.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's fine, Lyr, and I don't think I or Rakeesh are saying that those degrees don't matter.
I'm pretty sure what we are specifically responding to is the assertion that the US is an "imperialist" nation. It's not an uncommon charge from certain factions on the more far-out left wing, and it is a false one. It's worth calling out, in my opinion.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sort of agree with you, I sort of don't. I think we ARE an imperialist nation, or at least, have a brief but powerful imperialist past. I mean, come on, Manifest Destiny wasn't a benign exercise. But we also didn't invade and exploit people (we imported our exploitation and did it from home).
We have a complicated past, difficult to squeeze into the traditional European imperialist rubric. But how you label is perhaps misses the point.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not disputing our past, except to say that I think that applying a modern rubric to historic civilizations is a good way to unfairly demonize a group in history. That is, I think there is value in recognizing that a historic culture was objectively wrong, but also in acknowledging that they may have still been better than most of the alternative ideas in their day.
Man, I said I wasn't disputing, then I argued a bunch. Sorry! I think this is tangential. Rakeesh and I were both talking about America and the American military in the modern age.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
