From what I've seen, people who aren't promiscuous aren't as jealous, as possessive,etc. If anything else they're far more secure in their own relationships.

My previous roommate was extremeley promiscuous, he just disassociated sex with any sort of serious relationship, though. When we shared an apartment, he was currently sleeping around with twelve different women (at least that's how many I counted, it may have been more). He definitely wasn't the jealous type, though. In fact, he kept trying to get me to sleep with the same women, which I really had no interest in doing.

Now, he definitely had other issues, though. He did like to play the girls off each other and make them "compete for him." I also think he had a number of psychopathic tendencies and he did pull a knife on me at one point, but I guess that would go into why he's my "previous" roommate. At any rate, he never seemed insecure about his relationships, he was just a jackass in general.

that's not exactly convincing me that overly promiscuous people don't have problems in life, you know.

ah well.

also it would probably help if we defined what we considered to be promiscuous. After all, a lot of people have different ideas about what dating entails... and so they also have different ideas about what is promiscuous and what isn't.

To me, a woman or a man who were on the dating scene trying to find that special somebody, were in an relationship for like five months (which would lead to some sex), breaking up and then moving on to the next person isn't promiscuous to me. they're making an effort to have a stable relationship while looking for that special somebody.

now on the other hand, people who sleep around with many people AT ONCE... now that's definitely promiscuous behavior.

Oh, I'm not saying they aren't screwed up in other ways. I haven't met a man or woman yet, who has cheated on their significant other or spouse and also had doubts about that person's faithfulness. If anything, it always seemed to be the other person who was jealous and insecure, but I kind of feel they have good reason to be.

Most of the people who I've known who have been promiscuous, though, were always jerks. The promiscuity was more a symptom of their controlling nature or personal insecurities. Although I did know a couple of more promiscuous guys who were pretty decent. They just liked to have a good time, were honest and weren't manipulative. From my experience, though, that type is pretty rare and being in Hollywood, I see far more of the manipulative jackholes than I do the decent guys and gals.

Someone
To me, a woman or a man who were on the dating scene trying to find that special somebody, were in an relationship for like five months (which would lead to some sex), breaking up and then moving on to the next person isn't promiscuous to me. they're making an effort to have a stable relationship while looking for that special somebody.

now on the other hand, people who sleep around with many people AT ONCE... now that's definitely promiscuous behavior.

Promiscuity denotes sex with relatively many partners. a quote from wikipedia.

I also found the following part amusing.

Someone
A 2008 US university study of international promiscuity found that British people are the most promiscuous in the industrialized world.

Someone
A 2008 US university study of international promiscuity found that British people are the most promiscuous in the industrialized world.

If the quote were changed to people in USA are the least promiscuous I'd totally believe it. For all the rah-rah, big-boast, Globally famous Ugly American reputation we have and pretty much deserve, we're probably one of the most inhibited folks when it comes to sex. Probably why it's so endlessly compelling to us. Like a dieter who can only think about chocolate cake.

Could factor in to why there's so much gay hang-up: some folks are just jealous that Anybody's getting more than they are, no matter what kind.

ayesinback
Probably why it's so endlessly compelling to us. Like a dieter who can only think about chocolate cake.

And why the US produces the best porn...
Hooray for puritan values! \^_^/

Then again, what part of the British population is the most promiscuous? The ones in the hoodies and burberry caps?

ayesinback
Could factor in to why there's so much gay hang-up: some folks are just jealous that Anybody's getting more than they are, no matter what kind.

totally makes sense to me. Also explains why that when they see two men or two women holding hands in an mall, they react as if the two people were having sex or something.

it's only hand-holding, people!! you don't react when it's an heterosexual couple doing the same thing. =|

If you're instantly picturing a couple having hardcore sex every time you see them holding hands or whatever.... I would have to say that makes YOU the pervert and not them.

(I don't mean You YOU, I'm just using the word "You" for people in general).

I hope you don't mind if I use that analogy the next time this sort of discussion comes up... it's just so... perfect.

ozoneocean

ayesinback
Probably why it's so endlessly compelling to us. Like a dieter who can only think about chocolate cake.

And why the US produces the best porn...
Hooray for puritan values! \^_^/

Then again, what part of the British population is the most promiscuous? The ones in the hoodies and burberry caps?

I would guess it's pretty general. Most people I know would consider it completely alien to be dating someone for five months or more before sleeping with them.

Genejoke
I would guess it's pretty general. Most people I know would consider it completely alien to be dating someone for five months or more before sleeping with them.

eh, I think you misread my post about what counted as promiscuous and what wasn't promiscuous to me.

I said dating for at least five months which would lead to sex in the meanwhile, BEFORE breaking up and hooking with somebody else. I basically said that wasn't promiscuous in my own opinion, mainly because people in such a situation was making an effort towards an actual relationship there. If it didn't work out, they could at least say that for themselves.

I wasn't talking about being celibate there. :P

Genejoke
I would guess it's pretty general. Most people I know would consider it completely alien to be dating someone for five months or more before sleeping with them.

umm? Sorry, I'm at a loss here, did miss a part of the conversation between you and Aurora because promiscuity means something very different to me- many different partners, frequently. That sort of thing

No you didn't miss anything, I was just playing in AMs comment and following the logic of the average american rom com.
More seriously though the whole binge drinking thing over here is probably a factor too.

Promiscuity sees far more prevalent in lower income areas in the US. You may not notice it as much in the middle class areas, but our country is still incredibly promiscuous. We may not be the most promiscuous, but we're definitely ahead of the curve.

Also, the survey mentioned actually ranked Britain 11th. They came in first among "large western industrial nations" whatever that's supposed to mean. Among developed nations, Britain ranks 4th behind Austria, New Zealand, and Finland (NZ was first in 2008, but got overtaken by Finland in the 2010 survey). Finland ranked in first out of 48 countries surveyed with a scord of 50.5. The UK came in 11th with a score of 40.17 and the US came in 22nd with a score of 37.05, so there isn't some vast difference between the two nations. They fall into the same basic range of promiscuity. The lowest scoring countries were mostly from Asia and areas bordering the Middle East like Northern Africa and Eastern Europe. The only Asian country which broke away from that trend was the Philippines, probably due to their ridiculous "no divorce" law.

The US ranks just below Australia (37.29) and just above France (36.67). Guess France isn't quite the country for lovers people think.

isukun
Finland ranked in first out of 48 countries surveyed with a scord of 50.5.

Looks like I know where my next vacation will be.

In all seriousness though, the meaning of sin never seems to be clearly established by religion. This discussion points to its definition as being something really, really, bad (morally), and while some churches would find that sound, others look at it more broadly.

I'm aware of some services preaching the fact that being alive is a sin. So is there some sort of tier of sins going on that I'm unaware of? And these groups are placing the bond between two people of the same sex way at the top?

Anyway, moving on to promiscuity, I always felt like this sort of died with the fall of the Victorian era. Didn't this originate as pre-marital sex later turned into sleeping around and again later turning into having multiple partners at one time? It only seems to be a big deal now when it's taken to the extreme. I don't think people who look down at two men holding hands would see this as promiscuous though. I always thought their argument was that it wasn't natural. Not unnatural in the sense that they haven't see it before - I mean honestly, anyone could say that whether they're for it or not what with how uncommon such a sight is - but that they believe it goes against some natural order of things. I'm just thinking back to offhand comments I remember hearing. Few times did they cite religious reasons to their disapproval. Instead they would scoff, 'I can't believe they actually find attraction to another man.' Not to say that's right either, but they're not exactly pinning at as some sinful at they're committing.

How was promiscuity defined for that survey?
I would tend to think there'd be a massive margin of error when it came to the Middle East and many places in Eastern Europe (two areas Isukun mentions) because socially it's quite taboo to talk about sex in any form- when in reality Arabic peoples and Eastern Europeans are just as randy as anyone else (they just can't be open about it). And people in developed western nations are more prone to exaggerate because culturally that's seen as a good thing.

----------------------------

Anyway, promiscuity could very well be sensibly regarded as a "sin" for a number of reasons;
-It increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.
-It encourages antisocial behaviour in communities; breaking up relationships, causing social disharmony, increased competition, jealousy and the resulting dissatisfaction and violence...
-Damaging, social relationships.
-Burdening women with children they may not be able to care for, especially if the fathers are feel no responsibility to the mothers...

-----------------------------

When humans were without civilisation or any organised communities, living in packs, promiscuous behaviour would have been an essential and beneficial part of pack life- it would've helped keep the gene pool strong and vibrant, had a beneficial effect on establishing social hierarchy and maintaining social order etc etc.
But in any sort of organised modern (by 'modern I mean at least post 40,000 BC or even earlier) human community it's a negative, so "sin" is quite appropriate considering such "religious" attitudes truly developed out of the cultural norms, laws, lore, and philosophies of organised civilisations.

-----------------------------

How does this apply to gay rights though...?
Because gay people are popularly considered promiscuous?
But in the case of the gay community the rules are a bit different. What they do didn't have much affect on the wider social order since they couldn't bare children and almost all relationships and activities were conducted in secret, or at least very much bellow the radar. Problems of jealously weren't as big a feature there since it was the idea of "couples" that were frowned on; If two people settled down into along term relationship that would increase the chance of discovery and loss of social standing within the wider community- so was less frequent or at least more fluid. STDs were still a problem but no more so than the straight community until AIDS.
Really, you could say that it was the very fact that they had no rights that created the promiscuous culture.

In in the case of gay people, it's really not a "sin". "Sin" regarding homosexuality has more to do with how they're treated by wider society. Homosexual people don't embody sin, however, the attitudes of those who persecute them DO!
-According to the word and spirit of almost any religious doctrine if people care to apply it without prejudice.

Interesting discussion on promiscuity.

ozoneocean
Anyway, promiscuity could very well be sensibly regarded as a "sin" for a number of reasons;
-It increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.
-It encourages antisocial behaviour in communities; breaking up relationships, causing social disharmony, increased competition, jealousy and the resulting dissatisfaction and violence...
-Damaging, social relationships.
-Burdening women with children they may not be able to care for, especially if the fathers are feel no responsibility to the mothers...

I completely agree with the reasons listed above.

To me promiscuity is the opposite of celibacy for the unmarried and the opposite of fidelity for a married couple.

I have seen many instances where promiscuity (of both kinds) has ruined lives and/or relationships.

From a purely religious viewpoint I see sex as a supremely holy thing. It is sacred. Sexual sins come from the misuse of this sacred act. Unlike many Catholics I know, I do not consider sex itself to be evil. I believe it is the union of two souls. Two people can never be closer physically, mentally or spiritually. They have become "one flesh". It is a very powerful bond that is created. Most people do not understand the bond that is created during the sexual act. It is utterly special. The reason we should avoid promiscuity is not because "God said so" or because "It hurt feelings" (though both are true). I believe God protects sex for several reasons. One of which is because the sharing of multiple partners not only cheapens the holy act, but in my mind deadens the soul, perhaps even tearing it. It is a powerful bond and to create such a bond multiple times is unhealthy both spiritually and emotionally.

The Laws of Chastity that the Lord has given us (and there are several) are not there to keep us from having fun. They are there to protect us. The Lord wants us to have sex, He designed it to be enjoyable, but He wants us to use it in the correct, responsible way. His commandments are there to make us happy, not keep us from happiness.

YES ON ALL COUNTS!

THEY ARE PEOPLE, VERY MUCH LIKE YOU AND ME (well, maybe not like me).

SOCIETY AT LARGE seems comfortable LOOKING DOWN on the LGBT community, as if they are somehow LESS THAN PEOPLE, and therefor LESS DESERVING of things such as BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

THIS IS THE ONLY REASON WE ARE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS!

Regardless of how enlightened you believe yourself to be, you STILL NEED TO ASK, because THIS STIGMA has TOUCHED YOU in some way.

THIS STIGMA comes in MANY FORMS.

We have the squeamish, who are physically disgusted by boys kissing, and CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY.
We have RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS who think they KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEIR GOD(S) WANT.
We have POLITICIANS who are engaged in a POWER PLAY, and who I SUSPECT might be EVIL CREATURES who GET HARD when they are SUPPRESSING SOMEONE'S RIGHTS.

TO ME, these questions are absurd.

It's as idiotic as asking:

DO BLACK PEOPLE DESERVE OXYGEN?
SHOULD POOR PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO VOTE?
DOES IT BOTHER YOU THAT WOMEN CAN DRIVE?
WHY ARE PEOPLE WHO GOT BAD GRADES IN SCHOOL ALLOWED TO REPRODUCE?

the fact is these people wouldent have so many problems if they did not create them themselves . I am hetero , but i dont run around getting in everybody's face screaming hay I am a breeder ! If your gay your gay, if your straight your straight why do you feel the need to tell me about it because I dont care and I wont tell you what my wife and I do because frankly it"s none of your business anyhow ! running around waving your "flag" is just fishing for problems and if you look hard enough for trouble sooner or later you'll find it . I say live your life as a person - not a label . As for dont ask dont tell I figure it is probably not a bad policy for the gay people for this reason- do you really want to be in a combat situation with someone who may be predudiced against gays or even a gay basher - who is armed - and have that person know you are gay ? Ever hear of friendly fire accidents ?
I dont have a problem with gays , but I live in south Texas in a small town and I can tell you there are a lot of red necks in this world who do . I'm not necessairily saying you should have to hide who you are , but you don't have to be up in everyones face about it either .

artofzinn
the fact is these people wouldent have so many problems if they did not create them themselves . I am hetero , but i dont run around getting in everybody's face screaming hay I am a breeder ! If your gay your gay, if your straight your straight why do you feel the need to tell me about it because I dont care and I wont tell you what my wife and I do because frankly it"s none of your business anyhow ! running around waving your "flag" is just fishing for problems and if you look hard enough for trouble sooner or later you'll find it . I say live your life as a person - not a label . As for dont ask dont tell I figure it is probably not a bad policy for the gay people for this reason- do you really want to be in a combat situation with someone who may be predudiced against gays or even a gay basher - who is armed - and have that person know you are gay ? Ever hear of friendly fire accidents ?
I dont have a problem with gays , but I live in south Texas in a small town and I can tell you there are a lot of red necks in this world who do . I'm not necessairily saying you should have to hide who you are , but you don't have to be up in everyones face about it either .

have you honestly even met an actual gay man or woman in person??

because it sounds like you watch too much TV and listened to one too many stereotypes about Gay people.

The Majority of gay people are just like you, minus the being straight thing. They lead pretty normal lives, some attend church, They have jobs and just do their best to stay out of trouble.

The ones on TV that gets up in people's faces about being gay or whatever are actually a very small minority within this group. They do exist, but they are NOT the gay community as an whole.

Ever heard the expression: "The loud voices of the minority drowns out the quiet majority"? it's kind of like that.

and you say that the whole gay community deserves all the problems they get just because a few assholes decided that they wanted attention, and became obnoxious about it??

Geez. How would you feel if the rest of America decided to look down on Texas, and decide that all Texans didn't deserve the same kind of rights as the rest of America because Texas had a few handfuls of obnoxious rednecks?

artofzinn
the fact is these people wouldent have so many problems if they did not create them themselves . I am hetero , but i dont run around getting in everybody's face screaming hay I am a breeder ! If your gay your gay, if your straight your straight why do you feel the need to tell me about it because I dont care and I wont tell you what my wife and I do because frankly it"s none of your business anyhow ! running around waving your "flag" is just fishing for problems and if you look hard enough for trouble sooner or later you'll find it . I say live your life as a person - not a label . As for dont ask dont tell I figure it is probably not a bad policy for the gay people for this reason- do you really want to be in a combat situation with someone who may be predudiced against gays or even a gay basher - who is armed - and have that person know you are gay ? Ever hear of friendly fire accidents ?
I dont have a problem with gays , but I live in south Texas in a small town and I can tell you there are a lot of red necks in this world who do . I'm not necessairily saying you should have to hide who you are , but you don't have to be up in everyones face about it either .

BUT YOU DO wave your straight flag, YOU ARE WAVING IT RIGHT NOW!
YOU WAVE IT IN THEIR FACES EVERYDAY when you exercise the rights that you and your wife enjoy as a straight couple that gay couples are LOOKED DOWN UPON for WANTING THEMSELVES. When you wear your WEDDING RING, when you HOLD YOUR WIFE'S HAND, or KISS HER in PUBLIC, when you are able to ENJOY THE VARIOUS FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF BEING MARRIED, or to be allowed to RAISE A CHILD, or VISIT YOUR LOVER in the HOSPITAL... god forbid.

BEING WHO YOU ARE is not "LOOKING FOR TROUBLE". You are introducing this concept that BEING GAY IS NOT ALRIGHT, and by SIMPLY BEING THAT THING, you are somehow inviting problems unto yourself. THIS IS ACTUALLY NOT TRUE. EVERYONE should be allowed to BE who they ARE without FEAR of REPERCUSSIONS, whether they be LEGAL, or VIOLENT.

THE LGBT COMMUNITY is not looking for trouble.
NAY! I say it is the SEXISTS and BIGOTS who make it their BUSINESS to TRAMPLE their RIGHTS, and COMMIT HORRID ACTS OF VIOLENCE UPON the LGBT's of the world who are LOOKING FOR TROUBLE.

As per your comments on DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL.
A SOLDIER who would TURN their weapons onto a FELLOW OFFICER over a matter of mere personal difference like this IS THE ONE WHO SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SERVE.
A RACIST, A SEXIST or a BIGOT who serves in the armed forces, and allowed their PERSONAL FEELINGS to INTERFERE with their DUTY to SERVE THEIR COUNTRY, or to even COMMIT VIOLENCE UPON A FELLOW SOLDIER is guilty of TREASON, and is deserving of nothing less than a DISHONOURABLE DISCHARGE, and MANY, MANY YEARS of JAIL TIME, or quite possibly the DEATH SENTENCE, if they are indeed GUILTY of MURDERING a COMRADE in COLD BLOOD.
All of this aside, despite what our "LEADERS" would have us believe, there is STRONG SUPPORT for REPEALING DADT within the ranks. The fact that you would SUGGEST that our MILITARY would turn in on itself in such a way is DISGUSTING, and even a little DISTURBING, that this is the DIRECTION your MIND GOES IN.

I will take the high road however, and NOT CALL YOU AN IGNORANT REDNECK HICK, because this is an attitude that has probably been DRILLED INTO YOUR HEAD since an early age. SADLY, you are the mere PRODUCT OF YOUR ENVIRONMENT, it is not your fault that YOU ARE A BIGOT, well... YES IT IS, ACTUALLY.
You may believe yourself to be of a SUPERIOR MORAL STANDING because you can SMIRK at yourself in your SHELTERED LITTLE WORLD and say to us "I don't have a problem with gays", while at the SAME TIME exhibiting an OUTRAGEOUSLY PREJUDICED ATTITUDE TOWARDS THEM.

You have TWO CHOICES at this juncture, sir.

You can DO SOME READING, and GAIN KNOWLEDGE. You can GAIN SOME WORLD EXPERIENCE and possibly even MEET some real life LGBT folk, and GET TO KNOW THEM. See them as actual PEOPLE. Perhaps this way, you can GAIN SOME EMPATHY and UNDERSTANDING, not only of this group of people who are DIFFERENT from YOURSELF, but maybe of THE WORLD AT LARGE. You might LEARN A LOT and become a BETTER, SMARTER, and MORE COMPLETE PERSON in the process. Not only will you be ADMIRED for being a person who was able to transcend an AGE OLD PREJUDICE, but you will FEEL BETTER about yourself as well!

OR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU CAN CONTINUE on this course of EMBITTERED ANIMOSITY, and SELF DECEPTION, convincing yourself that SINCE YOU ARE IN THE MAJORITY, these issues will NEVER AFFECT YOU, and thereby REFUSING to see the inevitable CHANGES ON THE HORIZON. In this instance, you will ultimately become a RELIC of a BYGONE ERA. Much like a HAGGARD OLD RACIST, a stubborn old fool who refuses to relinquish his DEATH GRIP on the DARK AGES. Pitied, and scorned.

THE CHOICE IS YOURS

Okay KnaveMurdok, you bring up interesting points but I think your arguments would come across more level-headed and mature if you only capitalized the first letter of each sentence and the proper nouns instead of roughly half your text.

Hawk
Okay KnaveMurdok, you bring up interesting points but I think your arguments would come across more level-headed and mature if you only capitalized the first letter of each sentence and the proper nouns instead of roughly half your text.

I apologize.
I tend to type the same way I talk, WITH EMPHASIS.
If my typing patterns are, however, detracting from my CREDIBILITY, perhaps a THIRD PARTY SOURCE is in order:

http://www.alternet.org/story/149060/10_hateful_anti-gay_myths_debunked?page=1 [alternet.org]

This article is entitled "10 HATEFUL ANTI-GAY MYTHS DEBUNKED"

It is a VERY interesting read, and I feel, that if approached with an OPEN MIND, has the potential to turn people who were formerly HATEFUL towards the LIGHT.
It IS roughly 7 PAGES of text however, and may take awhile to get through, but BE PATIENT, the info contained within is very ENLIGHTENING, and very worth the TIME.

It also occurs to me that I have not yet really introduced myself on this topic, and why I am so PASSIONATE, and supposedly a CREDIBLE source of information.

I've worked for and with many Pro-LGBT Tolerance causes and charities over the years. Before all of this, my ATTITUDE and DEMEANOR was not unlike artofzinn's, being a WHITE MALE growing up in a SMALL TOWN, I felt that these were problems that had no effect on me. I also let the pre-existing stigma in society against homosexuals AFFECT MY JUDGMENT, and I believe that they were either MORALLY WRONG, or at the very least against the NATURAL ORDER.

As I grew into my teen years, it came to my attention that not only were more and more of the people I was keeping company with either Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transsexual, but many of my childhood friends from the past were also COMING OUT.
I have also witnessed, with a broken heart, MY OWN FATHER'S struggle with being in the closet, and himself being filled with RAGE and SELF HATE, because he grew up in the 50's, and had this idea of homosexuality being tantamount to being a SATANIST drummed in his ears since he was a CHILD.

This is where I HAD TO MAKE A CHOICE.
I could FORSAKE these people who I grew up with, and whom I LOVED, based on a misconception of difference. Or I could embrace this ever changing world, and practice this idea of TOLERANCE that seems to be preached endlessly, yet very seldom taken to heart.

in response to KnaveMurdock's rant
Did you even read the entire statment I made before you flew off in your rage ?
as stated I do not have a problem with gay people ,but your response only goes to prove my point . There are people who have strong reactions and feelings about things weather they are right or wrong and have strong inappropreate reactions to those who are different . As for lack of "real world expierences " spend some time in the real world and you will find this out for yourself ! I never said that the militairy scenario I outlined was right or justified Im just saying things like that could happen and have to be taken into consideration . It would be a great world if everyone could put aside their differences and just get along, but that is not the world we live in . We have made strides in that direction but sadly and realistically we are not there yet.
just as you feel morally correct in chastising people here for comments that I feel you mienterpreted there are others out there who fell as passonate and correct in their beliefs as well and may be willing to act on them . I still say that there are gays (and yes I know many I even have several gay and lesbian relatives thank you ) who make a point of running around putting their sexual preference up on a giant billboard-I never said the whole gay community - expressly for the purpose of gaining attention or causing a controversy . These people do in fact invite trouble . When someone who firmly believes one thing no matter how wrong or distorted their belief may be is confronted by the verry thing that upsets them they may feel compelled to act.
One other point - most people entering the millitairy are doing so right out of highschool , although many are mature responsible adults not all of them are .Just look up hazing of college students to see how some people that age can be influenced by their peers to treat others even when they know better . Now take that same idea and apply pressure of combat , weapons, and one of the most testosterone laden occupations on earth.. see where this is going ?

artofzinn
in response to KnaveMurdock's rant
Did you even read the entire statment I made before you flew off in your rage ?
as stated I do not have a problem with gay people ,but your response only goes to prove my point . There are people who have strong reactions and feelings about things weather they are right or wrong and have strong inappropreate reactions to those who are different . As for lack of "real world expierences " spend some time in the real world and you will find this out for yourself ! I never said that the militairy scenario I outlined was right or justified Im just saying things like that could happen and have to be taken into consideration . It would be a great world if everyone could put aside their differences and just get along, but that is not the world we live in . We have made strides in that direction but sadly and realistically we are not there yet.
just as you feel morally correct in chastising people here for comments that I feel you mienterpreted there are others out there who fell as passonate and correct in their beliefs as well and may be willing to act on them . I still say that there are gays (and yes I know many I even have several gay and lesbian relatives thank you ) who make a point of running around putting their sexual preference up on a giant billboard-I never said the whole gay community - expressly for the purpose of gaining attention or causing a controversy . These people do in fact invite trouble . When someone who firmly believes one thing no matter how wrong or distorted their belief may be is confronted by the verry thing that upsets them they may feel compelled to act.
One other point - most people entering the millitairy are doing so right out of highschool , although many are mature responsible adults not all of them are .Just look up hazing of college students to see how some people that age can be influenced by their peers to treat others even when they know better . Now take that same idea and apply pressure of combat , weapons, and one of the most testosterone laden occupations on earth.. see where this is going ?

I apologize artofzinn
I know that you feel you are ACTING RIGHT, but what you said earlier was so RIDDLED WITH ANIMOSITY, I felt something needed to be said.
As as mentioned before, these VIEWPOINTS of yours, I am certain come from the conditions under which you were raised, under which ALMOST ALL OF US were raised, in fact. Perhaps I was hasty in AIMING MY VITROL at you, when it should have been aimed at SOCIETY AT LARGE.

POINT BY POINT

I know you never said that you condoned gay violence within the military, but you proposed DADT as a GOOD THING for homosexuals, a LAW THAT PROTECTS THEM FROM THEMSELVES. Perhaps you think you are righteous in this stance, but all this law does is protect people who are bigots and sexists. It thrusts responsibility onto the LGBT populace of the military, and says "you'd better not let anyone find out! Or else, there will be trouble!"
Tell me, how is that fair?
You are CORRECT! I WOULD be a great world if everyone got along. HOW DO WE GET THAT STARTED?
If the desired effect of this law is to protect LGBT people from harm, then we should be SENDING HOME BIGOTED SOLDIERS who simply refuse to serve alongside them.
Based on reports I've read, interviews with various troops that I've heard, and the servicemen that I've been privileged enough to talk to personally, those intolerant people are in the minority anyway. If his minority is left with the choice of either getting over themselves and accepting their brethren for the greater cause of the mission, OR to be discharged and sent home, the result would not only be protecting and integrating homosexuals into society and into the ranks, but it will result in a more efficient fighting force, not divided amongst themselves, and pushing for the greater advancement of the cause of the United States, which is to SPREAD TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE.
Integrating LGBT into the military would be a POWERFUL PRECEDENT. MANY nations allow gays to serve openly in their military, most of the superpowers in EUROPE, not to mention other powerful nation AROUND THE WORLD, such as JAPAN and ISRAEL.
The U.S. needs to jump into this same boat as well.

As for LGBT people who you think are putting their SEXUALITY on a BILLBOARD, I am sorry to say that this is something you will need to GET USED TO.
Because whether you realize it or not, you, me, and ALL THE REST OF US also wear our sexualities in a SIMILAR WAY. We just don't notice it, because we grew up with BEING STRAIGHT AS THE NORM. You may look at gay people acting gay, and think to yourself "oh my God, they're so gay" while a gay person is looking at you acting straight, and saying to themselves "oh my God, he's so straight."
This is a difference we must ALL OVERCOME, Gays and Straights ALIKE!
I've known my share of homosexuals who are OFFENDED by how STRAIGHT-WASHED society is. This is in fact a TWO WAY STREET that most people can only see ONE SIDE of.

If being straight were a crime, we would ALL be inviting trouble onto ourselves.

Do YOU see where THIS is going? ;-)

yes I do see your viewpoint , in fact to a large extent I agree with you I'm just saying that there are some people in society who are walking around in a self riteous daze and even though social attitudes are changing it is an ongoing process . Also to be honest I feel that as a whole we put too much emphasis on sex and sexuality all around . There is so much more to life than that , it is only a small part and we blow it up into a much bigger issue than it is . we fight each other over enough things,religion, race , the list goes on . If we put our sexuality out there as some do it's just one more thing to devide ourselves with when in fact it is a private personal aspect of our lives and maby there would be less problems if it were handled as such .

p.s. good debate !

artofzinn
yes I do see your viewpoint , in fact to a large extent I agree with you I'm just saying that there are some people in society who are walking around in a self riteous daze and even though social attitudes are changing it is an ongoing process . Also to be honest I feel that as a whole we put too much emphasis on sex and sexuality all around . There is so much more to life than that , it is only a small part and we blow it up into a much bigger issue than it is . we fight each other over enough things,religion, race , the list goes on . If we put our sexuality out there as some do it's just one more thing to devide ourselves with when in fact it is a private personal aspect of our lives and maby there would be less problems if it were handled as such .

I do agree that today's society at large is way too obsessed with sex.

it's gotten to the point that two people (regardless of gender) can't even walk closely to each other without some people assuming things about them.

true story--I like to walk very closely to my relatives and my friends side by side to the point that I might as well have been holding hands with them. This is just one of my quirks that people close to me have gotten used to.

However, I do sometimes get awkward comments from total strangers who thought that my dad or my brother was my boyfriend or something. the look in their face when i tell them who they actually are is priceless though.

as I said in a past post.... if people are actively imagining other people have sex while they see those same people hold hands, walk closely side by side, etc...
then they're the perverted ones, not the people only did hand-holding, etc.

artofzinn
yes I do see your viewpoint , in fact to a large extent I agree with you I'm just saying that there are some people in society who are walking around in a self riteous daze and even though social attitudes are changing it is an ongoing process . Also to be honest I feel that as a whole we put too much emphasis on sex and sexuality all around . There is so much more to life than that , it is only a small part and we blow it up into a much bigger issue than it is . we fight each other over enough things,religion, race , the list goes on . If we put our sexuality out there as some do it's just one more thing to devide ourselves with when in fact it is a private personal aspect of our lives and maby there would be less problems if it were handled as such .

What I have put in bold in your quote I think is the FUNDAMENTAL POINT upon which we most likely disagree.
I believe the opposite, I think that we as a society not only place NOT ENOUGH emphasis on sexuality, but actively HIDE IT AWAY.
We live in a culture that celebrates VIOLENCE over LOVE, where a PG-13 movie might contain lots of SHOOTING and people DYING, if you let a NIPPLE SLIP you have gained an R-RATING, and God forbid you should show a PENIS, your movie might not get made AT ALL.
This is MURKY TERRITORY because here is where we leave the immutable territory of HUMAN RIGHTS and meander into pure OPINION. But I think that if we were MORE OPEN and COMFORTABLE with our sexualities, as a CIVILIZATION, then things like GAY RIGHTS would cease to be an issue.

artofzinn
I am hetero , but i dont run around getting in everybody's face screaming hay I am a breeder ! ... I'm not necessairily saying you should have to hide who you are , but you don't have to be up in everyones face about it either .

Here a common problem. Assuming you are a guy... You are at the park playing softball some weekend. While waiting for your turn at bat, you notice a woman you have never seen before, watching you. When she sees you seeing her, she nod her head, blushes and gives you a big smile. You are flattered, interested, amused.
Now if that were a guy who smiles at you, is that being in your face about it?
Or you see the guy smiling at the guy in front of you in line, is that being in your face about it?
Behavior that straight people just absorb as natural, like water to fish, often causes them to freak if done by someone gay.

KnaveMurdok
What I have put in bold in your quote I think is the FUNDAMENTAL POINT upon which we most likely disagree.
I believe the opposite, I think that we as a society not only place NOT ENOUGH emphasis on sexuality, but actively HIDE IT AWAY.
We live in a culture that celebrates VIOLENCE over LOVE, where a PG-13 movie might contain lots of SHOOTING and people DYING, if you let a NIPPLE SLIP you have gained an R-RATING, and God forbid you should show a PENIS, your movie might not get made AT ALL.
This is MURKY TERRITORY because here is where we leave the immutable territory of HUMAN RIGHTS and meander into pure OPINION. But I think that if we were MORE OPEN and COMFORTABLE with our sexualities, as a CIVILIZATION, then things like GAY RIGHTS would cease to be an issue.

Love and sexuality are entirely unrelated, your excessive use of caps is vulgur, and argument in inherently flawed, and you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Please review the whys behind the things you object to instead of the whats, and have a nice day.

While I agree the use of caps is excessive, distracting, and only serves to make it impossible to take what he says seriously, I have to wonder how his argument is any more intrinsically flawed than your theory that love and sexuality are unrelated.