The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

It is certainly impossible to have a rational discussion on this topic with someone who is so sexualy immatureand unenlightened that he would assume that people get aroused by mere nudity that lacks sexual intention. I attract far more leering from men on the street while clothed than I do in najed in the shower with gay women. I love threads like this because it exposes the sexual ignorance and inhibition of many here.(Mostly conservative men)

Quote:

A heterosexual woman should not only be prohibited from expressing a desire not to shower with a woman who is likely to see her as a sex object, she should be castigated as ignorant and bigoted.

Apparently only heterosexual males can be pigs. Interesting.

This is the sort of nonsense that makes this subject difficult to discuss rationally.

It is certainly impossible to have a rational discussion on this topic with someone who is so sexualy immatureand unenlightened that he would assume that people get aroused by mere nudity that lacks sexual intention. I attract far more leering from men on the street while clothed than I do in najed in the shower with gay women. I love threads like this because it exposes the sexual ignorance and inhibition of many here.(Mostly conservative men)

M. v. Z., CA 27,794 (Vigil) Jul 25, 2008
Although there is an agreement between a known sperm donor and the mother of the child (outside the provisions of the uniform parentage act because no physician was involved) that there will be no child support, when the donor actually assumes a parental role, he should be liable for child support; child support may not be modified except upon a showing of changed circumstances.

Not a happy situation for any of the parties involved it would seem.

Raises hand to admit it: If I see a man's nude body, and it is toned, I am going to experience "that special feeling..." If his face is attractive as well, I will likely experience an intense "special feeling..."

and think of him later... more than once...

"And it is toned" being the operative phrase.

Chances are the object of your interest will not be very upset with your regard, but then you are a female (and an attractive one at that). The very same object, if he is heterosexual (and in the military as in the rest of the world the odds are he will be) will very likely not be comfortable with any indication that a male observer is experiencing a special feeling.

You're making assumptions based on your own personal prejudices. In actuality, we find that some people do not enjoy any type of sexual advances coming from anyone.

You are entitled to hold those assumptions but clearly they cannot be used to discriminate against others. Those males who would be offended by "Lash's" come on's are not then allowed to have her discriminated against for her human feelings. The only recourse they have, outside of certain legal situations, is to inform the person that they are not interested.

It's really quite simple and would require only a modicum of social nicety, "No thanks, I'm not interested". If it was taken further, well, we have laws regulating those sorts of things. It's pretty much established that "no" means 'no'.

I can't for the life of me understand how an adult can't handle this in an adult fashion.

The bottom line is that it is wrong for the military to force its members to accept sexually intimidating or uncomfortable situations which any reasonable person can recognize. It doesn't force men to shower with women; it doesn't force women to share living quarters with men.

The military has been forcing this situation on everyone for years. An exceedingly large portion of the military, the politicians and the adult population of the USA have been acting very immature with regard to this issue.

Certain proponents of so-called Gay Rights, in this thread, are not seeking equality for homosexuals, they are demanding favored treatment.

They insist that the military allow self-professed homosexuals to serve (I agree), but they also insist that their sexual orientatiion be a non-issue when it comes to the sensitivities of heterosexual soldiers (I disagree).

Because someone is a member of a majority doesn't mean that his or her rights are secondary to those of a member of a minority.

The Constitution was designed to guard against a tyranny of the majority, not to replace it with a tyranny of the minority.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

"And it is toned" being the operative phrase.

Chances are the object of your interest will not be very upset with your regard, but then you are a female (and an attractive one at that). The very same object, if he is heterosexual (and in the military as in the rest of the world the odds are he will be) will very likely not be comfortable with any indication that a male observer is experiencing a special feeling.

You're making assumptions based on your own personal prejudices. In actuality, we find that some people do not enjoy any type of sexual advances coming from anyone.

No I am not. I wrote "the chances are...," you wrote "some people do not enjoy.." Clearly the two are compatible

In any case you are making the argument for me that we should segregate soldiers based on potential sexual interplay, and, as a matter of fact, the military already does when it comes to heterosexuals. It certainly is possible that a man might feel uncomfortable with Lash admiring his naked body, and guess what? If both of them are in the military the situation will not arise without their explicit approval.

However, in the current military environment (and the one you seem to advance) heterosexual men are subject to the admiration of homosexual men (like wise hetero and homo women) with their only realistic recourse being an aggressive response that ranges from heated words to physical violence.

You are entitled to hold those assumptions but clearly they cannot be used to discriminate against others. Those males who would be offended by "Lash's" come on's are not then allowed to have her discriminated against for her human feelings. The only recourse they have, outside of certain legal situations, is to inform the person that they are not interested.

It's really quite simple and would require only a modicum of social nicety, "No thanks, I'm not interested". If it was taken further, well, we have laws regulating those sorts of things. It's pretty much established that "no" means 'no'.

What nonsense. It seems to make sense because you are addressing a situation where a man might be offended by a woman's leer, but when the roles are reversed and it is the naked man leering at the naked woman, few (and almost certainly not you) will be content with telling the woman: "Just tell him "No thanks, I'm not interested."

I can't for the life of me understand how an adult can't handle this in an adult fashion.

I suppose, for the life of you, you can't understand how an adult woman cannot handle being forced to shower with leering men with simply the adult rejoinder of "No Thanks."



The bottom line is that it is wrong for the military to force its members to accept sexually intimidating or uncomfortable situations which any reasonable person can recognize. It doesn't force men to shower with women; it doesn't force women to share living quarters with men.

The military has been forcing this situation on everyone for years. An exceedingly large portion of the military, the politicians and the adult population of the USA have been acting very immature with regard to this issue.

What?!

Certain proponents of so-called Gay Rights, in this thread, are not seeking equality for homosexuals, they are demanding favored treatment.

They insist that the military allow self-professed homosexuals to serve (I agree), but they also insist that their sexual orientatiion be a non-issue when it comes to the sensitivities of heterosexual soldiers (I disagree).

Because someone is a member of a majority doesn't mean that his or her rights are secondary to those of a member of a minority.

The Constitution was designed to guard against a tyranny of the majority, not to replace it with a tyranny of the minority.

You have this so terribly mixed up, Finn. The only thing that I'm, [anyone] suggesting is equality, equal rights; that these individuals be given the SAME chances as anyone else. It's pretty clear that right now they are not being given the same rights or chances as heterosexuals.

If homosexuals have the same chance as heterosexuals to enter the military openly (as I have supported) what is the chance of which they are being deprived if they bunk in segregated quarters? The chance to hit on a straight guy? Segregated quarters will no more stigmatize them than their open admission to their sexual orientation.

You want to deny them this for the same reasons that people sought to deny people of color the rights due them; on the basis of assumed behaviors that could never be substantiated in fact.

I don't want to deny them anything they deserve. They deserve to serve their country without masking or denying their true identities. They don't deserve to live in close quarters with the objects of their sexual desires.

And what about what the heterosexual soldiers deserve? Don't they deserve the reasonable assurance that they can take a shower without a fellow soldier getting aroused by the sight of them?

You and your fellows are as assuming of behaviors as am I. The question is which assumption is actually rational?

"Normal" heterosexual males will in the presence of attractive naked women, become aroused.

Lash testifies that "normal" heterosexual women will, in the presence of attractive naked men, become aroused.

You and your fellows seem to be suggesting that the homosexual men and women whom you insist are as "normal" as heterosexuals, will not have these same "normal" sexual reactions.

Which is it? Are they normal or super-normal?

Why is it perfectly acceptable for a heterosexual women to rebel against an attempt to force her to shower with men, but it is bigotry for her to rebel against being forced to shower with lesbians? Is not the attraction heterosexual men and lesbians have for women equally "normal," or is the attraction heterosexual men have somehow "dirtier," and more offensive?

Constitution, smonstitution. It has done a god-awful job in the past and it hasn't been of much help in this present situation.

Tough to argue against so brilliant a riposte as "Constitution, smonstitution."

"And it is toned" being the operative phrase.

Chances are the object of your interest will not be very upset with your regard, but then you are a female (and an attractive one at that). The very same object, if he is heterosexual (and in the military as in the rest of the world the odds are he will be) will very likely not be comfortable with any indication that a male observer is experiencing a special feeling.

No I am not. I wrote "the chances are...," you wrote "some people do not enjoy.." Clearly the two are compatible

In any case you are making the argument for me that we should segregate soldiers based on potential sexual interplay, and, as a matter of fact, the military already does when it comes to heterosexuals. It certainly is possible that a man might feel uncomfortable with Lash admiring his naked body, and guess what? If both of them are in the military the situation will not arise without their explicit approval.

However, in the current military environment (and the one you seem to advance) heterosexual men are subject to the admiration of homosexual men (like wise hetero and homo women) with their only realistic recourse being an aggressive response that ranges from heated words to physical violence.

What nonsense. It seems to make sense because you are addressing a situation where a man might be offended by a woman's leer, but when the roles are reversed and it is the naked man leering at the naked woman, few (and almost certainly not you) will be content with telling the woman: "Just tell him "No thanks, I'm not interested."

I suppose, for the life of you, you can't understand how an adult woman cannot handle being forced to shower with leering men with simply the adult rejoinder of "No Thanks."

What?!

Certain proponents of so-called Gay Rights, in this thread, are not seeking equality for homosexuals, they are demanding favored treatment.

They insist that the military allow self-professed homosexuals to serve (I agree), but they also insist that their sexual orientatiion be a non-issue when it comes to the sensitivities of heterosexual soldiers (I disagree).

Because someone is a member of a majority doesn't mean that his or her rights are secondary to those of a member of a minority.

The Constitution was designed to guard against a tyranny of the majority, not to replace it with a tyranny of the minority.

If homosexuals have the same chance as heterosexuals to enter the military openly (as I have supported) what is the chance of which they are being deprived if they bunk in segregated quarters? The chance to hit on a straight guy? Segregated quarters will no more stigmatize them than their open admission to their sexual orientation.


Again, you want to deny them this for the same reasons that people sought to deny people of color the rights due them; on the basis of assumed behaviors that could never be substantiated in fact.

We know that segregation for any reason stigmatizes, Finn. That is indisputable. And again, I find it odd that you can continue to suggest that their "admission to their sexual orientation" should be stigmatize them at all. This is the essence of discrimination, this is exactly what should not be tolerated.

The segregation of men from women from each other doesn't smack of discrimination. I'm still not advocating segregation...because I haven't thought of options... I just think someone needed to say that they aren't comfortable in intimate (nude) situations with people who may be looking at them in a sexual way.

I think that should be a given. I know how to handle come ons from women. I'm not freaked out by gayness, and I've dealt successfully and with extreme chill-itude two situations with lesbians. It's not the come on for me---it's just being looked at that way when I'm trying to shower. You like to think you're showering with a bunch of women who aren't looking at you that way. I think people should be free from that concern.

If I am naked, it's intimate...

I guess it came up because in private life, you can shower where ever you please. In a military situation, you're stuck in the environment provided.

I think each person's sensitivities are equally valid, and hope they can be provided for in a solution.

JTT--

They can sit elsewhere. You know, this dog ain't barking here. I understand your concern about gays being discriminated against--because I share it.

I just think you should at least acknowledge legitimate concerns from the other side of this issue. Don't agree with segregation if you don't want to--(I don't advocate forced segregation)--but come on.

NO on Prop 8 Web Reveals Massive Cyber Attack
“DoS” Assault Reported to Federal Authorities

SACRAMENTO, Calif. " 10/30/08 " The NO on Prop 8 Web site was hit by a massive cyber invasion called a distributed denial of service attack (DoS) that took down the site for several hours last night, with the assault originating not just in-state, but from Texas, New Jersey and Georgia.