<div class="quote_poster">nintendo Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">when did I ever use "gateway" logic? Those were your words not mine. You brought up the subject of marijuana. When did my sarcastic comments become classified as "ancient logic"? </div> Simple, different locker rooms leads to segregation of hip-hop and rock fans or when you stated "So, you're saying that athletes should be able to shower alone if they feel uncomfortable, huh? Where do you draw the line on that?" (e.g. "Marijuana is a gateway drug"). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I don't understand how pointing out the fact that you're belief that it's okay to exclude a group of people from an activity because YOU happen to be uncomfortable with them is an old world view makes ME a hypocrite (?)</div> Because I not the one that said you had an "old-world" view (Huevonkiller, you still think the world is flat, don't you?), and then criticize your post by resorting to "old-world" tactics. At the same time, I'm not excluding anyone from anything. Everything I say is optional.
you have a very bright future in politics because you have certainly confused the ___ out of me I can't follow your train of thought at all. I have to admit that this has truly been an interesting discussion and I thank you for your time. At the present time, I have a dinner date and I don't want to be any later than I already am. I'll try to catch back up to you guys tomorrow.
<div class="quote_poster">nintendo Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">you have a very bright future in politics because you have certainly confused the ___ out of me I can't follow your train of thought at all. I have to admit that this has truly been an interesting discussion and I thank you for your time. At the present time, I have a dinner date and I don't want to be any later than I already am. I'll try to catch back up to you guys tomorrow.</div> Well I'll try to clarify myself then: If you're going to imply that I'm behind the times on my political views (eg "I think the world is flat" in a figurative sense), I think using the "gateway" argument to deter locker room segregation is a bit hypocritical because it is almost always flawed and an old method to use. Though it's not horribly hypocritical of you, I'll admit that. Have a nice date!
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I was under the impression, that you stated homosexuality was quite irrational, but then chose to defend it anyway. So now you're saying it is only somewhat irrational, right? If that's the case, then your views make more sense. However, how did you determine that homosexuality was only somewhat irrational?</div> My views on whether homosexuality (or any sexual orientation) is rational/irrational are irrelevant to your case that I'm a hypocrite. That should be understood, firstly. Now, do I think homosexuality is irrational? That's a strange question, because people don't have reasons for being attracted to someone else. So, yes, in that sense it is irrational. But no more so than any other type of sexual orientation. But if two men are attracted to each other and want to have relations with each other, that's not necessarily an irrational choice. It depends on their circumstances (do they have a wife/kids, do they know each other's sexual history, etc.). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Hmm... why? </div> If you're letting multiple people use the locker-room, but specifically not allowing gays, then that's discrimination. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">It's quite unlikely. </div> Alright. I have no opinion on the likeliness/unlikeliness of it. Being gay, that is. Of course, environment has a considerable impact on "coming out."
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">My views on whether homosexuality (or any sexual orientation) is rational/irrational are irrelevant to your case that I'm a hypocrite. That should be understood, firstly.</div> Well there is a series of events that make it relevant. First, you said my natural feelings were not rational, and that you should "let Gay people be themselves". Then I called you a hypocrite because I said gay bashers use the very same argument. Next, you said that you thought being gay was irrational as well, so then I brought up the fact that irrational behavior generally means it is wrong. So it indeed was relevant up to this point. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Now, do I think homosexuality is irrational? That's a strange question, because people don't have reasons for being attracted to someone else. So, yes, in that sense it is irrational. But no more so than any other type of sexual orientation. But if two men are attracted to each other and want to have relations with each other, that's not necessarily an irrational choice. It depends on their circumstances (do they have a wife/kids, do they know each other's sexual history, etc.). </div> Well then, I pose MY EXAMPLE of incest of you. Answer that point first. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> If you're letting multiple people use the locker-room, but specifically not allowing gays, then that's discrimination. </div> Private clubs can discriminate though. And this type of discrimination is for players that feel they have very homosexual people around them that are almost to the point that they can't control themselves. I don't think anyone should have to endure such an unnatural environment full of undressing eyes. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Alright. I have no opinion on the likeliness/unlikeliness of it. Being gay, that is. Of course, environment has a considerable impact on "coming out."</div> Then I don't know why you spent so much time appearing to argue otherwise.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Well there is a series of events that make it relevant.</div> Good. Let's examine these events in sequence .. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">First, you said my natural feelings were not rational, and that you should "let Gay people be themselves". Then I called you a hypocrite because I said gay bashers use the very same argument. </div> Here's the crucial point, right off the bat. What is the argument that both gay-bashers and I are making? That's the part you need to clarify. Please, just state the argument in clear terms, and we'll see if both gay-bashers and I are making it. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Next, you said that you thought being gay was irrational as well, so then I brought up the fact that irrational behavior generally means it is wrong. So it indeed was relevant up to this point.</div> This is precisely what I said: "Hypocrisy? I don't follow. I never said being gay is rational. I don't believe it's a choice, so it wouldn't make much sense to think that." I said, explicitly, I don't think being gay is a choice, and that's why I wouldn't call it "rational". Because being gay isn't a choice, it doesn't make any sense to call it "wrong" either. In the same way, "being uncomfortable around gays" isn't a choice, and therefore I wouldn't call it "wrong" as well. Discrimination, which is a choice, is wrong. Got it? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Private clubs can discriminate though.</div> That doesn't make it right. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And this type of discrimination is for players that feel they have very homosexual people around them that are almost to the point that they can't control themselves.</div> Like I said ... irrational fear. If you don't agree, fine. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think anyone should have to endure such an unnatural environment full of undressing eyes.</div> They don't have to. I didn't say they should be forced to shower/undress in front of the gay players. They should be able to shower/undress whereever and whenever they want. Like everyone. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Then I don't know why you spent so much time appearing to argue otherwise.</div> I never argued otherwise. I have no idea why it appeared so to you.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">No let's not use that example, let's use a more realistic one: You have a sister, that you've known for 32 years. You're 35, and she's 32. Now you want to screw her. Thoughts? And why is incest wrong in this example? Or better yet, one day you decide you want to get it on with your mom. Further thoughts? K thanks.</div> Incest is disturbing, certainly. Whether or not it's "wrong" depends on the circumstances. You said you think homosexuality is wrong for the same reasons you think incest is wrong. Why don't you identify those reasons, and if I agree or disagree I'll let you know. I'm also interested in if those reasons would apply to my "unrealistic" example.
It's a pretty interesting debate, although it's kind of descended to demagoguery at times. One thing I don't understand is huevonkiller's proposal of optional seperation. The option is always there. People who have this fear of homosexuals can change afterwards or before. Why set such a potentially harmful social precedent over something as irrational as being afraid that homosexuals want to sex you up while you're changing?
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It's a pretty interesting debate, although it's kind of descended to demagoguery at times. One thing I don't understand is huevonkiller's proposal of optional seperation. The option is always there. People who have this fear of homosexuals can change afterwards or before. Why set such a potentially harmful social precedent over something as irrational as being afraid that homosexuals want to sex you up while you're changing?</div> Well I've come across some fellows I'd rather not be around, but waiting for them to get done in the locker room is very inconvenient. Thus I proposed the idea of another optional locker room. If players get carried away with insults towards homosexuals, they would be dealt with accordingly. This is a haven, not a place to severely put down others. However, people should be able to take a joke or two, and people shouldn't get fired from their jobs for frivolous insults towards other people (as I've observed over the years).
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Incest is disturbing, certainly. Whether or not it's "wrong" depends on the circumstances. You said you think homosexuality is wrong for the same reasons you think incest is wrong. Why don't you identify those reasons, and if I agree or disagree I'll let you know. I'm also interested in if those reasons would apply to my "unrealistic" example.</div> But how did you determine that incest is disturbing? It comes to a point where it just doesn't seem appropriate, right? That's how I feel about homosexuality, and where I draw the line. Though I'm not out to lynch anyone or any of that nonsense. <div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Good. Let's examine these events in sequence .. Here's the crucial point, right off the bat. What is the argument that both gay-bashers and I are making? That's the part you need to clarify. Please, just state the argument in clear terms, and we'll see if both gay-bashers and I are making it. </div> Gay-bashers think homosexuality is irrational, and you said my feelings were irrational, which made me think that your opinion is no better than a gay-basher's or mine (I'm not a gay basher for the record); yet you imply that you have the logical stance on this issue and didn't seem to be making any "compromises" whatsoever (like admitting when you are wrong in a genetic debate). See below for the rest. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> This is precisely what I said: "Hypocrisy? I don't follow. I never said being gay is rational. I don't believe it's a choice, so it wouldn't make much sense to think that." I said, explicitly, I don't think being gay is a choice, and that's why I wouldn't call it "rational". Because being gay isn't a choice, it doesn't make any sense to call it "wrong" either. In the same way, "being uncomfortable around gays" isn't a choice, and therefore I wouldn't call it "wrong" as well. Discrimination, which is a choice, is wrong. Got it?</div> This is the point where I assumed that you were stating that homosexuality is very irrational, in which case I would not understand why you would be defending it. Then you came out later stating you think it is only somewhat irrational (and not as bad as incest for example). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> That doesn't make it right.</div> But you brought up the Constitution didn't you? I was just stating other "constitutional" things (like separate but equal). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Like I said ... irrational fear. If you don't agree, fine.</div> Fear is the incorrect term. It's annoying/gross/deplorable. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> They don't have to. I didn't say they should be forced to shower/undress in front of the gay players. They should be able to shower/undress whereever and whenever they want. Like everyone.</div> In that case, since there aren't that many players on an NBA roster, I would now propose a single stall for bathing/clothing. Problem solved. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I never argued otherwise. I have no idea why it appeared so to you.</div> You said homosexuality being completely natural was a (low) possibility. These are your own words.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Well I've come across some fellows I'd rather not be around, but waiting for them to get done in the locker room is very inconvenient. Thus I proposed the idea of another optional locker room. If players get carried away with insults towards homosexuals, they would be dealt with accordingly. This is a haven, not a place to severely put down others. However, people should be able to take a joke or two, and people shouldn't get fired from their jobs for frivolous insults towards other people (as I've observed over the years).</div> There's a certain amount of inconvenience and discomfort that we all have to endure at some point. What if someone's changing in the same lockeroom as a convicted pedophile, who's served his term and been released? Or someone who just acts iffeminate? The examples are endless and there's no need to respond to them specifically, because there are certain people that I'd be uncomfortable changing around as well. The point is that, as long as that discomfort is irrational, we should just learn to live with them in order to preserve certain constitutional rights. I think one of the reasons the issue of homosexuality gets so much attention is that its legal status is still so ambiguous. But as much as we may want to avoid having to endure uncomfortable situations with homosexuals, we have to realize that the legal precedent has been set against this type of seperation for a long time. It would be a contradiction to suddenly just make it exclusive to one group.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">But how did you determine that incest is disturbing? It comes to a point where it just doesn't seem appropriate, right? That's how I feel about homosexuality, and where I draw the line. Though I'm not out to lynch anyone or any of that nonsense.</div> Incest is different to me. What makes incest disturbing isn't so much the physical attraction, but that their relationship as family members didn't squash the attraction. It's a psychological issue. For instance, suppose you have a beautiful, physically attractive sister. If you saw her nude body without seeing her face, you'd probably be physically attracted to her. Only upon learning that she's really your sister does that attraction suddenly vanish. If it didn't vanish, and you were still attracted to her and wanted to have sex with her, clearly that's a psychological issue -- it doesn't have to do with your sexual orientation. That's why it is disturbing to me. It indicates either something very wrong about the upbringing, or that you're so mentally disturbed that your relationship as family doesn't override the otherwise natural sexual attraction. So, if that familial relationship/upbringing didn't exist (as in my incest example), is that wrong? I think that's a much more interesting question, because it will narrow down precisely what we find wrong with incest. Personally, I don't consider the incest in my example wrong.
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">There's a certain amount of inconvenience and discomfort that we all have to endure at some point. What if someone's changing in the same lockeroom as a convicted pedophile, who's served his term and been released?</div> That's a sadistic criminal and I would have no trouble sleeping if I kicked him out of the locker room. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Or someone who just acts iffeminate? The examples are endless and there's no need to respond to them specifically, because there are certain people that I'd be uncomfortable changing around as well. The point is that, as long as that discomfort is irrational, we should just learn to live with them in order to preserve certain constitutional rights.</div> Speaking of constiutional rights, a private club can indeed discriminate. But I already proposed a single person stall anyway. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I think one of the reasons the issue of homosexuality gets so much attention is that its legal status is still so ambiguous. But as much as we may want to avoid having to endure uncomfortable situations with homosexuals, we have to realize that the legal precedent has been set against this type of seperation for a long time. It would be a contradiction to suddenly just make it exclusive to one group.</div> Not really. See above.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Incest is different to me. What makes incest disturbing isn't so much the physical attraction, but that their relationship as family members didn't squash the attraction. It's a psychological issue. For instance, suppose you have a beautiful, physically attractive sister. If you saw her nude body without seeing her face, you'd probably be physically attracted to her. Only upon learning that she's really your sister does that attraction suddenly vanish. If it didn't vanish, and you were still attracted to her and wanted to have sex with her, clearly that's a psychological issue -- it doesn't have to do with your sexual orientation. That's why it is disturbing to me. It indicates either something very wrong about the upbringing, or that you're so mentally disturbed that your relationship as family doesn't override the otherwise natural sexual attraction. </div> With all due respect though, this is where I would claim that you are a hypocrite. What do you mean it's a "psychological" problem that has nothing to do with sexual orientation? Sexual orientation is a psychological problem. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> So, if that familial relationship/upbringing didn't exist (as in my incest example), is that wrong? I think that's a much more interesting question, because it will narrow down precisely what we find wrong with incest. Personally, I don't consider the incest in my example wrong.</div> In your extremely unlikely example, incest isn't as wrong because that couple had no way of knowing they were brother and sister.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">That's a sadistic criminal and I would have no trouble sleeping if I kicked him out of the locker room.</div> Yea, but the problem is we can't. It would run counter to the whole point of a democratic society, as the fact that he's served his full sentence means that he's supposedly paid his debt to society. Now both of us may be completely unconvinced by that and still repulsed by him, but that's no justification for us kicking him out. It would be a case of our personal (and somewhat irrational) feelings overriding legal rights. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Speaking of constiutional rights, a private club can indeed discriminate.</div> Yes, they do. It's a socially accepted practice that runs counter to the constitution. If someone were to challenge it on a legal basis, they would have a legitimate case (I know it's an unorthodox source, but the Daily Show did a profile on a dude that sued clubs for having "Ladies Nights" and he's won several times).
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Yea, but the problem is we can't. It would run counter to the whole point of a democratic society, as the fact that he's served his full sentence means that he's supposedly paid his debt to society. Now both of us may be completely unconvinced by that and still repulsed by him, but that's no justification for us kicking him out. It would be a case of our personal (and somewhat irrational) feelings overriding legal rights.</div> Is it really irrational at all? Not in most cases I'd assume; unless the guy got screwed by the courts or barely did anything. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Yes, they do. It's a socially accepted practice that runs counter to the constitution. If someone were to challenge it on a legal basis, they would have a legitimate case (I know it's an unorthodox source, but the Daily Show did a profile on a dude that sued clubs for having "Ladies Nights" and he's won several times).</div> That's hilarious if it's true. I would beg you to find me a link!
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Is it really irrational at all? Not in most cases I'd assume; unless the guy got screwed by the courts or barely did anything.</div> Well, it's unfair in the sense that we're generalizing the person right off the bat. For all we know he could have rehabilitated while serving his sentence (I mean that's what the system aims for in the first place). We may make those sort of off-hand generalizations about people all the time, but that doesn't mean they should be backed by the legal system. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">That's hilarious if it's true. I would beg you to find me a link!</div> It's actually pretty funny, because they jokingly made him out as a sort of civil rights hero. Here's the link.
<div class="quote_poster">Chutney Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Well, it's unfair in the sense that we're generalizing the person right off the bat. For all we know he could have rehabilitated while serving his sentence (I mean that's what the system aims for in the first place). We may make those sort of off-hand generalizations about people all the time, but that doesn't mean they should be backed by the legal system.</div> It still would be only somewhat irrational to dislike them because most criminals don't get rehabilitated in jail; just punished. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> It's actually pretty funny, because they jokingly made him out as a sort of civil rights hero. Here's the link.</div> Aw, I don't have quicktime at the moment. Any youtube/media player links? Bah it's ok, thanks a bunch fellow!
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">It still would be only somewhat irrational to dislike them because most criminals don't get rehabilitated in jail; just punished.</div> OK, say he got psychiatric help while imprisoned. Regardless, the point I'm trying to make is that unless we have concrete reason to distrust someone (i.e. you see that convicted pedophile talking to a children again), we can't really justify forcing them out. To tie it back to what we were originally discussing, unless we know for sure that a homosexual person is acting innappropriately in a locker room (i.e. checking people out, hitting on people, etc.), we just have to get past that discomfort we feel. That's just something that comes with living in a society that gives equal rights to everyone. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Thanks a bunch fellow!</div> No problem at all.
