Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

^ That's about what I got out of this page

 

[-CC-]

Christians don't believe all of the Bible (although they will say they do).

Then why believe any of it? Isn't it all "God's words"

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

How Dakryn's post should read: "Some Christians I personally don't identify with for whatever reason don't believe every word of the bible though they say they do because they're obviously not true Christians." LOGICAL FALLACY'D.

 

[razoredge]

I think gays and feminists should be drafted automatically into the military. In thier own division and sent immeadiatly to a front line, somewhere, anywhere.... "now walk the talk"

 

[Srontgorrth]

Some animals also eat their own kind. So I guess cannibalism is cool.

Well humans are mammals, and very little to none of mammals engage in cannibalistic behavior (its mostly insects that do). Nearly 1500 species have been observed with homosexual behavior, and 500 or so have been well documented.

I don't "have a say" over it, other than that I disapprove. The first question is just ridiculous. Different people are born with pre-dispositions to do all kinds of things with negative overall outcomes. When you start putting others first, happiness will come.

So are you suggesting the gay guy try and have a family by putting others first? Thats like destroying his psyche, and would result in detrimental mental health. When a trait involves human sexuality, especially in such a broad area as homosexuality(not just like a foot fetish or something) it doesn't seem like there is much of a choice to act on it or not.

Open homosexuals negatively affect military proceedings. In the military you are forced to share close quarters and tense situations with people. It creates situations where there is no trust or security in your brothers in arms.

As long as the guy who is gay doesn't act like a typical gay/queer queen type person, and acts like a normal guy in the military, there should be no need for the other men to feel insecure.

There are a lot of chemical pollutants(and foods that shouldn't be foods) today that contribute to emasculating men. So that doesn't help matters any. I am sur efor every homosexual there are slightly varying factors as to why, whether it be biologically based, or based off of poor family structure/models growing up, combinations of the two, etc.

Regardless, I am not sure why you are indignant about my opinion. The people who run around with "God hates fags" signs are just as bad as the people they hate. He doesn't hate the people, he hates the sin. There is a difference, and the ignorant, hateful people with the signs are only making things worse.

Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, such as in Ancient Greece and is not a result of chemical pollutants. Chemical pollutants negatively affect a variety of things, but its not like they cause people to be gay.

I'm indignant about your opinion because it seems ignorant. You shouldn't expect someone to not act on their sexuality, as that is a major part of a person's personality in some way or another. It seemed like you were the type that runs around with the "God hates fags" signs, but at least you're not.

 

[Dak]

You are so fucking full of shit on this issue it's not even funny. And your extremely limited knowledge/experience dealing with homosexuals is laughably minimal and the fact that you bring the bible into a discussion of biology is even more laughable.

Cookiecutter asked me for my opinion and I gave it. I have no intention of trying to prove my reasons for finding homosexuality a perversion.

However, I agree with you somewhat on the military issue. Open sexuality in general doesn't really have a place on the front lines/in the workplace. However, someone should not be kicked out of the military because he is or is suspected to be gay. I mean, who gives a fucking shit if a gay dude checks you out? It shouldn't be a problem at all unless you are insecure of your own sexuality and that kind of stuff doesn't happen in combat.

I don't know of anyone kicked out for suspicion of homosexuality. The "insecure of your own homosexuality" arguement is the biggest bunch of bullshit in the whole "gay debate". Women getting checked out by a dude they find repulsive aren't disgusted because they are doubting their heterosexuality.
As far as what happens "in combat", it might not be an issue when bullets are snapping overhead, but it is when you have to sleep a foot away from the person, or share any other kind of close quarters.

There are 60000 or so gays serving in the military right now, and there doesn't seem to be any problems.
You don't see any super effeminate people in the military anyway, so it's not like there would all of a sudden be a massive culture clash.

So roughly 4-5% of the military is gay (not sure where you got the numbers but I wouldn't doubt it. I have seen 5 I know of in the unit I was in, and all but one had all kinds of issues. Weight issues, one was UA like 3 times in a year, another one was constantly drunk and disorderly, etc. You can dismiss it as anecdotal, but I doubt our unit just happened to have all the "bad apples".

BTW, the Marine Corps contain some of the stupidest grunts I've ever met.

Then you haven't met enough Army personnel then. Grunts in both units are usually from the bottom of the AFQT barrel (btw the Army minimum is 31, and the MC minimum is 32).

If the Army were so much smarter, the Pentagon wouldn't always have to send the Marine Corp into the "trouble areas". The Corps has less manpower and resources and does a better job. Apparently with dumber people, according to you. That's pretty impressive.

EDIT: Dak, how exactly does "open homosexuality" negatively affect military proceedings? I mean, it's not even allowed.

When you have a lesbian on duty who starts making out with her girlfriend (in a "common area") instead of standing her post, that's one way. When you have a gay dude who gets drunk and wanders from room to room being "overly friendly" to the people who come in contact with him, it's an issue. These are just two of several incidents I could list.
Would those still be an issue if they happened in a "heterosexual fashion"? Sure. But they didn't happen with heterosexuals.

 

[razoredge]

about animal "sex"... please learn something about animal behavior before swallowing that gay propaganda in one huge gulp.

 

[razoredge]

When you have a lesbian on duty who starts making out with her girlfriend (in a "common area") instead of standing her post, that's one way. When you have a gay dude who gets drunk and wanders from room to room being "overly friendly" to the people who come in contact with him, it's an issue. These are just two of several incidents I could list.
Would those still be an issue if they happened in a "heterosexual fashion"? Sure. But they didn't happen with heterosexuals.

It is always amusing when wanna be accept alls convienently ignore this overwhelmingly obvious behavioral pattern of gays.

The only place it doesnt happen is where they know they will get their asses kicked.

 

[Dak]

Well humans are mammals, and very little to none of mammals engage in cannibalistic behavior (its mostly insects that do). Nearly 1500 species have been observed with homosexual behavior, and 500 or so have been well documented.

That wasn't really my point, but ok. I don't consider man an animal(I didn't say not a mammal), and even if we were, aren't we supposed to be evolving up from that?

So are you suggesting the gay guy try and have a family by putting others first? Thats like destroying his psyche, and would result in detrimental mental health. When a trait involves human sexuality, especially in such a broad area as homosexuality(not just like a foot fetish or something) it doesn't seem like there is much of a choice to act on it or not.

I (personally) know of at least one guy who is doing that. He said it's a struggle some days, but is happy with his family. Your sexual urges should not control you imo. I love my wife, but that doesn't mean I don't see other atrtactive women out there. I don't just allow that to go unchecked though.
I really don't see the difference.
What people want very often is not good for them. Like a diet of soda and candy bars. I can't tell fat people to put down the fucking McDonalds but I can disapprove.

As long as the guy who is gay doesn't act like a typical gay/queer queen type person, and acts like a normal guy in the military, there should be no need for the other men to feel insecure.

This was the purpose of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", to achieve the above situation. It has been working (with exceptions of the ones who couldn't control themselves) and should be left alone. That was all my original post on the subject was in favor of.

Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, such as in Ancient Greece and is not a result of chemical pollutants. Chemical pollutants negatively affect a variety of things, but its not like they cause people to be gay.

You need to look into the ways certain chemicals affect glandular function and hormone balancing. It's pretty bad. Not that it can account for all cases, but the upswing of effiminate men/masculine women in western society is pretty obvious, as is our intake of hormone affecting toxins.

I'm indignant about your opinion because it seems ignorant. You shouldn't expect someone to not act on their sexuality, as that is a major part of a person's personality in some way or another. It seemed like you were the type that runs around with the "God hates fags" signs, but at least you're not.

As I stated before, I don't hate the individuals. I feel sorry for them tbh. I don't approve of the actions. God loves them/hates the actions, so why shouldn't I? It's not like I am perfect, I just happen to have other flaws. That doesn't mean I condone flaws in others (or myself for that matter).

There are similar movements (to the homosexual movement) beginning for obese people. I find this equally appalling, is that also an ignorant opinion?

Edit: @ V5: I am not a "Christian", so your suggested fallacy is wrong. There are (Correction, apparently there are way more than 1500+ denominations of Christianity. More like 30k+) and I ascribe to none of them, as they all choose parts of the Bible that they don't believe. This is not the same thing as the "No True Scotsman". I am not claiming to be a metaphorical "Scotsman".

 

[razoredge]

Im all for a fat peoples pride day where they march down the streets doing sumo bounces off each other... epic win

 

[Matt]

So roughly 4-5% of the military is gay (not sure where you got the numbers but I wouldn't doubt it. I have seen 5 I know of in the unit I was in, and all but one had all kinds of issues. Weight issues, one was UA like 3 times in a year, another one was constantly drunk and disorderly, etc. You can dismiss it as anecdotal, but I doubt our unit just happened to have all the "bad apples".

There are behavioral problems in every unit. It has nothing to do with sexuality.

Then you haven't met enough Army personnel then. Grunts in both units are usually from the bottom of the AFQT barrel (btw the Army minimum is 31, and the MC minimum is 32).

If the Army were so much smarter, the Pentagon wouldn't always have to send the Marine Corp into the "trouble areas". The Corps has less manpower and resources and does a better job. Apparently with dumber people, according to you. That's pretty impressive.

lol I was just joking about that. However, Marines say the most obnoxious things in public places. There are tons of them on base here, and they are cussing like sailors around families with small children.

When you have a lesbian on duty who starts making out with her girlfriend (in a "common area") instead of standing her post, that's one way. When you have a gay dude who gets drunk and wanders from room to room being "overly friendly" to the people who come in contact with him, it's an issue. These are just two of several incidents I could list.
Would those still be an issue if they happened in a "heterosexual fashion"? Sure. But they didn't happen with heterosexuals.

So you are saying that kind of behavior doesn't happen at all with heterosexuals? I find that hard, if not impossible, to believe. That sort of behavior should be discouraged among all sexes.

 

[Dak]

There are behavioral problems in every unit. It has nothing to do with sexuality.

Percentage wise though is my point. Of course there are behavioral problems unit wide, but 20% with problems is the heterosexual norm, 20% without problems (in this case) would be the homosexual norm.

lol I was just joking about that. However, Marines say the most obnoxious things in public places. There are tons of them on base here, and they are cussing like sailors around families with small children.

I will definitely admit to this. Arrogance is an issue in the Marine Corps, and being oblivious to surroundings (children,etc.) in public is also an issue.

So you are saying that kind of behavior doesn't happen at all with heterosexuals? I find that hard, if not impossible, to believe. That sort of behavior should be discouraged among all sexes.

While it should be discouraged regardless, % wise it is not even close to the same number of incidents. Another issue that is created because of homosexuality being involved is how the issues were handled.
If a guy had attempted to do the same thing going door to door in the womens area (did happen before once, someone outside the unit was drunk and came in the barracks and started harrassing the females) the order of events was: Unit male marines beat the shit out of him and then handed him over to PMO.
But when dealing with the gay dude, he had to be treated with "kid gloves" to avoid lawsuits/investigations over "hate crimes".
Same thing with the lesbian who had the issue with her girlfriend. Was constantly UA, also apparently was pimping other lesbians out in town, among other issues. This has been ongoing for like 3 years, she still isn't kicked out yet because of having to handle her with kid gloves to avoid discrimination investigations/lawsuits.

 

[cookiecutter]

I asked Dakryn what his views were to see if it would be worth arguing him about. Because he believes that it is okay to restrict someone's civil rights based on bronze age sacred texts, I don't really think it is worth arguing. I'll never understand why he would let the Old Testament affect someone's life in 2010, and I doubt I can explain why I feel that way.

 

[Matt]

I agree completely. However, military life is a different animal, and while I'm for gays being able to openly serve at some point, I'm not sure how they should go about doing it.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Edit: @ V5: I am not a "Christian", so your suggested fallacy is wrong. There are (Correction, apparently there are way more than 1500+ denominations of Christianity. More like 30k+) and I ascribe to none of them, as they all choose parts of the Bible that they don't believe. This is not the same thing as the "No True Scotsman". I am not claiming to be a metaphorical "Scotsman".

Even if you're not Christian (hint if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior, you're Christian regardless of how much of the Bible you believe, sorry), it's still a fallacy you did perpetrate.

 

[Dak]

I asked Dakryn what his views were to see if it would be worth arguing him about. Because he believes that it is okay to restrict someone's civil rights based on bronze age sacred texts, I don't really think it is worth arguing. I'll never understand why he would let the Old Testament affect someone's life in 2010, and I doubt I can explain why I feel that way.

Is joining the military a civil right? That is a whole different arguement. If that is the case, why do we have height/weight/intelligence standards for entry? and for continued enlistment? You can be kicked out for not maintaining weight standards.
I never said anything about denying civil rights to homosexuals.

Even if you're not Christian (hint if you accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior, you're Christian regardless of how much of the Bible you believe, sorry), it's still a fallacy you did perpetrate.

Jesus even said otherwise:

Matthew 7

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

 

[Einherjar86]

Having inappropriate height or weight measurements might affect the efficiency with which a person can serve/perform their duty. Do you think that homosexuality also affects this?

 

[cookiecutter]

Is joining the military a civil right? That is a whole different arguement. If that is the case, why do we have height/weight/intelligence standards for entry? and for continued enlistment? You can be kicked out for not maintaining weight standards.

I think it is if the only thing keeping you out is the regressive religious beliefs of the organization. The military is an arm of the government, which has a separation of church and state. Therefore biblical beliefs about sin should not be considered. Being gay is much different than other restrictions because it in no way affects the individual soldier's performance. To suggest that being attracted to men makes one unable to work with them is absurd, especially considering they let straight women in the military. If bunking is an issue then make rules that let you kick people out if they do something innapropriate, not because they might do something inappropriate. It's demeaning and foolish to suggest that gay men or women will not be able to control themselves around other members of the same sex. If you want to keep gays out because it might make straight soldiers uncomfortable then that goes back to my racial integration argument.

 

[Dak]

I never said to keep homosexuals out because of my biblical beliefs.

I like to use the "straight guy on the beach" analogy, but I don't feel like going all into that right now. It should be pretty fucking obvious.

It's a distraction issue, as is having females in the military, which I have a huge problem with as well for the same reasons. I was in a combat environment with female Marines and out of like 6, only one was worth a shit duty performance-wise, and she was fairly unattractive so there went any sexual tension issues. One got pregnant, it's a miracle one of the other ones wasn't, and they were all (save the one I mentioned) spaz-tastic under even imagined pressure.

You can fix bunking issues once basic training is over with, but the group shower shit is still a the only option in (at least MC) boot camp. Also you have 70+ dudes sharing one room for sleeping/changing/etc. So they have to institute seperate training battalions like for females?

None of the above issues exist for someone just due to a different skin color.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I would probably agree that if they allow gays to serve openly it would be 'improper' to have them share living space with straight guys in the same way that it would be 'improper' to have men and women share living space. Of course it seems silly to have separate 'gay units', but I don't know what would be a better alternative. Kind of an awkward situation either way.

edit: On the other hand, surely there are gay guys that don't want other gay guys ogling them, but they'd have to tolerate it whether they're separate from straight guys or not. And anyway, is there really any good reason to be so paranoid that someone you live with is sexually attracted to you? This kind of issue arguably comes down to the prudishness that is deeply ingrained in our society, and it would be best if we just stopped conditioning these juvenile notions of sexual propriety into our children/peers/whoever. Not that there are many people in the U.S. who are ready to go through with that, but it should still be a goal of ours.