PDA

View Full Version : Okay to Be Openly Gay in U.S. Military



Pages : [1] 2

megimoo
09-20-2011, 09:03 AM
(CNSNews.com) - Nine months after President Barack Obama signed a bill repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that said homosexuals could not openly serve in the U.S. military, the “gay ban” ended Tuesday at one minute after midnight.

The first celebration took place in Vermont, where Navy Lt. Gary Ross and his civilian partner Dan Swezy were married. Ross wore his dress uniform for the double-ring ceremony, which took place at midnight -- the same moment the military’s new policy took effect.

There was no official announcement about the end of DADT on the Defense Department’s Web site early Tuesday morning, nor did the White House Web site make any mention of the fact that soldiers no longer have to conceal their homosexuality.
snip
Those who oppose the shift in policy include Elaine Donnelly, the founder and president of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues.

Donnelly told CNN that allowing gays and lesbians to serve will drive many loyal troops out of the military.

"Due to the president's political promises, the military faces heavy burdens of confusion and tension that could have been avoided," Donnelly told CNN. "This is nothing for the administration to be proud of."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/okay-be-openly-gay-us-military

Tipsycatlover
09-20-2011, 10:28 AM
Hitting the Navy first.

Certainly going on in every other branch of service.

The Navy’s former top civilian has rocked the service in a military journal article by accusing officials of sinking the storied naval air branch into a sea of political correctness.

Former Navy Secretary John Lehman, himself a former carrier-based aviator, wrote that the swagger and daring of yesterday’s culture has given way to a focus on integrating women and, this year, gays.

Pilots constantly worry about anonymous complaints about salty language, while squadron commanders are awash in bureaucratic requirements for reports and statistics, he added.

“If we continue to suppress the warrior spirit, there will be no one left to defend the Constitution of the United States and we shall perish as a nation.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-corre/?page=3

Avoiding the anonymous complaint is more important than sound decision making.

Who couldn't see that one coming?

“Once standards of common sense were ignored in favor of political correctness, there were no limits to the spread of its domination,” Mr. Lehman wrote.

“Not only have alcohol infractions anonymously reported on the hot line become career-enders, but suspicions of sexual harassment, homophobia, telling of risque jokes, and speech likely to offend favored groups all find their way into fitness reports.

“And if actual hot-line investigations are then launched, that is usually the end of a career, regardless of the outcome.

The fearsom United States military. The greatest fighting force the world has ever seen is no more.

txradioguy
09-20-2011, 10:39 AM
The fearsom United States military. The greatest fighting force the world has ever seen is no more.

And that makes the world a much more dangerous place for freedom loving people everywhere.

Tipsycatlover
09-20-2011, 11:04 AM
Surely it does! Last time the world had a fearsome fighting machine, it was the Legions of Rome. At the height of Rome's power, homosexuality in the legions was punishable by execution. As the overall culture became degenerate, the legions became degenerate, homosexuality was accepted, celebrated. Then the legions abandoned Rome finding nothing worth fighting for. Then Rome fell. Overcome by barbarians who behaved, predictably enough, with barbarity.

The world was plunged into the era known as the Dark Ages. How much darker the next dark age will be?

Novaheart
09-20-2011, 11:54 AM
At the height of Rome's power, homosexuality in the legions was punishable by execution.



Homosexuality (male passive homosexuality) was not proscribed by law or punishable by execution until Christianity was crafted as the state religion of Rome, shortly before what is commonly referred to as "The Fall", and by no means at the height of the Roman Empire's power. In fact, the Empire had already split. By most accounts at the height of the Roman Empire, homosexuality was at best tolerated by society as a whole, and while same sex marriages and bonds co-existed with heterosexual marriages (contract marriages in the upper class) , most sociologists claim that homosexuality was viewed as a harmless vice or eccentricity. Of course, we have little idea what the peasants thought about homosexuality, because history until recently has largely been the history of the nobility.


As the overall culture became degenerate, the legions became degenerate, homosexuality was accepted, celebrated.


You have no basis for this claim. Then as now, there were people who thought that homosexuality was disgusting, those who were indifferent, and those who were homosexual or who treated homosexuals well.

Your concept isn't even logical. By your reasoning, homosexuality was accepted and widely practiced during the entire rise of the Roman Empire, but you aren't giving homosexuality credit for the building of the Empire, you at some arbitrary (and illogical point) then claim that homosexuality is responsible for the "fall" of the Empire.

I suggest that you do your own homework and stop repeating BS you hear from right wing chatterboxes.

namvet
09-20-2011, 12:17 PM
Okay to Be Openly Gay in U.S. Military. just be prepared for a medic to remove those 25 bars of soap stuck up your ass.

Novaheart
09-20-2011, 12:19 PM
Pilots constantly worry about anonymous complaints about salty language, while squadron commanders are awash in bureaucratic requirements for reports and statistics, he added.

“If we continue to suppress the warrior spirit, there will be no one left to defend the Constitution of the United States and we shall perish as a nation. .

I hardly think that making racist, sexist, homophobic, or other epithets part of your banter quantifies the "warrior spirit". If the only thing a group of people have to bond over is their stupid remarks and prejudices then the weakness runs much deeper than some lofty idea of what it means to be a warrior.

It also ill behooves those who fiercely defend every action, thought, and breath in uniform as a defense of the US Constitution to then claim that equal rights for gay people will be the undoing of the military, especially when the only thing that has changed is how one feels about it. Gay people were in the military before and they are in it now, and you're going to tell me that honesty in the matter is going to destroy it? That's ridiculous.

Which is not to say that there won't be some period of adjustment and that some people are going to feel put upon. Surely there will be. When privilege is revoked, and making disparaging remarks about a group of fellow soldiers without their being able to officially retaliate undoubtedly qualifies as a privilege, then even some who aren't terribly shallow feel the effects. Those who are incapable of getting through the day without making stupid remarks will find new ways to do it, subtle symbols and code amongst each other. It's was true last week and it will be true next week.

The IDF has allowed gay people to serve openly for over ten years now, and most people think the IDF is the second most ferocious military in the world (since we consider our own to be the best) , but even some American military consider the IDF to be pound for pound one formidable force. The IDF has personnel issues, and so does the US military. There are accusations of discrimination and inappropriate remarks and the like in the IDF, and in the US military. What date would we choose to claim is the point before which this was not an issue in the US military? Certainly not today.

Novaheart
09-20-2011, 12:22 PM
Okay to Be Openly Gay in U.S. Military. just be prepared for a medic to remove those 25 bars of soap stuck up your ass.

So you are saying that fellow personnel can't be trusted to obey the laws of the land and the rules of the service not to mention not engage in rape by an object on a member of the same sex? Or are you simply venting?

namvet
09-20-2011, 12:56 PM
So you are saying that fellow personnel can't be trusted to obey the laws of the land and the rules of the service not to mention not engage in rape by an object on a member of the same sex? Or are you simply venting?

times change. this may work here at home but on the front lines and especially in combat area's where politics is out the window they will be used and abused. already have. and many have left. moral is important. no way in hell I'd serve with em.

we had faggots in Nam. but they magically disappeared never to be heard from again.

megimoo
09-20-2011, 01:09 PM
So you are saying that fellow personnel can't be trusted to obey the laws of the land and the rules of the service not to mention not engage in rape by an object on a member of the same sex? Or are you simply venting?

Ever hear of gays raping young guys in the showers and denying it claiming anti gay bias ? People in forward areas have weapons and if a guy is raped by a group of gays he's likely to be very angry, enough so that he seeks revenge......

Bailey
09-20-2011, 01:10 PM
times change. this may work here at home but on the front lines and especially in combat area's where politics is out the window they will be used and abused. already have. and many have left. moral is important. no way in hell I'd serve with em.

we had faggots in Nam. but they magically disappeared never to be heard from again.

That's how you handle the fags ...

Bailey
09-20-2011, 01:30 PM
I thank God the Soviet Union is no more with fags openly flaunting their evil behaviors, no way morally we would survive

Rockntractor
09-20-2011, 01:52 PM
http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af276/noonie25/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

Novaheart
09-20-2011, 02:34 PM
.......... politics is out the window they will be used and abused.......

we had faggots in Nam. but they magically disappeared never to be heard from again.

Are you saying that there are violent criminals in the ranks of the US military, and that one is to accept that this is the case and inevitable as well?

Novaheart
09-20-2011, 02:35 PM
Ever hear of gays raping young guys in the showers ......

Have you? Got a documented case?

Novaheart
09-20-2011, 02:37 PM
http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af276/noonie25/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

Exactly, and....

http://rlv.zcache.com/cry_a_river_build_a_bridge_get_over_it_hat-p148698704548132176q02g_400.jpg

Bailey
09-20-2011, 03:20 PM
Are you saying that there are violent criminals in the ranks of the US military, and that one is to accept that this is the case and inevitable as well?

Yes as you said cry me a river and build a bridge over it and all that shit.

noonwitch
09-20-2011, 03:28 PM
Ever hear of gays raping young guys in the showers and denying it claiming anti gay bias ? People in forward areas have weapons and if a guy is raped by a group of gays he's likely to be very angry, enough so that he seeks revenge......


You have some interesting fantasies.

Novaheart
09-20-2011, 03:38 PM
Yes

Yes, what? Can you be more specific?

Odysseus
09-20-2011, 05:11 PM
I hardly think that making racist, sexist, homophobic, or other epithets part of your banter quantifies the "warrior spirit". If the only thing a group of people have to bond over is their stupid remarks and prejudices then the weakness runs much deeper than some lofty idea of what it means to be a warrior.
And you know this how? Seriously, what is your knowledge on warrior culture based on?


It also ill behooves those who fiercely defend every action, thought, and breath in uniform as a defense of the US Constitution to then claim that equal rights for gay people will be the undoing of the military, especially when the only thing that has changed is how one feels about it. Gay people were in the military before and they are in it now, and you're going to tell me that honesty in the matter is going to destroy it? That's ridiculous.
Congress has repeatedly stated that service in the armed forces is not a right. It is not incumbent on us to justify the policy (although we have, repeatedly), it is incumbent on the activists to demonstrate that changing the rules will enhance readiness and not have a detrimental effect. You keep failing to do that.


Which is not to say that there won't be some period of adjustment and that some people are going to feel put upon. Surely there will be. When privilege is revoked, and making disparaging remarks about a group of fellow soldiers without their being able to officially retaliate undoubtedly qualifies as a privilege, then even some who aren't terribly shallow feel the effects. Those who are incapable of getting through the day without making stupid remarks will find new ways to do it, subtle symbols and code amongst each other. It's was true last week and it will be true next week.
You're addressing the most minimal aspect of this. The issue is not going to be comments or jokes, but the sexual conduct of servicemembers in close quarters, sexual harassment, and the lack of privacy. Once again, all issues that have been repeatedly raised, but which you ignore.


The IDF has allowed gay people to serve openly for over ten years now, and most people think the IDF is the second most ferocious military in the world (since we consider our own to be the best) , but even some American military consider the IDF to be pound for pound one formidable force. The IDF has personnel issues, and so does the US military. There are accusations of discrimination and inappropriate remarks and the like in the IDF, and in the US military. What date would we choose to claim is the point before which this was not an issue in the US military? Certainly not today.
The IDF is not a voluntary force, so it doesn't have to worry about recruiting and retention. There are other significant differences between the US DOD and the IDF, such as the fact that the IDF is designed to fight in a state of permanent siege, and the entire Israeli population is in a constant state of alert, while at the same time, it does not deploy outside of Israel's borders except in highly exceptional circumstances (the Entebbe raid, for example, or the invasion of Lebanon). It certainly does not engaged in protracted operations like the US military does. Israel's longest wars never lasted more than a few months, while our shortest conflicts go on for years.

So you are saying that fellow personnel can't be trusted to obey the laws of the land and the rules of the service not to mention not engage in rape by an object on a member of the same sex? Or are you simply venting?

Well. yes. Most of the gays who have been discharged under DADT were not exposed because of their simple profession of orientation, but because of other misconduct, some of it quite serious. For example, in FY2009, there were 281 unrestricted reports of sexual assaults against male victims and 93 restricted reports (http://www.sapr.mil/). That's close to 400 reports of male victims of sexual assault within the armed forces. Out of those 400 cases, The suspects were overwhelmingly male, with only 27 female suspects, and many of them were suspects in same-sex assaults. So, out of 373 cases of sexual trauma with male victims, the lowest possible number of men who were assaulted by other men was 346. A VA survey uncovered over 22,000 cases among service members seeking services. (http://books.google.com/books?id=yh5PKXIKU3IC&pg=PA14261&lpg=PA14261&dq=armed+forces+rape+statistics+male+on+male+VA+St udy&source=bl&ots=5wVl8yKwVH&sig=9eu3nMI4gesvmmNo4Su9hCUZ5uA&hl=en&ei=B7LATN7XOZOWtAPAyYHqBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false). Given those numbers, I'd say that fear of rape and other sexual crimes is a legitimate concern.

I asked you this once before, and got a bizarre answer that didn't address the question, so I will ask again. If you believe that gay males can shower and bunk with other men without any sexual issues, or lesbians can shower and bunk with straight women without consequence, then what is the justification for separate latrines and quarters for men and women? By your logic, if a straight man or woman should not object to showering with persons of the same sex who are attracted to them, then why should they have a problem showering with persons of the opposite sex who are attracted to them?

Rockntractor
09-20-2011, 05:17 PM
You have some interesting fantasies.

Certainly you are not interested enough to try them, I mean life can be boring Noonie, fight these urges.:confused::eek:

megimoo
09-20-2011, 06:02 PM
You have some interesting fantasies.
It's interesting how you always have the opposite point of view to my every post.
For your information ,as if information would ever change your little liberal mind.Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs,..Forced Male rape..

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/03/the-military-s-secret-shame.html

megimoo
09-20-2011, 06:04 PM
Certainly you are not interested enough to try them, I mean life can be boring Noonie, fight these urges.:confused::eek:She to liberal for sex...

Novaheart
09-20-2011, 06:47 PM
You're addressing the most minimal aspect of this. The issue is not going to be comments or jokes, but the sexual conduct of servicemembers in close quarters, sexual harassment, and the lack of privacy. Once again, all issues that have been repeatedly raised, but which you ignore.

I don't ignore such issues, I merely refuse to support or oppose a policy based on your speculation of how gay men would behave from a straight man's understanding of male behavior.

My personal experience, outside the military of course, is that sexual harassment between gay men and straight men generally takes the form of straight men taking the most outrageous physical liberties with gay men in the assumption that they would enjoy it... quite similar to the oft expressed mentality towards woman, ie "She liked it/she wanted it."

Brass tacks, I have been physically assaulted by straight males in the workplace in ways I have never NEVER seen a gay male perpetrate on a straight one. For some reason, some straight men think that gay men are given to enjoy having their nipples pinched or being humped from behind as a form of "teasing". In fact, most gay men take this in stride and never pursue a workplace or legal complaint because we generally have thicker skin than that. We aren't women in men's bodies, we're men in men's bodies and as a rule there isn't the imbalance of power in the outside world that women experience. However, the previous treatment of gay men in the military would indeed create an imbalance of power when the first thing a superior officer was going to ask a gay man complaining of harassment by a heterosexual man is a question which would cost the gay man his military career.

How exactly do you expect this change in policy to affect you in your actual workplace? Let's have some specifics rather than you speculating on how it will affect others.

Novaheart
09-20-2011, 06:49 PM
, it is incumbent on the activists to demonstrate that changing the rules will enhance readiness and not have a detrimental effect.

No it isn't. You can't prove or disprove a prediction without the application of the change.

Novaheart
09-20-2011, 06:57 PM
The IDF is not a voluntary force, so it doesn't have to worry about recruiting and retention.

The IDF not being a voluntary force would in theory make inclusion policies more difficult and uncomfortable as the men in uniform would not have had the choice to join or not join.

The US military is at present a voluntary force. Those coming in have a choice to serve under the new rules or not. Those in have the choice to stay or leave in their window of choice. Eventually there will be no reason for there to be anyone in the military who can't live with an integrated military.

And again, I have to say how surprised I am at your attitude on this given the esteem with which you consistently hold all military personnel regardless of individual possible differences. If joining the military is a noble and patriotic thing to do, and passing or excelling in training to go on to a respectable career in a field of highest calling then that will transcend petty concerns and religious prejudices, or should.

You and those who accept the prospect of violence by straight soldiers on gay ones actually seem to have a much lower opinion of military personnel than those you accuse of being anti-military (ie me).

PS- I think you also have some strange ideas of the dynamics of gay men and their relationships, especially friendships. I often get the impression that straight men think that because women do not control the sex supply for gay men that there are no rules and it's sex all the time with anyone who passes by. This is not the case.

lacarnut
09-20-2011, 07:21 PM
No it isn't. You can't prove or disprove a prediction without the application of the change.

Ody has had many years in the military. You have none. His experience trumps yours in your liberal queerly perverted mind.

Chuck58
09-20-2011, 08:17 PM
I've thought a little before making this post. I've decided to just say what I feel.

First, I hate the term 'gay.' I call them what I've always called them.

I'm a Vietnam Veteran. I know the attitude toward fags when I was in. I know what would happen to one if he outed himself during my time 1965-68. And, I'm reasonably sure that, short of death to the queer nothing would be done other than that he would disappear - probably a general discharge or worse once he was out of the hospital.

This is a different time. Still, I don't think the Army is made up of people that much different than me. I'm curious whether enlistments and re-ups will suffer because of the law going into effect. Already, on CBS news, they showed a couple of guys in uniform just delighted with the fact that they could be all they wanted to be, and kissing. I mean, damn, what straight guy would want to bunk in the same room as one of them? Seriously!

I'm really curious to see what this (in my opinion) moronic rule does to enlistments and re-ups.

Odysseus
09-20-2011, 09:54 PM
I don't ignore such issues, I merely refuse to support or oppose a policy based on your speculation of how gay men would behave from a straight man's understanding of male behavior.

My personal experience, outside the military of course, is that sexual harassment between gay men and straight men generally takes the form of straight men taking the most outrageous physical liberties with gay men in the assumption that they would enjoy it... quite similar to the oft expressed mentality towards woman, ie "She liked it/she wanted it."

That's your experience. OTOH, I've lived in Chelsea, in Manhattan, got harassed quite a bit, especially in uniform. I've never had to physically repulse an advance, but I've come close. I've been followed down a street, subjected to sexual comments in public places and assorted other indignities. In fact, being a straight man in uniform in Manhattan is like being a woman in a miniskirt at a construction site. Regardless, we're not just talking sexual harassment, we're talking sexual assaults as well, and as I pointed out before (and you blithely ignored it), the last year that I have stats for showed almost 400 male-on-male sexual assaults. And that's with gays being discreetly closeted. Imagine what will happen when that lid is blown off.


Brass tacks, I have been physically assaulted by straight males in the workplace in ways I have never NEVER seen a gay male perpetrate on a straight one. For some reason, some straight men think that gay men are given to enjoy having their nipples pinched or being humped from behind as a form of "teasing". In fact, most gay men take this in stride and never pursue a workplace or legal complaint because we generally have thicker skin than that. We aren't women in men's bodies, we're men in men's bodies and as a rule there isn't the imbalance of power in the outside world that women experience. However, the previous treatment of gay men in the military would indeed create an imbalance of power when the first thing a superior officer was going to ask a gay man complaining of harassment by a heterosexual man is a question which would cost the gay man his military career.

Trust me, I understand that gay men are men. Male sexuality is far more overt and predatory than female sexuality. The only difference between gay men and straight men is that the focus of that sexuality responds differently. Gay men are far more promiscuous than straight men because most women don't want the kind of relationships that would allow men to indulge their sexual whims at will, while most gay relationships are far more likely to be non-monogamous because men don't impose the same constraints on each other that women impose on men.


How exactly do you expect this change in policy to affect you in your actual workplace? Let's have some specifics rather than you speculating on how it will affect others.
Do you not read anything that I've written? Did you not notice the FY2009 stats on same-sex sexual assaults? Do you think that those stats will diminish when gays can openly engage in sexual conduct in the armed forces? I have repeatedly stated that there will be increased sexual misconduct with the introduction of two new orientations. For me, as an officer, it means more time spent on training to prevent sexual harassment, assault and a host of other issues. It also means more EO and IG complaints, and more distractions. It means that Soldiers who hold more traditional views of sexual relations will be less inclined to stay in the force, much less join in the first place, and the number of gays who might consider joining will not offset the loss. So, we will lose good troops en masse, those that remain will be subjected to PC indoctrination to a lifestyle that they don't really need to be forced to confront in the barracks, disciplinary and behavioral issues will increase and we will have additional distractions from our primary mission. This isn't speculation.

No it isn't. You can't prove or disprove a prediction without the application of the change.
Wrong. I can prove it, because we've been here before. I've been through this with the introduction of women to the force, and we still haven't cracked the code on that. As a company commander, I had to deal with sexual conduct that ended careers, tore units apart and created massive problems. During my first time in the box, we lost three female Soldiers to pregnancies, out of a total female contingent of 30 out of 120 troops in our unit. As a result of those pregnancies, our commander distributed condoms and I had an altercation with him because I refused to take one (as a married man, I could not imagine having to explain to my wife that I took one). I've seen a Command Sergeant Major, an E9, come back from a tour as an E4, because of UCMJ actions related to sexual misconduct. I had a good friend whose career was ended over false allegations of an affair with an NCO, and the NCO got away with it because she had slept with enough senior personnel to ensure that the chain of command didn't dare go after her. I keep telling you over and over that this will create far more problems than it will solve, but you are impervious to reason. But, once again, don't listen to me. I just passed my 25th year since I enlisted, so what do I know?

The IDF not being a voluntary force would in theory make inclusion policies more difficult and uncomfortable as the men in uniform would not have had the choice to join or not join.

The US military is at present a voluntary force. Those coming in have a choice to serve under the new rules or not. Those in have the choice to stay or leave in their window of choice. Eventually there will be no reason for there to be anyone in the military who can't live with an integrated military.
No, you've got it exactly backwards. Draftees have no choice in joining. We have to entice volunteers. They have to want to join, and that means that we have to offer them something unique. The people who join the US military won't sign up if they think that the military is hostile to their values. The troops that are currently in the force that we will lose over this, who you casually dismiss as being unable to live with an integrated military, don't deserve to be put out because they aren't down with your agenda, and the gay recruits will not make up a fraction of the difference when we start hemorrhaging bodies.


And again, I have to say how surprised I am at your attitude on this given the esteem with which you consistently hold all military personnel regardless of individual possible differences. If joining the military is a noble and patriotic thing to do, and passing or excelling in training to go on to a respectable career in a field of highest calling then that will transcend petty concerns and religious prejudices, or should.

You and those who accept the prospect of violence by straight soldiers on gay ones actually seem to have a much lower opinion of military personnel than those you accuse of being anti-military (ie me).

No, we have a realistic opinion of military personnel. We'll do the job that we are told to do, no matter how many idiotic constraints we are put under, but this will put another strain on a force that has better things to do than promote your lifestyle choices.


PS- I think you also have some strange ideas of the dynamics of gay men and their relationships, especially friendships. I often get the impression that straight men think that because women do not control the sex supply for gay men that there are no rules and it's sex all the time with anyone who passes by. This is not the case.

Uh, actually, that is pretty much the way that it is. Gay men are far more promiscuous than straight me, because other gay men approach sex the same way. That's not to say that they don't have their own rules, but every survey on the subject shows that the number of partners for the average gay respondent is an order of magnitude greater than for his straight counterpart.

So, let's say that a year from now, we see a massive drop in recruiting and retention numbers, and a massive increase in sexual misconduct. What do we do then? How do we get the genie back into the bottle? Or will we even be allowed to acknowledge the problem?

hai
09-20-2011, 10:15 PM
Surely it does! Last time the world had a fearsome fighting machine, it was the Legions of Rome. At the height of Rome's power, homosexuality in the legions was punishable by execution. As the overall culture became degenerate, the legions became degenerate, homosexuality was accepted, celebrated. Then the legions abandoned Rome finding nothing worth fighting for. Then Rome fell. Overcome by barbarians who behaved, predictably enough, with barbarity.

The world was plunged into the era known as the Dark Ages. How much darker the next dark age will be?

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/justinorde/cool_story_bro.jpg

But really there is nothing wrong with being gay,in time the people against gays will be thought of the same as those who tried to segregate people based on their race,or deny people the right to vote because they're women. Time marches on and times change. We're no longer living in the 1960's where Elvis could only be filmed from the waist up.

Rockntractor
09-20-2011, 10:31 PM
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/justinorde/cool_story_bro.jpg

But really there is nothing wrong with being gay,in time the people against gays will be thought of the same as those who tried to segregate people based on their race,or deny people the right to vote because they're women. Time marches on and times change. We're no longer living in the 1960's where Elvis could only be filmed from the waist up.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/scream4.jpg

Speedy
09-20-2011, 10:45 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw

Chuck58
09-20-2011, 11:01 PM
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/justinorde/cool_story_bro.jpg

But really there is nothing wrong with being gay,in time the people against gays will be thought of the same as those who tried to segregate people based on their race,or deny people the right to vote because they're women. Time marches on and times change. We're no longer living in the 1960's where Elvis could only be filmed from the waist up.

I don't think so. I'm sure if a queer had come out of the closet when I was in, there would be a number of Black, White, all colors there when he had his accident. Black men are men, as are Brown, Yellow, Red and White. They aren't she-men. That's the difference. It isn't about race or gender, and I'm well aware that this mixed gender thing (experiment, whatever) is causing problems and will cause problems in the future because, it too is another feel good thing that people who have never been in the military are trying to foist off on the military.

hai
09-20-2011, 11:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K7CNzFhnCE

Odysseus
09-20-2011, 11:40 PM
But really there is nothing wrong with being gay,in time the people against gays will be thought of the same as those who tried to segregate people based on their race,or deny people the right to vote because they're women. Time marches on and times change. We're no longer living in the 1960's where Elvis could only be filmed from the waist up.

Except that it may not. Lots of ancient cultures went from extremes of tolerance for homosexuals, but, like some of our new recruits, a pendulum swings both ways. You're assuming that the paradigm of the last thirty years in Europe and the US will continue to move in the current direction, but if 5,000 years of recorded history shows anything, it's that nothing is settled forever. A few years from now, this could all blow over, or it could blow up, and my experience in the armed forces strongly suggests the latter.

hai
09-20-2011, 11:52 PM
Except that it may not. Lots of ancient cultures went from extremes of tolerance for homosexuals, but, like some of our new recruits, a pendulum swings both ways. You're assuming that the paradigm of the last thirty years in Europe and the US will continue to move in the current direction, but if 5,000 years of recorded history shows anything, it's that nothing is settled forever. A few years from now, this could all blow over, or it could blow up, and my experience in the armed forces strongly suggests the latter.

If i'm correct many cultures had homosexuality,like The Vikings,The Spartans,and such.Alexander the great was believed to be bisexual.

CueSi
09-20-2011, 11:53 PM
If this had happened before my last knee and ankle injury, I would definitely be in for sure.

~QC

Zathras
09-20-2011, 11:56 PM
If i'm correct many cultures had homosexuality,like The Vikings,The Spartans,and such.Alexander the great was believed to be bisexual.

And one things all those have in common? They don't exist anymore.

hai
09-21-2011, 12:02 AM
And one things all those have in common? They don't exist anymore.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6136/6004375736_0742a9155a.jpg

Novaheart
09-21-2011, 12:45 AM
Gay men are far more promiscuous than straight men because most women don't want the kind of relationships that would allow men to indulge their sexual whims at will, while most gay relationships are far more likely to be non-monogamous because men don't impose the same constraints on each other that women impose on men.

Correction: Average to ugly gay men of limited means are far more promiscuous than average to ugly straight men of limited means, because because they can be. Good looking gay men as well as good looking straight men, and all rich men get laid pretty much as often as they would like.

Novaheart
09-21-2011, 12:49 AM
And one things all those have in common? They don't exist anymore.

That will be news to Denmark and Greece.

Zathras
09-21-2011, 10:41 AM
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6136/6004375736_0742a9155a.jpg

Really DUmbass? Then tell me where the Vikings are raiding today? What was the last war the Spartans fought in? Those societies are dead and gone.

Zathras
09-21-2011, 10:42 AM
That will be news to Denmark and Greece.

It would be news if those societies the DUmbass mentioned STILL EXISTED you idiot.

Novaheart
09-21-2011, 11:05 AM
Then tell me where the Vikings are raiding today?

The Vikings aren't "raiding" today for the same reason the plains indians aren't raiding other tribes today. Both of them were secondary farmers and craftsmen who became primary farmers and craftsmen.

The Vikings are our ancestors. Their emblems adorn the bodies, clothing, and jewelry of millions of people in the Viking descendency, and some who simply identify with them.

The Vikings are the ancestors of the Russians, the Danes, the Scots, the Irish, and all the native people of the British Isles with the possible exception of the Welsh and that isolation worked out really well didn't it?

txradioguy
09-21-2011, 11:23 AM
If i'm correct many cultures had homosexuality,like The Vikings,The Spartans,and such.Alexander the great was believed to be bisexual.

So? That applies to the American Armed Forces how exactly?

hai
09-21-2011, 02:48 PM
Really DUmbass? Then tell me where the Vikings are raiding today? What was the last war the Spartans fought in? Those societies are dead and gone.

You sir are a homophobe and a bigot.

Bailey
09-21-2011, 03:08 PM
You sir are a homophobe and a bigot.

Ahhh the old standard if you are against their wretched lifestyle choices you ipso facto a bigot or a homophobe.

Try harder boy

hai
09-21-2011, 03:14 PM
Ahhh the old standard if you are against their wretched lifestyle choices you ipso facto a bigot or a homophobe.

Try harder boy

Well i'm gay. And you are a bigot and a homophobe

Tipsycatlover
09-21-2011, 03:25 PM
My last experience with a group of gay men was at the gym I went to. Several of my male friends said they were quitting and finding someplace else to go because of the prevalent homosexuality. Not one of these guys was "hit on". The amount of screwing that went on in the showers, locker room, sauna, etc was to put it mildly excessive. One of my friends told me that if I knew what was going on in the back, I'd be spraying the equipment down with Lysol before I used it. Slowly and incrementally, the place became all gay.

It isn't only direct harassment, although, that will be a serious problem. There is indirect harassment and hostility as men find their lives impacted and will not be able to complain lest they get booted out for exhibiting homophobia. It isn't only that gays are going to be permitted to serve openly. The culture and structure of the entire military must change to accommodate and be more gay friendly. This means that it won't be the same military or even the same kind of military.

It isn't that this is entirely new. Schools have become more gay friendly, with strict rules, hate speech at whim, and special permission for acting out. Police and fire departments have become accommodating to gays. The culture of the organizations have to change. What happened to the straight married fire fighters who complained at having to strip down for a gay pride parade? They were fired. Reinstated after a battle, but fired none the less. It isn't ONLY the impact gays make themselves that is destructive, it is the accommodating the entire organization has to make to make it comfortable for gays. In every organization in the country that has changed and accommodated homosexuality has ONE improved? One school, one police department? Letting gays serve openly isn't for the benefit of the military. It is to make gays feel better about themselves. The military has to change to make gays feel even BETTER. And that is where the problem is.

We will have a military with the same effectiveness as that of Sweden.

txradioguy
09-21-2011, 03:26 PM
You sir are a homophobe and a bigot.

And you support a degenerate lifestyle.

Tipsycatlover
09-21-2011, 03:30 PM
If you get right down to it, the entire nation is becoming more degenerate! Accepting homosexuality is part of accepting that degeneracy but not the only thing.

hai
09-21-2011, 03:38 PM
My last experience with a group of gay men was at the gym I went to. Several of my male friends said they were quitting and finding someplace else to go because of the prevalent homosexuality. Not one of these guys was "hit on". The amount of screwing that went on in the showers, locker room, sauna, etc was to put it mildly excessive. One of my friends told me that if I knew what was going on in the back, I'd be spraying the equipment down with Lysol before I used it. Slowly and incrementally, the place became all gay.

It isn't only direct harassment, although, that will be a serious problem. There is indirect harassment and hostility as men find their lives impacted and will not be able to complain lest they get booted out for exhibiting homophobia. It isn't only that gays are going to be permitted to serve openly. The culture and structure of the entire military must change to accommodate and be more gay friendly. This means that it won't be the same military or even the same kind of military.

It isn't that this is entirely new. Schools have become more gay friendly, with strict rules, hate speech at whim, and special permission for acting out. Police and fire departments have become accommodating to gays. The culture of the organizations have to change. What happened to the straight married fire fighters who complained at having to strip down for a gay pride parade? They were fired. Reinstated after a battle, but fired none the less. It isn't ONLY the impact gays make themselves that is destructive, it is the accommodating the entire organization has to make to make it comfortable for gays. In every organization in the country that has changed and accommodated homosexuality has ONE improved? One school, one police department? Letting gays serve openly isn't for the benefit of the military. It is to make gays feel better about themselves. The military has to change to make gays feel even BETTER. And that is where the problem is.

We will have a military with the same effectiveness as that of Sweden.

TL;DR

Wei Wu Wei
09-21-2011, 03:38 PM
My last experience with a group of gay men was at the gym I went to. Several of my male friends said they were quitting and finding someplace else to go because of the prevalent homosexuality. Not one of these guys was "hit on". The amount of screwing that went on in the showers, locker room, sauna, etc was to put it mildly excessive. One of my friends told me that if I knew what was going on in the back, I'd be spraying the equipment down with Lysol before I used it. Slowly and incrementally, the place became all gay.

It isn't only direct harassment, although, that will be a serious problem. There is indirect harassment and hostility as men find their lives impacted and will not be able to complain lest they get booted out for exhibiting homophobia. It isn't only that gays are going to be permitted to serve openly. The culture and structure of the entire military must change to accommodate and be more gay friendly. This means that it won't be the same military or even the same kind of military.

It isn't that this is entirely new. Schools have become more gay friendly, with strict rules, hate speech at whim, and special permission for acting out. Police and fire departments have become accommodating to gays. The culture of the organizations have to change. What happened to the straight married fire fighters who complained at having to strip down for a gay pride parade? They were fired. Reinstated after a battle, but fired none the less. It isn't ONLY the impact gays make themselves that is destructive, it is the accommodating the entire organization has to make to make it comfortable for gays. In every organization in the country that has changed and accommodated homosexuality has ONE improved? One school, one police department? Letting gays serve openly isn't for the benefit of the military. It is to make gays feel better about themselves. The military has to change to make gays feel even BETTER. And that is where the problem is.

We will have a military with the same effectiveness as that of Sweden.

I'm going to disagree with you right here but I am curious about specifics.

In what ways do the entire culture and structure of the military have to change because gays in the military can be open about their sexuality? I am interested so please be thorough.

Zathras
09-21-2011, 04:32 PM
You sir are a homophobe and a bigot.

So...mentioning the historical fact that the Vikings and Spartans no longer exist makes me a homophobe and a bigot?

You really are touched in the head, you know that?

Good thing your gay cause no self respecting woman would have anything to do with you.

hai
09-21-2011, 04:37 PM
Moo!

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/justinorde/cool_story_bro.jpg

Zathras
09-21-2011, 04:40 PM
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/justinorde/cool_story_bro.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/HeroesAtWork/demotivational-poster-lion-facepaw.jpg

Tipsycatlover
09-21-2011, 04:53 PM
I'm going to disagree with you right here but I am curious about specifics.

In what ways do the entire culture and structure of the military have to change because gays in the military can be open about their sexuality? I am interested so please be thorough.

Pay attention to what's going on around you.

Try this, which also includes women as a destructive force, which they are.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/18/lehman-rocks-navy-complaints-about-political-corre/?page=all#pagebreak

Just pay attention. How have schools changed? How about police departments? Fire Departments. Any other organization that mainstreamed subcultures like homosexuality have to change to accommodate the needs and desires of the subculture. Police departments have become less "confrontational" and less "macho". More sensitive and understanding. Men who might have joined the military might just not want to bother with accommodating the social needs for gay acceptance. They won't bother.

A lesbian fire department commander ordered straight firefighters to march in a gay pride parade. Is this not forcing a change in the culture. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292442,00.html. If it was an Army commander would it make a difference? You know it will be, next year or the one after that.

Military chaplains have already been told that they cannot say that homosexuality is a sin. These chaplains have been advised to separate from the service.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/25/army-begins-training-chaplains-on-new-dont-ask-policy/

Religion is being erased from the military anyay, so it's doubtful if throwing out the chaplains to effect change will make much difference. In Houston, veteran's funerals are prohibited from saying "God". http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/25/army-begins-training-chaplains-on-new-dont-ask-policy/

The military will degrade. Slowly at first, then more quickly and we will have a military with the effectiveness of the military of Sweden. It will be as much of a mess as the LAPD!

Women might be even worse than gays, but that's another argument.

Permitting open homosexuals to serve in the military might be more of a reflection of the general degredation the United States is experiencing all together. Not a cause, but a symptom.

Bailey
09-21-2011, 04:54 PM
Well i'm gay. And you are a bigot and a homophobe

Well id rather be a bigot then a sexual degenerate like yourself.

lacarnut
09-21-2011, 05:03 PM
Well id rather be a bigot then a sexual degenerate like yourself.

Plus 1.

CueSi
09-21-2011, 05:17 PM
The Vikings aren't "raiding" today for the same reason the plains indians aren't raiding other tribes today. Both of them were secondary farmers and craftsmen who became primary farmers and craftsmen.

The Vikings are our ancestors. Their emblems adorn the bodies, clothing, and jewelry of millions of people in the Viking descendency, and some who simply identify with them.

The Vikings are the ancestors of the Russians, the Danes, the Scots, the Irish, and all the native people of the British Isles with the possible exception of the Welsh and that isolation worked out really well didn't it?

Don't you dare hate on the Welsh. They gave us Christian Bale and Tom Jones.

And Richard Burton.

~QC

hai
09-21-2011, 05:21 PM
So...mentioning the historical fact that the Vikings and Spartans no longer exist makes me a homophobe and a bigot?

You really are touched in the head, you know that?

Good thing your gay cause no self respecting woman would have anything to do with you.


Sorry,i misread what you wrote. I fell asleep at 2 last night and woke up at 6 and couldn't go back to sleep.

Novaheart
09-21-2011, 05:23 PM
Don't you dare hate on the Welsh. They gave us Christian Bale and Tom Jones.

And Richard Burton.

~QC

What will they do if I do? Babble at me in some obsolete language? The Barbary apes have advanced more in the last 600 years than the Welsh.

Odysseus
09-21-2011, 05:24 PM
If i'm correct many cultures had homosexuality,like The Vikings,The Spartans,and such.Alexander the great was believed to be bisexual.
Uh, don't know about the vikings. The Spartans and the Macedonians under Alexander were military dictatorships, and their examples are not particularly compelling today.


Correction: Average to ugly gay men of limited means are far more promiscuous than average to ugly straight men of limited means, because because they can be. Good looking gay men as well as good looking straight men, and all rich men get laid pretty much as often as they would like.
Unless, of course, they are trying to keep the same woman in their lives. Women don't tolerate male promiscuity.

The Vikings aren't "raiding" today for the same reason the plains indians aren't raiding other tribes today. Both of them were secondary farmers and craftsmen who became primary farmers and craftsmen.

The Vikings are our ancestors. Their emblems adorn the bodies, clothing, and jewelry of millions of people in the Viking descendency, and some who simply identify with them.

The Vikings are the ancestors of the Russians, the Danes, the Scots, the Irish, and all the native people of the British Isles with the possible exception of the Welsh and that isolation worked out really well didn't it?
Who's ancestors are you talking about, goyisherkopf?

You sir are a homophobe and a bigot.
And you cannot make an argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Well i'm gay. And you are a bigot and a homophobe
You being gay isn't the issue. and his feelings about gays aren't the issue. The issue is whether the admission of gays to the armed forces will improve readiness or not. It won't. I have stated the reasons why it won't, but you, Nova and Wei aren't interested enough to actually read what I've written on the subject and respond to it.

I'm going to disagree with you right here but I am curious about specifics.

In what ways do the entire culture and structure of the military have to change because gays in the military can be open about their sexuality? I am interested so please be thorough.

Really? You want this explained? You mean you didn't notice when I answered this question here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=451322#post451322), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=358413&postcount=68), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=332710&postcount=15), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=275006&postcount=21), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=275184&postcount=38), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=326558&postcount=71), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=326633&postcount=78), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=327883&postcount=110), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=329083&postcount=118), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=329084&postcount=119), and here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=332581&highlight=gays+in+the+military#post332581), not to mention the dozens of other times that I've gone into excruciating detail on the impacts of the policy change, only to have you come back and ask the same stupid question?

Why do I even bother...?

Novaheart
09-21-2011, 05:29 PM
Really? You want this explained? You mean you didn't notice when I answered this question here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=451322#post451322), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=358413&postcount=68), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=332710&postcount=15), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=275006&postcount=21), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=275184&postcount=38), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=326558&postcount=71), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=326633&postcount=78), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=327883&postcount=110), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=329083&postcount=118), here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=329084&postcount=119), and here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=332581&highlight=gays+in+the+military#post332581), not to mention the dozens of other times that I've gone into excruciating detail on the impacts of the policy change, only to have you come back and ask the same stupid question?

Why do I even bother.?

But you didn't, Blanche. I asked you for specifics about how this change was going to affect your personal job, your office, your work, your life in the military and you gave rote responses and stats which you are interpreting in ways not proven.

The answer is that it won't. Your objection here is that the military no longer affirms and supports your religious prejudices and that is the sum of the effect this will have on you.

Novaheart
09-21-2011, 05:31 PM
Unless, of course, they are trying to keep the same woman in their lives. Women don't tolerate male promiscuity.

Sure they do, if it's part of the deal or an adequate income is provided under the pre-nup.

Don't you know? The beautiful people live by different rules.

Novaheart
09-21-2011, 05:32 PM
Well id rather be a bigot then a sexual degenerate like yourself.

How do you know?

Novaheart
09-21-2011, 05:34 PM
Women might be even worse than gays, but that's another argument.

.

I have two female cousins who are marines, one retired and one active duty. In fact their whole nuclear family are present or former marines. Your comment would go over really well at that family gathering.

Odysseus
09-21-2011, 06:10 PM
But you didn't, Blanche. I asked you for specifics about how this change was going to affect your personal job, your office, your work, your life in the military and you gave rote responses and stats which you are interpreting in ways not proven.

The answer is that it won't. Your objection here is that the military no longer affirms and supports your religious prejudices and that is the sum of the effect this will have on you.

Bull. First, I don't have a religious prejudice. I'm an agnostic who hasn't practiced Judaism since my bar mitzvah (and I wouldn't have bothered then if I didn't want the fountain pen). Second, I did specify how it would effect me, and how it had effected me. I told you that I'd have to devote more time and resources to dealing with the increased sexual issues that will come from this, and gave specific examples of how previous attempts at changing the sexual makeup of the force had impacted my job. As a company commander, I spent most of my time dealing with EO, IG and other assorted complaints based on fraternization, sexual misconduct and perceptions of unequal treatment due to inappropriate relationships and implementing programs to try to prevent further infractions. I cited examples of persons that I knew whose careers had been destroyed by false accusation and real misconduct. I also pointed out that we would lose far more troops than we'd gain, and if you don't think that recruting and retention are going to be massive headaches for me when I command a battalion or brigade, think again.

The fact that you don't want to believe the answers doesn't mean that I didn't give them. The issue isn't my alleged prejudices, it's your inability to look at anything that crosses your agenda with anything remotely resembling an objective view. All that you know is that you're gay, and that if that means that you can't have something, then your rights have been eggregiously violated. I get it. We all get it.

Let's cut to the chase. You claim that I'm biased against gays, but the fact is, this will have real-world consequences that you cannot see, but I'm willing to educate you, and I'll even demonstrate my commitment to the army and the chain of command in order to do it. If you are really serious about wanting to serve your country, then I'm offering you the chance to do so, and you can rub my nose in your patriotism and commitment to the defense of the United States. Here's the deal: I'll meet you at any recruiting station that you want, and I will personally administer the enlistment oath to you when you sign the contract. It has to be done by a commissioned officer, and I will gladly do that for you to demonstrate how serious you are about this. Just name the time and place.

Tipsycatlover
09-21-2011, 06:11 PM
I have two female cousins who are marines, one retired and one active duty. In fact their whole nuclear family are present or former marines. Your comment would go over really well at that family gathering.

I can't help that. Women (and I am a woman) have just about destroyed every organizational standards that they have gone into. I don't LIKE it. I just recognize it. It would be different IF women had to meet the same standards as men in order to join these organizations but they don't. The standards have to immediately be lowered. That's where the problem is. When LAPD decided to admit women to SWAT, the standards were lowered so far, that the whole SWAT team exists in name only. It is now more of a "negotiating unit".

I have seen female firefighters training, struggling with those hoses, by the time some of those flowers made it up the ladder everyone in the building would be dead. Cats can drag out kittens faster. I have KNOWN women who could meet every standard that the men have to meet. There just aren't a lot of them and all this being "EQUAL" a word which should be profanity, the standards have to be lowered to accommodate slighter frames and less muscle mass. For men and women!

I have seen women who could twist off your head and squat over your neck pipe. I like to think I'm one of them. There just aren't a whole lot of us around.

CueSi
09-21-2011, 08:27 PM
What will they do if I do? Babble at me in some obsolete language? The Barbary apes have advanced more in the last 600 years than the Welsh.

You can't hate all of this! Seriously, Nova....

http://icydk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/christian_bale0821071.jpg

if this is less advanced than the Barbary apes, Evolution, take me back, nuh! :p And don't get me started on Ioan Griffuyd.

~QC

the director
09-21-2011, 08:33 PM
Odysseus:

I am not doubting your years of experience, but during my time as an NCO I came away with a starkly different view of females in the military.

I saw enough to know at least a little of what you are talking about, and heard the same sentiment from a female that I worked for - that some females use their body instead of their brains to get ahead, and these females give the rest of those who are hard-working a bad name.

However, at the end of the day, it takes two to practice making a baby, and that SGM you talked about jumped into bed willingly. Males are just as culpable in sexual misconduct as females are.

I had a couple of females attempt to run the game against me and promptly warned them to cut that shit out. I had one female literally bend over backwards in a "stretch" right in front of me, right at work. I didn't lose my mind and drag her to the nearest bed, I kept my discipline, and let it be known that I expect professionalism.

Males and females who engage in sexual misconduct are no different than soldiers who have problems with alcohol, drugs, or gambling. It is a lack of discipline, impulse control, and integrity. I know that the traditional view of the world says that females are the "gateway" to sex, but that does not clear a male anymore than the fact that alcoholism isn't an excuse for a soldier not being fit for duty.

In my opinion, that SGM was coming home an e4 whether or not females were allowed in the Army. The guy would have found a whorehouse, or humped a male, or whatever. His inability to keep it in his pants is a reflection on him, not the fact that there are females in the Army.

Hai:

I honestly don't know what you are hoping to accomplish.

Topic at Hand:

When I was in training (AIT) I knew two soldiers who were homosexuals. Both went on to have successful careers, deploying several times between them and doing an outstanding job. Putting them out of the military would have been a monumental waste of resources and good soldiers.

Similar to females in the Army, a few homosexuals are going to do the wrong thing, no doubt about it. But many more want to serve their country honorably and to the best of their abilities, and bad apples shouldn't preclude the rest from serving their country.

For those who are opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds, I'm sorry to say that religious objection isn't justification to keep them out legally. Don't yell at me, yell at the founding fathers for drawing up the Constitution the way they did. A letter, written by a founding father, sits in Danbury Connecticut that clearly shows that they intended Church and State to be separate, which has been continuously upheld by the Supreme Court.

For those who are opposed to homosexuality for social reasons, the court system has decided that isn't a valid grounds for barring them in the military either.

What individuals like Hai don't get is that it is a protected right for Americans to not approve of homosexuality in private, or in speech like on this forum. But it is also a protected right for Americans to be supportive of homosexuality, and for homosexuality to exist. And whether or not one approves of homosexuality, they are still Americans and thus should be treated as such, not as second class citizens.

CueSi
09-21-2011, 08:40 PM
I wanna give you a +1. Can't ---------->but here's a free internet! (http://you-win-the-internet.com/)

~QC

Molon Labe
09-21-2011, 08:44 PM
Yeah it's a sucky policy. But the policy is now homosexuals in the military. So now whether you like it or not, its up to people, (especial a LTC) to figure out how to implement it and orient everyone to the new Army. As officers and senior NCOs you don't necessarily like the policy you have, but you have to enforce the standard.

lacarnut
09-21-2011, 09:06 PM
Yeah it's a sucky policy. But the policy is now homosexuals in the military. So now whether you like it or not, its up to people, (especial a LTC) to figure out how to implement it and orient everyone to the new Army. As officers and senior NCOs you don't necessarily like the policy you have, but you have to enforce the standard.

The sad part is that queers will be allowed to skate on sexual misconduct because the homophobia card will be played against their superiors. The sexual misconduct will not be enforced equally. They will have special rights. An NCO or Officer that gets unfairly tagged with the homophobia card can count on his or her career being over. The new affirmative action plan for homos.

Novaheart
09-21-2011, 09:39 PM
Bull. First, I don't have a religious prejudice. I'm an agnostic who hasn't practiced Judaism since my bar mitzvah (and I wouldn't have bothered then if I didn't want the fountain pen).

The degree to which you practice your religious identity is irrelevant, the prejudice you are exhibiting is founded in religion, and frankly I have never understood why Judaism gets a pass on this, when it's their book and religion which was adopted by Europe.



Second, I did specify how it would effect me, and how it had effected me. I told you that I'd have to devote more time and resources to dealing with the increased sexual issues that will come from this,

You appear to be predicting that there will be more cases to deal with. One interpretation of that would be that there are gay men (and men perceived to be gay or labelled as gay) in the military currently being harassed who have not sought the recourse to which they are entitled due to DADT. Surely, as one concerned about morale you would rather such issues be dealt with properly than to have these misconduct issues running under the radar because the victim is afraid of being revictimized by superiors after being victimized by peers.

Is the goal to avoid handling these issues or is the goal to have a professional military in which all persons are treated with respect?



The issue isn't my alleged prejudices, it's your inability to look at anything that crosses your agenda with anything remotely resembling an objective view. All that you know is that you're gay, and that if that means that you can't have something, then your rights have been eggregiously violated. I get it. We all get it.


And yet, you gripe about eliminating the official indulgences of that religious prejudice. How odd.


If you are really serious about wanting to serve your country, then I'm offering you the chance to do so, and you can rub my nose in your patriotism and commitment to the defense of the United States. Here's the deal: I'll meet you at any recruiting station that you want, and I will personally administer the enlistment oath to you when you sign the contract. It has to be done by a commissioned officer, and I will gladly do that for you to demonstrate how serious you are about this. Just name the time and place. [/B]

That's nice of you, but as you know I am 52 years old. You'll have plenty of opportunity to show your professionalism in the coming years, and I have no doubt that you have been completely professional up to this point.

Cutting to the chase, all this really is is a change, and some people deal better with change than others. Studies tell us that the younger military personnel aren't as racist, sexist, or homophobic as the older ones.

Novaheart
09-21-2011, 09:55 PM
I can't help that. Women (and I am a woman) have just about destroyed every organizational standards that they have gone into. I don't LIKE it. I just recognize it. It would be different IF women had to meet the same standards as men in order to join these organizations but they don't. The standards have to immediately be lowered. That's where the problem is. When LAPD decided to admit women to SWAT, the standards were lowered so far, that the whole SWAT team exists in name only. It is now more of a "negotiating unit".

I have seen female firefighters training, struggling with those hoses, by the time some of those flowers made it up the ladder everyone in the building would be dead. Cats can drag out kittens faster. I have KNOWN women who could meet every standard that the men have to meet. There just aren't a lot of them and all this being "EQUAL" a word which should be profanity, the standards have to be lowered to accommodate slighter frames and less muscle mass. For men and women!

I have seen women who could twist off your head and squat over your neck pipe. I like to think I'm one of them. There just aren't a whole lot of us around.

Over the last hundred years or so, our society has taken down some of the barriers in occupations once assigned by sex. In what the sociologist or activist may have hoped would demonstrate equality between the sexes, what we have found is that some people are better at some things, and some people are better at others.

No one wants to be told "No." of course, but our society could possibly be evolving to a point where certain advantages are recognized, and disadvantages as well.

The EMT who took care of me when I collapsed recently, was a short and finely featured man of Cuban ancestry. He was completely comfortable working in the limited space of the ambulance, and he landed an IV in my arm like a pro... all the while we were bouncing along the brick streets towards the main road. The man who took me out of the ambulance, was a hefty middle aged man whom I thought would bust a gut taking me out by himself, but the technology has advanced and we no longer need stevedores to unload gurneys from ambulances.

It's not unreasonable that if we allow ourselves to grow as a people and a society, that we will also allow ourselves to transcend the "everyone is equal" to the possibility that different kinds of people might be better at some thing than others, and as long as everyone is treated fairly and respectfully, then they are much less likely to get upset when their aptitude doesn't necessarily match their aspirations.

Odysseus
09-21-2011, 10:45 PM
Odysseus:

I am not doubting your years of experience, but during my time as an NCO I came away with a starkly different view of females in the military.

I saw enough to know at least a little of what you are talking about, and heard the same sentiment from a female that I worked for - that some females use their body instead of their brains to get ahead, and these females give the rest of those who are hard-working a bad name.

However, at the end of the day, it takes two to practice making a baby, and that SGM you talked about jumped into bed willingly. Males are just as culpable in sexual misconduct as females are.
No argument, but you're missing my point. Sexual tension between troops is corrosive. Even if no sex occurs, there will be rumors and suspicions. I've told the story about how my troops assumed that I was hitting on a female mechanic because I spoke to her for a few minutes (I just wanted to know when my track would be ready). I've also had a female subordinate tell me that while I gave good mentoring and advice, she couldn't be seen with me too often in public because other females would start rumors. The male officers that I worked with never had that problem. The issue is that over the last several decades, we have gone from an all male force with female auxiliaries to a co-ed force that is about to include openly gay troops. From the initial integration of women into the regular armed forces, we've gone from highly restrictive placement standards in which there was to be no combat arms assignments or positions where women might be exposed to combat, to putting women into combat convoys. There is now yet another movement to put women into armor and infantry units, where trust has to be absolute. I can't have Soldiers second-guessing their life or death decisions because they are worried about rumors.


I've had a couple of females attempt to run the game against me and promptly warned them to cut that shit out. I had one female literally bend over backwards in a "stretch" right in front of me, right at work. I didn't lose my mind and drag her to the nearest bed, I kept my discipline, and let it be known that I expect professionalism.

A good buddy of mine had a similar incident, but when he responded the same way that you did, the female accused him of having an affair with her out of spite, and he was deemed guilty until proven innocent, and then when he was able to prove his case, he was still deemed guilty. You were lucky.


Males and females who engage in sexual misconduct are no different than soldiers who have problems with alcohol, drugs, or gambling. It is a lack of discipline, impulse control, and integrity. I know that the traditional view of the world says that females are the "gateway" to sex, but that does not clear a male anymore than the fact that alcoholism isn't an excuse for a soldier not being fit for duty.
Yes, but I can run a urinalysis and determine that a Soldier has a drug problem. I can run a credit check and see evidence of gambling. When I have to go down to bail out a troopie with a DUI, I have objective proof that his blood alcohol level was above the limit. But, when a Soldier is accused of sexual misconduct, and there's no smoking gun (or dripping anything), how do you decide who's telling the truth? How many careers were destroyed by the allegations at the Tailhook convention, all of which turned out to be false? The issue isn't that women are the "gateway" to sex, it's that when you put men and women together in close quarters and break down the traditional barriers that protected women from predatory men and men from predatory women, you get a toxic work environment. Opening up the floodgates to even more sexual behavior will guarantee that we see more sexual behavior.

When you put gay Soldiers and straight Soldiers into the same showers, and somebody complains, do you punish the straight Soldier for not wanting to shower with a gay man? Do you punish a female Soldier who is uncomfortable with a gay bunkmate?


The degree to which you practice your religious identity is irrelevant, the prejudice you are exhibiting is founded in religion, and frankly I have never understood why Judaism gets a pass on this, when it's their book and religion which was adopted by Europe.
Well, thanks for clearing that up. My rabbi will be glad to hear that despite my absence from synagogue for decades, I'm still in thrall to the Old Testament. :rolleyes: Look, if you can't accept that my objection is founded in my experiences as an officer who has to keep order and discipline, and who knows the culture of the armed forces, at least have the decency not to create specious straw man arguments.


You appear to be predicting that there will be more cases to deal with. One interpretation of that would be that there are gay men (and men perceived to be gay or labelled as gay) in the military currently being harassed who have not sought the recourse to which they are entitled due to DADT. Surely, as one concerned about morale you would rather such issues be dealt with properly than to have these misconduct issues running under the radar because the victim is afraid of being revictimized by superiors after being victimized by peers.
That is an absurd interpretation. The incidence of male-on-male sexual assaults are not straight men harassing gays, but gay men assault other men, gay or straight. Most of the people put out of the armed forces under DADT weren't simply outed, they were found out because they were the perpetrators of those assaults.


Is the goal to avoid handling these issues or is the goal to have a professional military in which all persons are treated with respect?
Neither. The goal is to have a professional military that can win wars. You have as yet to address my most basic question, which is how the inclusion of openly gay troops will enhance our ability to fight. I've told you lots of ways that it will detract from it, but I'm still waiting for an answer from you.


And yet, you gripe about eliminating the official indulgences of that religious prejudice. How odd.
No, I gripe about you turning the armed forces into a petri dish for your latest social experiment.


That's nice of you, but as you know I am 52 years old. You'll have plenty of opportunity to show your professionalism in the coming years, and I have no doubt that you have been completely professional up to this point.
In other words, you didn't sign up when you were young enough and now that it's permissible, you're conveniently too old. For you, this is just feel-good BS. You don't have to live with the consequences of this policy change when it fails. You won't be the one who has to write a letter to somebody's Next of Kin to explain that their loved one died because of your social experiment. If this policy had been in place thirty years ago, you wouldn't have signed up then, either. The fact is, you're, at best, indifferent to how this plays out, as long as your little clique gets to chalk up a win. I, OTOH, have a much closer relationship to the problem. I get to try to keep the force together after your little experiment fails. I get to waste time on sensitivity training so that people who I'm supposed to be teaching to kill our enemies don't inadvertently hurt someone's feelings. I get to divert resources away from our primary mission, just so that you can feel good between crusades. Your age isn't what kept you out of the military, and your orientation didn't, either. You just don't care about defending the country as much as you care about hoisting the rainbow flag over another barrier.


Cutting to the chase, all this really is is a change, and some people deal better with change than others. Studies tell us that the younger military personnel aren't as racist, sexist, or homophobic as the older ones.
The tsunami in Japan was a change, too. As Obama has amply demonstrated, not all change is for the better. As for your studies, once again, you're resorting to the last refuge of the activist who has lost the argument but won't admit it, the namecalling. I'm not a racist, sexist or homophobe, but I am a Soldier, and I know the culture of the armed forces, as well as the culture of the activists. You don't care about whether or not we can win wars, as long as you get to break down a barrier, but without any understanding of why that barrier existed in the first place. During previous discussions, you've suggested that showering is overrated, that handicapped people should be permitted to join the military, and a host of other statements that reflect an appalling ignorance of what we do and why and how we do it. And the sad thing is, your side, ignorant, silly and utterly unserious as it is, has won the fight. I really hope that you're right about things not going south as a result of that, because I don't share your optimism, and by the time that we figure out that it's failing, we may not have the luxury of dealing with the fallout in a leisurely manner. When you break the force, the results will be ugly. The world is a dangerous, chaotic place, and the thin red line that separates you from the worst of it is not a place where you want to go pushing for feel-good changes that will have catastrophic repercussions.

Novaheart
09-22-2011, 01:16 AM
That is an absurd interpretation. The incidence of male-on-male sexual assaults are not straight men harassing gays, but gay men assault other men, gay or straight. Most of the people put out of the armed forces under DADT weren't simply outed, they were found out because they were the perpetrators of those assaults.


The bolded is not born out by your link to fy09, and neither are your other claims. That report lists four discharges for homosexual conduct and one counseling. IN each case the sexual assault claimed amounted to two drunk people having sex and one claiming that he is the victim in the morning after. Moreover, this happened before DADT was ended, so it's hard to see how it's proof that ending DADT would have any effect on this.

RobJohnson
09-22-2011, 01:25 AM
It's interesting how you always have the opposite point of view to my every post.
For your information ,as if information would ever change your little liberal mind.Last year nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs,..Forced Male rape..

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/03/the-military-s-secret-shame.html

Good article.

RobJohnson
09-22-2011, 01:28 AM
Ody has had many years in the military. You have none. His experience trumps yours in your liberal queerly perverted mind.

I think all this talk turns on Nova-hard-on.

I bet he heads to the recruiters office in the morning...

CueSi
09-22-2011, 01:31 AM
I think all this talk turns on Nova-hard-on.

I bet he heads to the recruiters office in the morning...

He's 52, and isn't in the best of health. . . why the hell would he do that? I mean, be . . . practical.

Ya'll fantasize more about what he does than...he does.

~QC

Novaheart
09-22-2011, 02:22 AM
You can't hate all of this! Seriously, Nova....



~QC

Meh, you found a pretty one. Chaos theory.

Novaheart
09-22-2011, 02:23 AM
I think all this talk turns on Nova-hard-on.

I bet he heads to the recruiters office in the morning...

The military has been very good to me.

Tipsycatlover
09-22-2011, 10:03 AM
No matter how must justification gays can bring to the table, the truth is, these changes will destroy our military in order to make it more senstive and responsive to the homosexual wish list.

Can the gay Duke-LaCrosse case be far behind?

Novaheart
09-22-2011, 10:07 AM
, the truth is, these changes will destroy our military

Unsupported speculation.

hai
09-22-2011, 02:54 PM
It would be news if those societies the DUmbass mentioned STILL EXISTED you idiot.

Dude,how come you didn't go to this thread? http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=43923

Zathras
09-22-2011, 04:43 PM
Dude,how come you didn't go to this thread? http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=43923

Because I'm not a guitarist, have no idea what guitarists like or dislike and really don't care what guitarists like or dislike.

In other words, why would I comment on a subject I don't give a flying crap about.

Do everyone a favor...grow up and stop being a whiny little bitch.

hai
09-22-2011, 04:45 PM
Because I'm not a guitarist, have no idea what guitarists like or dislike and really don't care what guitarists like or dislike.

In other words, why would I comment on a subject I don't give a flying crap about.

Do everyone a favor...grow up and stop being a whiny little bitch.

Sorry,dude.

RobJohnson
09-22-2011, 04:55 PM
He's 52, and isn't in the best of health. . . why the hell would he do that? I mean, be . . . practical.

Ya'll fantasize more about what he does than...he does.

~QC

I forgot. 52 year olds don't have sex.

Odysseus
09-22-2011, 05:49 PM
The bolded is not born out by your link to fy09, and neither are your other claims. That report lists four discharges for homosexual conduct and one counseling. IN each case the sexual assault claimed amounted to two drunk people having sex and one claiming that he is the victim in the morning after. Moreover, this happened before DADT was ended, so it's hard to see how it's proof that ending DADT would have any effect on this.
You are ignoring the fact that the report cites 281 unrestricted reports of sexual assaults against male victims and 93 restricted reports, of which 347 were male on male incidents.

The numbers just came out for FY2010. The report is available here (http://www.sapr.mil/media/pdf/reports/DoD_Fiscal_Year_2010_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assau lt_in_the_Military.pdf). There were 120 documented unrestricted reports of male on male sexual assaults by service members against service members and another 11 documented by service members against non-service members.


Unsupported speculation.

It's only unsupported if you ignore everything that has been posted on CU on this topic for the last five years.

And you still haven't answered this question:

When you put gay Soldiers and straight Soldiers into the same showers, and somebody complains, do you punish the straight Soldier for not wanting to shower with a gay man? Do you punish a female Soldier who is uncomfortable with a gay bunkmate?

And, here's the logical extension of the above question: If a straight Soldier can be compelled to bunk, shower and otherwise interact in intimate quarters with a gay Soldier, then why can't a straight female be compelled to bunk, shower and interact in intimate quarters with a straight male?

I keep asking the same questions and am still waiting for an answer... :smilie_wall:

Tipsycatlover
09-22-2011, 06:05 PM
I'm trying to find it, but there is training for superiors who have a complaint from a lesbian soldier about having to share quarters with a straight woman and being uncomfortable with it. If the straight woman is doing the complaining, it's to be treated as homophobia and the woman sent for counseling and additional training.

lacarnut
09-22-2011, 07:01 PM
And you still haven't answered this question:

When you put gay Soldiers and straight Soldiers into the same showers, and somebody complains, do you punish the straight Soldier for not wanting to shower with a gay man? Do you punish a female Soldier who is uncomfortable with a gay bunkmate?

And, here's the logical extension of the above question: If a straight Soldier can be compelled to bunk, shower and otherwise interact in intimate quarters with a gay Soldier, then why can't a straight female be compelled to bunk, shower and interact in intimate quarters with a straight male?

I keep asking the same questions and am still waiting for an answer... :smilie_wall:

You are not going to get an answer from a pervert who has a queerly agenda.

CueSi
09-22-2011, 09:35 PM
Meh, you found a pretty one. Chaos theory.

Aw, COME ON... you're moving the goal posts. And... Tom Jones?! He don't count either?


I forgot. 52 year olds don't have sex.

Now that's just wishful thinking. I'm just wondering how you and others here became firsthand experts on the sexual life of gay men. :p

~QC

Novaheart
09-22-2011, 09:41 PM
I forgot. 52 year olds don't have sex.

You mean with other people?

Novaheart
09-22-2011, 10:07 PM
You are ignoring the fact that the report cites 281 unrestricted reports of sexual assaults against male victims and 93 restricted reports, of which 347 were male on male incidents.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think that one can draw the conclusions that you are drawing from the stats and the methodology.

In the first place, you are assuming that a physical act which we would consider sexual in nature committed by one man on another indicates that the subject is gay. This is not always the case and never has been. The FRC and AFA like to play that game, but sexual misconduct and assault by straight men on other straight men or gay men is well known.

Secondly, when homosexuality itself and same-sex sexual behavior is a crime unto itself, then unlike heterosexual relations in the same time period, all homosexual relations (regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants) is criminal and considered a criminal act or misconduct. In this respect, I don't see how you can maintain that these stats are relevant.

Third: We have no context. Without knowing how many gay people are serving in the military, then we have no context for these numbers. What we do know is that you are for some reason pointing to these numbers as proof that gay people are a problem, when your own reports show that the vast majority of the problems are with straight people.

I again question your personal motives and the role of your prejudice in this matter. You aren't even trying for context or proportion.

• We've been told that there are street/prison gang members in the military. How many of those men would you guess are gay? Do they present more or less of a projection of a problem in your analysis than a gay person?

• We know that there are Muslims and NOI members in the military. Do you think the average heterosexual male from Huntsville has more in common his gay tenth cousin from Winchester or a first generation "American" who needs special religious accommodation so he can pray for the destruction of Israel and the coming of the Caliphate?

I think you need some perspective.

I myself get along better with some not-completely-comfortable-with-gay-people straight people who are of my tribe than I do with some gay people who aren't. There really are larger and more important bonds between people than whether they are gay or straight.

Odysseus
09-22-2011, 11:05 PM
I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think that one can draw the conclusions that you are drawing from the stats and the methodology.

It helps if you actually bother to look at the stats.


In the first place, you are assuming that a physical act which we would consider sexual in nature committed by one man on another indicates that the subject is gay. This is not always the case and never has been. The FRC and AFA like to play that game, but sexual misconduct and assault by straight men on other straight men or gay men is well known.
Then perhaps you'll provide proof of that allegation?


Secondly, when homosexuality itself and same-sex sexual behavior is a crime unto itself, then unlike heterosexual relations in the same time period, all homosexual relations (regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants) is criminal and considered a criminal act or misconduct. In this respect, I don't see how you can maintain that these stats are relevant.
The stats don't refer to homosexual behavior, they refer to sexual assault. Pretending that because the former was a UCMJ violation, we cannot judge the latter is imbecilic.


Third: We have no context. Without knowing how many gay people are serving in the military, then we have no context for these numbers. What we do know is that you are for some reason pointing to these numbers as proof that gay people are a problem, when your own reports show that the vast majority of the problems are with straight people.
The vast majority of the force is straight, but my point is that the minute percentage of gays cause problems far beyond their numbers.


I again question your personal motives and the role of your prejudice in this matter. You aren't even trying for context or proportion.
On the contrary, it is clearly you who is blinded by personal motives and prejudice against anyone who is not on board with your agenda. I present inconvenient facts, the history of prior attempts to reduce sex to a regulatory issue and the my personal experiences with the corrosive nature of sexual conduct in the ranks, and you respond with irrelevancies about "context" and "proportion" and choose to attack the messenger, but never answer the fundamental questions about the good of the armed forces. You refuse to acknowledge the cost of the policy change, or even admit that any negative impacts can possibly occur, but cannot present one benefit that will accrue to the military for the radical upheaval that we are about to undergo.


• We've been told that there are street/prison gang members in the military. How many of those men would you guess are gay? Do they present more or less of a projection of a problem in your analysis than a gay person?
About the same. Which is why we separate them as soon as we identify them, for the same reason, which is that they erode the standards of conduct and damage the good order and discipline of the service.


• We know that there are Muslims and NOI members in the military. Do you think the average heterosexual male from Huntsville has more in common his gay tenth cousin from Winchester or a first generation "American" who needs special religious accommodation so he can pray for the destruction of Israel and the coming of the Caliphate?
The sad thing is, the vast majority of Muslims serving in the armed forces are there because they believe in the United States and want to prevent the coming of the Caliphate (many of them have lived under Islamic governments and want nothing to do with them), but because our PC chain of command has refused to properly vet those who become radicalized, the loyal American Muslims have to endure the kind of slander that you have just heaped on them. The failure of our PC leadership isn't grounds to impose gays on the military, but another example of why the introduction of gays will further erode standards of conduct. Gay troops who use the system to advance their agenda instead working towards the good of the armed forces and the defense of the nation know that they can act with impunity because the leadership is afraid to be called the names that you fling here. They know that generals don't want to have to sit in front of hostile congressional committees, so they will sweep misconduct under the rug.

This is another flaw in what passes for logic on your side. Because you perceive that the armed forces have problems with gang members and jihadis, you propose that adding a third disruptive group is no big deal. Your cure for two cancers is a third cancer. This demonstrates to me that you don't care a whit about the defense of the United States, or about those of us who are committed to it, but are more concerned with ensuring that your "tribe" gets its share of the glory.


I think you need some perspective.
And you need some experience.


I myself get along better with some not-completely-comfortable-with-gay-people straight people who are of my tribe than I do with some gay people who aren't. There really are larger and more important bonds between people than whether they are gay or straight.

Ah, a variation on the "Some of my best friends are..." defense. Didn't really expect that, but then, I also don't see the relevance of it. And, I don't buy it. You've repeatedly demonstrated that your loyalty to your fellow gays is as tribal as any jihadi's loyalty to his cult, and like the jihadi, you seek to colonize the realms that were previously denied you, regardless of the damage that you end up doing.

And you still haven't answered my question. Once again, here it is, just in case you missed it the first two times:

When you put gay Soldiers and straight Soldiers into the same showers, and somebody complains, do you punish the straight Soldier for not wanting to shower with a gay man? Do you punish a female Soldier who is uncomfortable with a gay bunkmate?

And, here's the logical extension of the above question: If a straight Soldier can be compelled to bunk, shower and otherwise interact in intimate quarters with a gay Soldier, then why can't a straight female be compelled to bunk, shower and interact in intimate quarters with a straight male?

the director
09-22-2011, 11:55 PM
When you put gay Soldiers and straight Soldiers into the same showers, and somebody complains, do you punish the straight Soldier for not wanting to shower with a gay man? Do you punish a female Soldier who is uncomfortable with a gay bunkmate?

And, here's the logical extension of the above question: If a straight Soldier can be compelled to bunk, shower and otherwise interact in intimate quarters with a gay Soldier, then why can't a straight female be compelled to bunk, shower and interact in intimate quarters with a straight male?

Technically, gay and straight already cohabitate, since the Army didn't have a no-Homosexual policy, but rather had DADT for 17 years. The main difference now is that the gay soldier doesn't have to conceal his/her sexual preference anymore. Statistically speaking, every soldier who has been through basic and on a deployment has already showered with a homosexual soldier.

As I was getting out my company's barracks had been renovated so that two soldiers would share a common area but would have their own separate room. One could get changed and shower without their roommate ever seeing them naked.

There are many colleges that have coed dorms. It is very common for a male and female to split the rent on a two bedroom apartment. American civilian society, especially among the younger generation, has broken down the barriers between unattached males and females living in close proximity to each other.

Group showers and open bays are quickly becoming a thing of the past in the Army, and will probably have to be phased out all together. The only place I ran into them was in basic, WLC, and on deployments.

djones520
09-23-2011, 12:07 AM
You are ignoring the fact that the report cites 281 unrestricted reports of sexual assaults against male victims and 93 restricted reports, of which 347 were male on male incidents.

The numbers just came out for FY2010. The report is available here (http://www.sapr.mil/media/pdf/reports/DoD_Fiscal_Year_2010_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assau lt_in_the_Military.pdf). There were 120 documented unrestricted reports of male on male sexual assaults by service members against service members and another 11 documented by service members against non-service members.



It's only unsupported if you ignore everything that has been posted on CU on this topic for the last five years.

And you still haven't answered this question:

When you put gay Soldiers and straight Soldiers into the same showers, and somebody complains, do you punish the straight Soldier for not wanting to shower with a gay man? Do you punish a female Soldier who is uncomfortable with a gay bunkmate?

And, here's the logical extension of the above question: If a straight Soldier can be compelled to bunk, shower and otherwise interact in intimate quarters with a gay Soldier, then why can't a straight female be compelled to bunk, shower and interact in intimate quarters with a straight male?

I keep asking the same questions and am still waiting for an answer... :smilie_wall:

When have I ever backed that opinion? My commander had an open discussion on this issue on the 18th. Everyone in the unit was given a chance to voice any concerns. The only one who had any issues was a Captain who used to be in the Marines. Everyone else had zero problems, and did not at all think there would be any negative impact if someone in our unit came out.

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 12:10 AM
[B]When you put gay Soldiers and straight Soldiers into the same showers, and somebody complains, do you punish the straight Soldier for not wanting to shower with a gay man? Do you punish a female Soldier who is uncomfortable with a gay bunkmate?

You keep skipping around, I don't know if it's intentional or simply because this is a casual conversation. You quote stats and then go for generalities. From what I read of your report fy09, none of the incidents in which an action was taken took place in a shower or a bunk. Each appeared to have been in private housing.

A straight soldier who doesn't want to shower at the same time a gay man is showering needs to get over it. Showers are segregated by sex, not sexual orientation or race. If a soldier doesn't want to shower with someone of a different race or whom he considers beneath his social station, then he is the one with the problem, not the soldier who is simply trying to bathe.

The same goes for one who is uncomfortable with a bunkmate who is different from herself, it's her problem.

In all of society, if you object to another person's mere presence because of your prejudices, it's your problem. The days of being able to claim privilege by virtue of your station, race, sex, ancestry, religion, or orientation appear to be over. The military is just a little late in catching up in this regard. Fortunately, this has been corrected as a matter of policy and if the military of other nations are any measure, then it really won't be the end of the world. Feel better now?

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 12:23 AM
And, here's the logical extension of the above question: If a straight Soldier can be compelled to bunk, shower and otherwise interact in intimate quarters with a gay Soldier, then why can't a straight female be compelled to bunk, shower and interact in intimate quarters with a straight male?

Eventually we may be sophisticated enough as a society that heterosexual men and women can use unisex facilities. They already do in some places where heterosexual men don't make the rules.

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 12:51 AM
About the same. [/B]

Stunning.

lacarnut
09-23-2011, 12:59 AM
Eventually we may be sophisticated enough as a society that heterosexual men and women can use unisex facilities. They already do in some places where heterosexual men don't make the rules.

You are a dumb ass queer who does not see the difference between military life and the private sector who has ZERO experience in the former.

Tipsycatlover
09-23-2011, 10:29 AM
If heterosexual men made the rules, there never would have been separate women's rest rooms to begin with. Nor would there be doors on any of the stalls!

Proponents of unisex restrooms are already disregarding the privacy of women's private facilities. Which is why rape alarms are being installed in places the gender confused get to make the rules, like colleges and universities.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-05/local/me-787_1_alarms

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 10:43 AM
If heterosexual men made the rules, there never would have been separate women's rest rooms to begin with. Nor would there be doors on any of the stalls!

Heterosexual (presumably) men are the ones who made rules requiring women to be cloistered, in harems, covered from head to toe (except dancing whores of course), and that their virginity and public reputation be matters of life and death.

Tipsycatlover
09-23-2011, 12:20 PM
Heterosexual (presumably) men are the ones who made rules requiring women to be cloistered, in harems, covered from head to toe (except dancing whores of course), and that their virginity and public reputation be matters of life and death.

And you are equating this with the preference of women to pull their pants down in privacy!

CueSi
09-23-2011, 12:27 PM
And you are equating this with the preference of women to pull their pants down in privacy!

I think you are. Nova made the quite salient point that it's men who made a lot of the rules and created the social structures for cloistering and segregating women, along with tests and penalties regarding virginity. Look at Islamic society, Orthodox Jewish society, and even some of the more isolated European society (i.e- The Albianian Sworn Virgin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_sworn_virgins)) and how they have segregated women.

The Director also pointed out that the "open bay" restroom is fading out of the military anyhow (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=451997&postcount=97), so . . . most of the time, a woman is pulling her pants down in privacy.

~QC

Tipsycatlover
09-23-2011, 12:45 PM
If heterosexual men made the rules, there never would have been separate women's rest rooms to begin with. Nor would there be doors on any of the stalls!

Proponents of unisex restrooms are already disregarding the privacy of women's private facilities. Which is why rape alarms are being installed in places the gender confused get to make the rules, like colleges and universities.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-05/local/me-787_1_alarms

And here I thought Nova was responding to this post! Maybe I was wrong. Separate women's rooms are just a result of male oppression.

If men are going into spaces set aside for the benefit of female privacy with the result of having to put in rape alarms NOW. Is this going to be better or worse with unisex restrooms? Unisex restrooms are for the benefit of who, exactly? If it is so we can all finally throw off the shackels of all that male oppression that put women into harems and the ladies room is now nothing more than the vestige of that harem, sorry, that's going to be a real hard sell.

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 01:44 PM
And here I thought Nova was responding to this post! Maybe I was wrong. Separate women's rooms are just a result of male oppression.

If men are going into spaces set aside for the benefit of female privacy with the result of having to put in rape alarms NOW. Is this going to be better or worse with unisex restrooms? Unisex restrooms are for the benefit of who, exactly? If it is so we can all finally throw off the shackels of all that male oppression that put women into harems and the ladies room is now nothing more than the vestige of that harem, sorry, that's going to be a real hard sell.

Once again, lest ye ignore it, have you got a case of rape which occurred in a unisex restroom? Or are they best known to happen by a male invader in a women's restroom?

Think about it. None but a tiny fraction of men are going to commit an act of sexual harassment or molestation in a restroom of any kind. So if you have a unisex bathroom, then you have more security not less. You have a higher standard of behavior because you don't have a group dynamic of the sort which allowed a young woman to be raped while a group of young men approved.

In every unisex bathroom I have used, everyone was on his or her best behavior. No sexual harassment, no molestation, and no nasty talk about women.

I sometimes suspect that there is an objection in some quarters to the gradual reduction in the number of places in which heterosexual males can demonstrate their worst behavior under protection of a false belief that this is part of being a man. A pig is a pig, and it has nothing to do with being a man.

Tipsycatlover
09-23-2011, 02:17 PM
Once again, lest ye ignore it, have you got a case of rape which occurred in a unisex restroom? Or are they best known to happen by a male invader in a women's restroom?

Think about it. None but a tiny fraction of men are going to commit an act of sexual harassment or molestation in a restroom of any kind. So if you have a unisex bathroom, then you have more security not less. You have a higher standard of behavior because you don't have a group dynamic of the sort which allowed a young woman to be raped while a group of young men approved.

In every unisex bathroom I have used, everyone was on his or her best behavior. No sexual harassment, no molestation, and no nasty talk about women.

I sometimes suspect that there is an objection in some quarters to the gradual reduction in the number of places in which heterosexual males can demonstrate their worst behavior under protection of a false belief that this is part of being a man. A pig is a pig, and it has nothing to do with being a man.

We don't have a lot of unisex bathrooms OR it is your considered opinion that men who use unisex bathrooms are just less inclined to commit rape? Everyone is just going to be on their very best behavior! All the rapists are just going to go to the women's room.

These guys just didn't get the word.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1481060/woman-allegedly-raped-at-jayzs-4040-club.jhtml

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/sydney-woman-hysterical-after-alleged-rape-20110502-1e466.html

The reality is this. A man dressed like a woman could be Sally the friendly transvestite OR Norman Bates. The best thing someone can do when using a public restroom is to have a weapon, make sure it is in their hand before they make themselves vulnerable. Be prepared to use it. If a unisex bathroom, it goes double.

Odysseus
09-23-2011, 04:53 PM
Technically, gay and straight already cohabitate, since the Army didn't have a no-Homosexual policy, but rather had DADT for 17 years. The main difference now is that the gay soldier doesn't have to conceal his/her sexual preference anymore. Statistically speaking, every soldier who has been through basic and on a deployment has already showered with a homosexual soldier.
Maybe they have, and maybe they haven't. Remember, the gay population in general is about 2.5%, and in the armed forces, it's less than that. Also, some branches and specialties are more likely to attract gays than others (Medical Service Corps seems to have had the highest percentages, while combat arms seem to have the lowest). So, the odds are pretty remote, and at no time was someone showering with an openly gay Soldier.


As I was getting out my company's barracks had been renovated so that two soldiers would share a common area but would have their own separate room. One could get changed and shower without their roommate ever seeing them naked.
And that's in garrison. What were the living conditions like on your last deployment or field exercise?


There are many colleges that have coed dorms. It is very common for a male and female to split the rent on a two bedroom apartment. American civilian society, especially among the younger generation, has broken down the barriers between unattached males and females living in close proximity to each other.
College kids do a lot of things that we don't do in the military. Two people shacking up on campus isn't likely to result in a conflict in a life or death situation, while two people in the same squad or crew in combat is.


Group showers and open bays are quickly becoming a thing of the past in the Army, and will probably have to be phased out all together. The only place I ran into them was in basic, WLC, and on deployments.
Yes, and deployments are when people are at their most stressed and vulnerable, and you've just added another stress factor.

When have I ever backed that opinion? My commander had an open discussion on this issue on the 18th. Everyone in the unit was given a chance to voice any concerns. The only one who had any issues was a Captain who used to be in the Marines. Everyone else had zero problems, and did not at all think there would be any negative impact if someone in our unit came out.
I never said that you did. I was addressing Nova. But, to answer your point, what you're saying is that the former Marine was the only one with the problem, just as the former Cavalry officer here seems to be the only one in a problem (I wasn't always a logistics puke). Does it imply anything to you that combat arms troops who have experienced the most Spartan living conditions and have the most realistic view of the stresses that occur in combat and are the least likely to favor the change?

You keep skipping around, I don't know if it's intentional or simply because this is a casual conversation. You quote stats and then go for generalities. From what I read of your report fy09, none of the incidents in which an action was taken took place in a shower or a bunk. Each appeared to have been in private housing.
How do you know where the incidents took place? The reports gave statistics, not case studies.


A straight soldier who doesn't want to shower at the same time a gay man is showering needs to get over it. Showers are segregated by sex, not sexual orientation or race. If a soldier doesn't want to shower with someone of a different race or whom he considers beneath his social station, then he is the one with the problem, not the soldier who is simply trying to bathe.
I knew that you were going to say that. Why do we have to get over it? Why do we have to accomodate you? What gives you the right to decide what sexual mores or attitudes other people are comfortable with? And, once again, race isn't sex. You are comparing two radically different things in order to blur real distinctions.


The same goes for one who is uncomfortable with a bunkmate who is different from herself, it's her problem.
So, if I ordered a straight man and woman to bunk together, or a straight man and a lesbian, and the women objected, it would be their problem?


In all of society, if you object to another person's mere presence because of your prejudices, it's your problem. The days of being able to claim privilege by virtue of your station, race, sex, ancestry, religion, or orientation appear to be over. The military is just a little late in catching up in this regard. Fortunately, this has been corrected as a matter of policy and if the military of other nations are any measure, then it really won't be the end of the world. Feel better now?
It's not a prejudice to want to have zones of privacy in which sexual conduct is prohibited, and the potential for sexual conduct does not exist. In a single-sex latrine, the presence of someone of the opposite sex is automatically wrong. A male in a women's shower or bathroom is in the wrong, and if any misconduct occurs, we know who is at fault. The single sex latrine is a safe zone. But, when you introduce two more genders, for lack of a better term, who will be sexually attracted to others of their own sex, the single sex latrine is no longer a safe zone, and any allegation of sexual misconduct becomes far more difficult to prove. It increases the chances for that misconduct, and decreases the comfort level of everyone.

Eventually we may be sophisticated enough as a society that heterosexual men and women can use unisex facilities. They already do in some places where heterosexual men don't make the rules.
And where might that be? Where to heterosexual men and women use unisex facilities, and what are the incidences of sexual misconduct in those facilities? I can't wait to read this... :popcorn:

Tipsycatlover
09-23-2011, 05:24 PM
Somebody has watched too many Ally McBeal reruns.

Novaheart
09-23-2011, 07:57 PM
..........

The policy has changed. Feel free to continue venting.

Odysseus
09-23-2011, 09:56 PM
The policy has changed. Feel free to continue venting.

The policy will fail. When it does, I get to pick up the pieces while you go on to your next cause. If that isn't a reason to vent, then what is?

Rockntractor
09-23-2011, 10:01 PM
The policy will fail. When it does, I get to pick up the pieces while you go on to your next cause. If that isn't a reason to vent, then what is?

He has only one cause, gay. It is what he lives for and is his complete identity, there is nothing else.

Odysseus
09-23-2011, 10:52 PM
He has only one cause, gay. It is what he lives for and his complete identity, there is nothing else.

I know. But unfortunately, the troops, gay and straight, who will have to live with the consequences of his ignorance, won't be able to confront him.

I find it funny that almost everyone here talks about how much things have changed in the force, without understanding that they don't have any context to compare the changes. I joined in 1986, and I've been around as an enlisted troop and an officer long enough to know the dynamics of the military, and to see how the changes have come down. Guys who've done one or two tours don't understand how much has changed, and how many of those changes have been for the worse. They think that Prevention of Sexual Harassment and Prevention of Sexual Assault briefings are just part of day to day life, and can't imagine what it was like before they began treating us as a socials studies lab. I remember when the worst discipline problem that I had to deal with was the occasional AWOL or drug issue. Today, the big career-ender is sex, and the more problems we have, the harder we try to crack down. People who deride abstinence training in schools seem to think that it works in barracks. People who laughed at "Just say no" campaigns now propose similar programs with a straight face. The contradictions in their positions don't faze them, and they don't have to live with the fallout of their crusades. They get a warm fuzzy feeling for having broken down barriers or otherwise transgressed against authority, but the people who will pay the price for this are the leaders who will be forced out for not being PC enough for the new regime, and the junior troops who will sign up for something that no longer exists.

lacarnut
09-23-2011, 11:19 PM
He has only one cause, gay. .

Along with being sick physically and mentally. He wants single payer health care to cover his diseases/conditions. Going to be a big surprise for him under Obamacare when he gets kicked out of the hospital and told to go home and die. Here is your pill queer boy.

Bailey
09-24-2011, 05:20 AM
The policy has changed. Feel free to continue venting.

What this means in nova talk: i've gotten my ass handed to me by the col and now I'm slinking my diseased ass away.

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 09:35 AM
I know. But unfortunately, the troops, gay and straight, who will have to live with the consequences of his ignorance, won't be able to confront him.

I find it funny that almost everyone here talks about how much things have changed in the force, without understanding that they don't have any context to compare the changes. I joined in 1986, and I've been around as an enlisted troop and an officer long enough to know the dynamics of the military, and to see how the changes have come down. Guys who've done one or two tours don't understand how much has changed, and how many of those changes have been for the worse. They think that Prevention of Sexual Harassment and Prevention of Sexual Assault briefings are just part of day to day life, and can't imagine what it was like before they began treating us as a socials studies lab. I remember when the worst discipline problem that I had to deal with was the occasional AWOL or drug issue. Today, the big career-ender is sex, and the more problems we have, the harder we try to crack down. People who deride abstinence training in schools seem to think that it works in barracks. People who laughed at "Just say no" campaigns now propose similar programs with a straight face. The contradictions in their positions don't faze them, and they don't have to live with the fallout of their crusades. They get a warm fuzzy feeling for having broken down barriers or otherwise transgressed against authority, but the people who will pay the price for this are the leaders who will be forced out for not being PC enough for the new regime, and the junior troops who will sign up for something that no longer exists.

What the social engineers think is that eventually it will just be accepted and no one will even realize it was ever any different. It will be different, the effectiveness of the military will be over. It will be like the police departments or the university campuses. To the new arrivals, they won't know that it was ever any different. They always ran the risk of ending their career or being expelled for some manufactured reason when they pissed the wrong person off.

How big a risk does a straight service member run by avoiding unwanted contact with a gay or lesbian? When they report objectionable flirting will it be the straight accused of "homophobia"? What are the procedures for unfounded retaliatory reports of harassment made by a rejected homosexual? Are there ANY, or is this just a super protected class whose permission to act out unfettered?

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 10:20 AM
What the social engineers think is that eventually it will just be accepted and no one will even realize it was ever any different. It will be different, the effectiveness of the military will be over.

I think that one of the undercurrents here is that racial integration of the military didn't actually work out.

March 28, 1949: The three service secretaries testify before the Fahy Committee. Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington and Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan both testify that they are opposed to segregation and are pursuing policies to integrate their services. Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall argues in favor of maintaining segregation, saying that the Army "was not an instrument for social evolution."

Here you will find a chronology of how some people, some people with high rank and loads of experience, were dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century along with America itself:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 10:29 AM
What this means in nova talk: i've gotten my ass handed to me by the col and now I'm slinking my diseased ass away.

With each additional post you prove your moral and intellectual superiority.

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 11:23 AM
I think that one of the undercurrents here is that racial integration of the military didn't actually work out.

March 28, 1949: The three service secretaries testify before the Fahy Committee. Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington and Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan both testify that they are opposed to segregation and are pursuing policies to integrate their services. Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall argues in favor of maintaining segregation, saying that the Army "was not an instrument for social evolution."

Here you will find a chronology of how some people, some people with high rank and loads of experience, were dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century along with America itself:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

Race has nothing to do with homosexuality no matter HOW homosexuals would wish it were so. Skin color is not a behavior. The purpose of DADT was to exclude behavior as a protected class. Keep your sexuality to yourself. Not an unreasonable request for anyone. Now gays have the right to act out and use their protected status as a weapon to attack anyone they don't like basically without a concern that anything will happen to them even if they outright lie. It is certainly special privileges.

Major Margarett Witt was discharged from the Air Force. She seduced the wife of a fellow officer into an adulterous affair. She sued. Her case was one of the incidents used to overturn DADT. IF Witt had been a male and did the same thing, no one would have questioned the correctness of discharging HIM. IF Witt had been a BLACK male, no one would have questioned the correctness of discharging HIM. Only Witt's behavior as a lesbian put her above the conduct required of other Air Force officers, black or white. She was reinstated with full benefits where a man in a similar circumstance would still be walking with the same papers.

Odysseus
09-24-2011, 11:53 AM
What this means in nova talk: i've gotten my ass handed to me by the col and now I'm slinking my diseased ass away.

No, he's saying that it doesn't matter what I say, because his side has won, and they have. Logic, facts, history and all of the other factors that should have weighed into this decision have proven irrelevant against the activists's money, media control, and access to the levers of power in the Democratic Party. This was never a debate, it was a political power demonstration by people who don't listen to or respect any opinions but their own, no matter how little they know about the subject. Obama won this fight, and now that the new policy is in place, we will be forced to live with it no matter how badly it works out. Every failure will be touted by the activists, not as a failure of the policy, but of the attitudes of everyone but those at fault. The troopie who doesn't want to be ogled in the shower will, as Nova said, have to "get over it", but the troopie who can now flaunt his lifestyle will never, ever be told that by anyone who values his career. It's just another layer of PC BS between us and reality, another straw on the camel's back, and sooner or later, it will break. When that happens, Nova and his ilk will blame everyone but themselves for having eroded the force.

Bailey
09-24-2011, 11:55 AM
With each additional post you prove your moral and intellectual superiority.

Why thank you!!! I'd know you'd come around sooner or later.

Zathras
09-24-2011, 12:08 PM
With each additional post you prove your moral and intellectual superiority.

And with each post you prove you want special treatment for sexual behavior that is a choice.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 12:10 PM
Race has nothing to do with homosexuality no matter HOW homosexuals would wish it were so.

So even though your words, motivations, and intentions mimic that of the people and events of racial integration, then there is no comparison to be made? Try again.

Tens of thousands of American military persons have siblings who are gay. Relatively few have siblings of a different race, and even fewer had siblings of a different race in the 1950's. And you're gong to tell me that there is more animosity towards gay people by heterosexuals as a group than there was towards blacks by whites as a group?

Funny how that particular argument waffles back and forth. Homophobic folks who portend to speak for the black community tell us "Don't compare your sin with my skin." Less poetic ones like to deliver a laundry list of injustices done to blacks during Jim Crow in comparison to the fact that homosexuals could avoid same if they simply managed to fly under the radar, an impossibility for a negroid person.

So on the one hand, we're told that what was done to blacks was so much worse than what was done to gay people (another thread entirely) and on the other hand we're told that integration of gay people is a greater social upheaval than integration of negroes.

Keep talking, you make it easier and easier.

Bailey
09-24-2011, 12:11 PM
And with each post you prove you want special treatment for sexual behavior that is a choice.

What gets me is that people like nova want to make it a crime to speak out against his chosen lifestyle. Like Ann Coulter says gay men are straight men who won't embrace monogamy.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 12:19 PM
What gets me is that people like nova want to make it a crime to speak out against his chosen lifestyle. Like Ann Coulter says gay men are straight men who won't embrace monogamy.

Betty Friedan caught the butterfly in a better cage:

"Gay white men aren't interested in liberation, they simply want the privilege to which they are otherwise entitled."

Bailey
09-24-2011, 12:24 PM
Betty Friedan caught the butterfly in a better cage:

"Gay white men aren't interested in liberation, they simply want the privilege to which they are otherwise entitled."

My bad nova I forgot one part, embrace it so they could marry and have kids.

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 12:33 PM
So even though your words, motivations, and intentions mimic that of the people and events of racial integration, then there is no comparison to be made? Try again.

Tens of thousands of American military persons have siblings who are gay. Relatively few have siblings of a different race, and even fewer had siblings of a different race in the 1950's. And you're gong to tell me that there is more animosity towards gay people by heterosexuals as a group than there was towards blacks by whites as a group?

Funny how that particular argument waffles back and forth. Homophobic folks who portend to speak for the black community tell us "Don't compare your sin with my skin." Less poetic ones like to deliver a laundry list of injustices done to blacks during Jim Crow in comparison to the fact that homosexuals could avoid same if they simply managed to fly under the radar, an impossibility for a negroid person.

So on the one hand, we're told that what was done to blacks was so much worse than what was done to gay people (another thread entirely) and on the other hand we're told that integration of gay people is a greater social upheaval than integration of negroes.

Keep talking, you make it easier and easier.

Race has nothing to do with behavior. Gays don't want the right or ability to "be" the way blacks deserved the right to "be". Gays want the right to act out. They don't want their presence accepted, but their behavior accepted. Their presence has always been accepted.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 12:33 PM
What gets me is that people like nova want to make it a crime to speak out against his chosen lifestyle.

This is not true and you can't support this claim by anything which I have written. I am staunchly against hate-speech laws.

A crime is a violation of a law. Speech is protected by the First Amendment. That means that the government in its police powers cannot take harmful or preventative action against you for your speech (other than established exceptions like plausible threat) or your identity as a member of a political or religious group. The First Amendment is generally applied to your home, your distribution of your views on your own time and your own dime, and in the public square. You do not enjoy freedom of speech in many places and circumstance which are government reserves, ie places of employment, schools, military bases, and special purpose facilities. These places have RULES, and conduct is governed by those rules with the usual recourse being your removal and denial of future access should you habitually violate those rules. These exceptions have been repeatedly tested in the courts. Do you believe in the Constitution or don't you?

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 12:39 PM
It works out quite well, IF it is you who are making the rules. Which is why gays didn't like the rules that were in place. THOSE rules should be violated without fear of punishment as merely an exercise of rights. The new rules should be observed by everyone.

Do you believe in the Constitution or not?

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 12:39 PM
Race has nothing to do with behavior.

I made it quite clear that race ≠ sexual orientation, that it is the prejudice and resistance to elimination of that prejudice in the law or policy which is the same. And the way you expressed it of course.

Did you go to the link I gave you? Would you say that the end of DADT is going more smoothly or less smoothly than racial desegregation appears to have?

As fro your exact statement I quoted, it is also wrong in the context of desegregation of the military. The stereotypes of negro behavior, intelligence, mentality, disposition, and morality were very much the issues of desegregation. It's a modern fantasy that racism is simply "about the color of my skin". Negroes were considered less moral, sexually indiscriminate, sexually aggressive, possessing a greater propensity for criminality, obsessed with white females, categorically less intelligent, and incapable of leadership.

But the dominant objection then as now was not the unfitness of the minority to serve honorably and effectively, it was the unwillingness of the majority to be subjected to the forced association with their alleged inferiors.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 12:44 PM
Do you believe in the Constitution or not?

Where in the Constitution does it say, "Except for gay people?"

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 01:01 PM
Where in the Constitution does it say, "Except for gay people?"

Where does it say only for gay people?

Did you read the link I gave you for the destruction already going on in the Navy? There is no doubt whatsoever that the military will transition to being gay friendly. Is this BENEFICIAL to the military as a fighting force? Has the normalization of gay behavior been of benefit anywhere? Do you really want a military with the effectiveness of Sweden's?

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 01:12 PM
It's not like we don't have experience with accommodating gay behavior. Police departments have been very successful in doing so. As they did, they became less effective police agencies. So we pretty much know what we're in for.

Odysseus
09-24-2011, 03:43 PM
Where does it say only for gay people?

Did you read the link I gave you for the destruction already going on in the Navy? There is no doubt whatsoever that the military will transition to being gay friendly. Is this BENEFICIAL to the military as a fighting force? Has the normalization of gay behavior been of benefit anywhere? Do you really want a military with the effectiveness of Sweden's?

He doesn't care about the effectiveness of the force. It's not on his radar. This is about the imposition of gays on every aspect of life in America, regardless of the damage done. Nothing else matters to Nova.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 03:46 PM
It's not like we don't have experience with accommodating gay behavior. Police departments have been very successful in doing so. As they did, they became less effective police agencies. So we pretty much know what we're in for.

Who is "we"?

I'm not interested in your approval or your alleged tolerance. I don't give a rat's ass what you personally think as a private citizen or civil servant on this subject. If you getting a paycheck which makes you subject to the laws and rules governing how you treat gay people or gay coworkers then you will obey those rules or be subject to discipline. It's really that simple.

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 04:04 PM
He doesn't care about the effectiveness of the force. It's not on his radar. This is about the imposition of gays on every aspect of life in America, regardless of the damage done. Nothing else matters to Nova.

I know. It really is pathetic. The entire nation must be sacrificed so that a very small percentage can feel better about themselves. And it will be. Historically, civilizsations that become degenerate don't last very long. Their ends are violent and very bloody. Confronted by a much stronger enemy, they can't fight back. By the time our end comes, we won't have a military able to defend the nation, and perhaps not many even WILLING to do so! That's what I find the most distressing. The very individuals most necessary will be unwilling finding little to nothing worth preserving. Just like it is with other nations today that have become degenerate. Not even the citizens have much of an interest in its continued survival. Just like the way the degraded police and fire departments are today. Sad sad.

Nova, I have not been subject to anyone's demands for over 40 years. I obey no rules but my own. It really is that simple.

Chuck58
09-24-2011, 04:30 PM
I may have missed mention of it in some post.

All through this thread, I see Nova mentioning homosexuals and lesbians having 'the right,' to act out or something. It's their 'right' to this, and their 'right' to that.

Unless things have changed very dramatically since the latter 1960's, the military is NOT a democracy. It can't function as a democracy. It's governed by a different set of laws, because it has to be that way. Certain freedoms are temporarily suspended when you enlist. You wear your hair a certain way, dress a certain way, and ACT a certain way for starters.

The Army, and any branch of the service, isn't about 'feeling good about yourself.' It isn't about a person's right, it's about unit cohesion, each person surrendering their individuality for the good of the team.

Patton said it, "An Army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps and fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap." His words are as true today as almost 70 yrs ago. What he's saying is that if any part of that team is disrupted, it loses the ability to function, and fight.

Odysseus
09-24-2011, 04:51 PM
Who is "we"?

I'm not interested in your approval or your alleged tolerance. I don't give a rat's ass what you personally think as a private citizen or civil servant on this subject. If you getting a paycheck which makes you subject to the laws and rules governing how you treat gay people or gay coworkers then you will obey those rules or be subject to discipline. It's really that simple.
Unless, of course, you don't like the rules. Then, you spend two decades uttering shrill, hysterical denunciations of the rules and those who argue for keeping them until can get a temporary majority in the congress to change them for you. Then, when the rules have been altered to your liking, you demand slavish obedience and denounce anyone who doesn't fall in line as being unfit to serve, despite the fact that we've been serving for decades while the few, the out and the proud were making a spectacle of themselves.

I may have missed mention of it in some post.

All through this thread, I see Nova mentioning homosexuals and lesbians having 'the right,' to act out or something. It's their 'right' to this, and their 'right' to that.

Unless things have changed very dramatically since the latter 1960's, the military is NOT a democracy. It can't function as a democracy. It's governed by a different set of laws, because it has to be that way. Certain freedoms are temporarily suspended when you enlist. You wear your hair a certain way, dress a certain way, and ACT a certain way for starters.

The Army, and any branch of the service, isn't about 'feeling good about yourself.' It isn't about a person's right, it's about unit cohesion, each person surrendering their individuality for the good of the team.

Patton said it, "An Army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps and fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap." His words are as true today as almost 70 yrs ago. What he's saying is that if any part of that team is disrupted, it loses the ability to function, and fight.

Can you imagine Patton's reaction to this? Or any of the other great generals of American history? For that matter, can you imagine how long any of them would last under the current regime? GEN McChrystol got fired because his staffers were anonymously quoted by a scurrilous music rag. Can you imagine Patton sitting in front of congress and testifying as to his opinion on this and the reactions on the Democratic side of the aisle? People who put their sexual orientation over the defense of the nation have no business being in the military.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 05:05 PM
until can get a temporary majority in the congress to change them for you.

A majority in Congress appears to be temporary as a matter of course in American politics. Those opposed to ending discrimination against gay people in the military complained that it would be done by an order of a temporary president, complained that the temporary judges would find the discrimination unconstitutional, disallowed that the the judges for life would find it unconstitutional, and demanded that only the temporary Congress should be the ones to end it. Well the temporary Congress did end it, the temporary President signed it, and the temporary top military officers which matter have ordered that it be implemented. Are we now to put it to a vote of the temporary subordinates of those admirals and generals?

Sounds like you would prefer something more permanent than a republic.

Bailey
09-24-2011, 05:12 PM
Who is "we"?

I'm not interested in your approval or your alleged tolerance. I don't give a rat's ass what you personally think as a private citizen or civil servant on this subject. If you getting a paycheck which makes you subject to the laws and rules governing how you treat gay people or gay coworkers then you will obey those rules or be subject to discipline. It's really that simple.

I hope many a fag will be taken care of the old fashioned way in the service if they can't control their degenerate behavior.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 05:14 PM
Can you imagine Patton's reaction to this?

Now you're channelling Patton?

Bailey
09-24-2011, 05:17 PM
Unless, of course, you don't like the rules. Then, you spend two decades uttering shrill, hysterical denunciations of the rules and those who argue for keeping them until can get a temporary majority in the congress to change them for you. Then, when the rules have been altered to your liking, you demand slavish obedience and denounce anyone who doesn't fall in line as being unfit to serve, despite the fact that we've been serving for decades while the few, the out and the proud were making a spectacle of themselves.


Can you imagine Patton's reaction to this? Or any of the other great generals of American history? For that matter, can you imagine how long any of them would last under the current regime? GEN McChrystol got fired because his staffers were anonymously quoted by a scurrilous music rag. Can you imagine Patton sitting in front of congress and testifying as to his opinion on this and the reactions on the Democratic side of the aisle? People who put their sexual orientation over the defense of the nation have no business being in the military.

Patton is spinning in his grave after what happened to this military but like I said the dirty homos will be taken care of by loyal solders.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 05:23 PM
I hope many a fag will be taken care of the old fashioned way in the service if they can't control their degenerate behavior.

Just quoting for the record here.

By the way, what old fashioned felonies or capital crimes should be committed against the degenerates who patronize the whorehouses and titty bars while enlisted or commissioned? How about the ones doing it on government credit cards? Blame that on the gay guys.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 05:26 PM
Patton is spinning in his grave after what happened to this military but like I said the dirty homos will be taken care of by loyal solders.

You remind me of this ridiculous woman I heard walking through Walmart. She was some sort of merchandiser or regional who might have been 22 when Sam Walton was still alive. "I wish Sam could see this." Really, because you knew him and he was such a dear friend that you wanted to share the rearrangement of the aisles and the addition of milk and bread to the inventory?

What the fuck do you know about Patton? He could have been gay for all you know.

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 05:27 PM
As Nova says, he doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks.

Of course, such an attiude does not make a unit, or a team. Therein lies the problem. There will be no unity or team. Just like in the private sector where people make themselves obnoxious or objectionable enough, they get marginalized. The operation goes on around them. Those who deal with them do so exactly as required, no more, no less.

The functioning (as you pointed out) is stymied. When someone puts their sexual behavior above the team, the lives of their fellows, the success of the mission, then others just stop caring about them. When a team member is suspected of making anonymous reports of real or imagined wrongdoing, or unwanted advances, or merely can't hang out with the buddies because the gay bar calls, there is no team, there is no successful mission. Each person starts putting themselves FIRST. It doesn't start and stop with gays. Gays just have the idea that the world should rightly revolve around them and what they want. Forgetting that everyone else is going to end up feeling exactly the same way.

Is any acknowledgement of the superiority of sexual orientation complete without Bradley Manning whose sexual orientation was so vital, so deserving of the total loyalty of the nation that he ranks with one of the most serious traitors the country has experienced. Why did he expose the nation's secrets? His boyfriend dumped him and no one was quite sympathetic enough. Gay issues weren't dealt with seriously enough. The same as our friend Nova.

Yes, I believe Nova. I believe that his view is the view of the majority of homosexuals today. They don't give a rat's ass about anything but themselves. Which is why I also believe that this country doesn't have a prayer in any future conflict. Odysseus, you might be one of the last of your kind. The United States once had the most magificent military the world has ever seen. That was over the minute sexual orientation became more important than national defense and more important than the lives of every other military member. Instead of battle strategy, officers can discuss how to avoid the next frivolous complaint.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 06:02 PM
As Nova says, he doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks. .

Don't misquote me. I said that I don't give a rat's ass what YOU think.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 06:05 PM
The United States once had the most magificent military the world has ever seen. That was over the minute sexual orientation became more important than national defense and more important than the lives of every other military member.

So you are saying that the American military is inferior? Inferior to whom? And this all took place three days ago?

hai
09-24-2011, 06:33 PM
Is it me or do those against gays seem to act like judgemental jerkasses?

Odysseus
09-24-2011, 07:06 PM
So you are saying that the American military is inferior? Inferior to whom? And this all took place three days ago?
No, it's not inferior yet, but it's beginning to show signs of decline. Our leadership is more concerned with PC shibboleths like "diversity" than they are about force protection, we're in the tenth year of the post-9/11 wars with no end in sight, our budget and end strength are about to be slashed, and the only thing that one of our major political parties cares about in terms of defense is whether the the next Bradley Manning can sign up without his love life acting as a bar to enlistment.

Is it me or do those against gays seem to act like judgemental jerkasses?

No, it's you.

But, since you've identified yourself as gay, and seem just as happy about the lifting of the ban as Nova, can I assume that you'll be speaking to a recruiter any time soon? Shall I clear my schedule to administer the enlistment oath, or are you just another poseur?

hai
09-24-2011, 07:09 PM
No, it's not inferior yet, but it's beginning to show signs of decline. Our leadership is more concerned with PC shibboleths like "diversity" than they are about force protection, we're in the tenth year of the post-9/11 wars with no end in sight, our budget and end strength are about to be slashed, and the only thing that one of our major political parties cares about in terms of defense is whether the the next Bradley Manning can sign up without his love life acting as a bar to enlistment.


No, it's you.

But, since you've identified yourself as gay, and seem just as happy about the lifting of the ban as Nova, can I assume that you'll be speaking to a recruiter any time soon? Shall I clear my schedule to administer the enlistment oath, or are you just another poseur?

I'm gay,i had a blowjob once.

djones520
09-24-2011, 07:10 PM
I'm gay,i had a blowjob once.

wtf.com....

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 07:16 PM
So you are saying that the American military is inferior? Inferior to whom? And this all took place three days ago?

It's certainly on its way to being inferior. It might take a couple of years, it will be as ineffective as the Los Angeles Police Department.

I believe you do not have a grasp of the circumstances. Gays have always been in the military. Lesbians have always been in the military. That's NOT the issue. It's the newly bestowed right to act out and use their protected status against other military members and officers at whim.

hai
09-24-2011, 07:17 PM
wtf.com....

herpderp.com

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 07:22 PM
No, it's not inferior yet, but it's beginning to show signs of decline. Our leadership is more concerned with PC shibboleths like "diversity" than they are about force protection, we're in the tenth year of the post-9/11 wars with no end in sight, our budget and end strength are about to be slashed, and the only thing that one of our major political parties cares about in terms of defense is whether the the next Bradley Manning can sign up without his love life acting as a bar to enlistment.

Wow! We did all that and you say that we are a tiny percentage of the military. We must be pretty powerful. Imagine if you could control our power and focus it on evil in the world. We could be the Jedi. Actually, we are the Jedi. You guys are so obsessed with the body parts, you failed to notice that we are an ancient Vedic society running behind the scenes since the dawn of civilization, pulling strings and quietly forging the destiny of all civilization. Why do you think that the monks of the major religions of the world all eschew female companionship? Why do you think that the armies of antiquity were all male, Odysseus?

Wake up and smell the coffee! Soon Queen Elizabeth will retire the monarchy and the consolidation will begin. I'll be sure and send you the memo.

Novaheart
09-24-2011, 07:29 PM
It's certainly on its way to being inferior. It might take a couple of years, it will be as ineffective as the Los Angeles Police Department.

I believe you do not have a grasp of the circumstances. Gays have always been in the military. Lesbians have always been in the military. That's NOT the issue. It's the newly bestowed right to act out and use their protected status against other military members and officers at whim.

The only newly bestowed right of gay Americans is one they should have had all along, the same right as heterosexual Americans to be open and honest. Why that terrifies you is beyond me, but your predictions are not logical or supported.

The relative condition of the city of Los Angeles and its departments and functions, is a huge topic for another thread. If you believe that the American military is about to be overrun by illegal aliens, Mexicans and Blacks waging war on each other, and a corrupt hierarchy infiltrated by Zapatistas and ethnic separatists then I can't see any reasonable comparison, and if I could I cant imagine how you would lay the ills of Los Angeles at our feet. West Hollywood is an island of peace, prosperity, and good government compared to Los Angeles.

Odysseus
09-24-2011, 07:40 PM
Wow! We did all that and you say that we are a tiny percentage of the military. We must be pretty powerful. Imagine if you could control our power and focus it on evil in the world. We could be the Jedi. Actually, we are the Jedi. You guys are so obsessed with the body parts, you failed to notice that we are an ancient Vedic society running behind the scenes since the dawn of civilization, pulling strings and quietly forging the destiny of all civilization. Why do you think that the monks of the major religions of the world all eschew female companionship? Why do you think that the armies of antiquity were all male, Odysseus?

Wake up and smell the coffee! Soon Queen Elizabeth will retire the monarchy and the consolidation will begin. I'll be sure and send you the memo.

Nova, you're not funny, and you aren't clever. Gays didn't cause the problems that we're facing, you're just another problem, another straw on the back of the camel. The point is that we have enough on our plate without having to babysit the road company if Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Yeah, I know that I'm stereotyping, but if you can't take that kind of mild barb, imagine what your pals are going to get in boot camp. Drill sergeants aren't exactly known for their sensitivity and PC niceties.

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 07:41 PM
The only newly bestowed right of gay Americans is one they should have had all along, the same right as heterosexual Americans to be open and honest. Why that terrifies you is beyond me, but your predictions are not logical or supported.

The relative condition of the city of Los Angeles and its departments and functions, is a huge topic for another thread. If you believe that the American military is about to be overrun by illegal aliens, Mexicans and Blacks waging war on each other, and a corrupt hierarchy infiltrated by Zapatistas and ethnic separatists then I can't see any reasonable comparison, and if I could I cant imagine how you would lay the ills of Los Angeles at our feet. West Hollywood is an island of peace, prosperity, and good government compared to Los Angeles.

Whatever the problems are, it is clear that the sensitivity and compassion of the newly wussified police department is NOT up to the tasks. Is that what you find acceptable for the American military. Instead of Zetas they can have Al Quaeda, instead of Zapatistas they can have the Taliban AND be equally unable to fight due to the newly designed culture of accommodating sexual fantasies.

So yes, IF you could persuade the muslims to voluntarily debase themselves to recognize your sexual proclivities that way you badgered the American military, you probably WOULD be the Genital Jedi. But, since you can't stop them from hanging gays from cranes you are outta luck.

Tipsycatlover
09-24-2011, 07:53 PM
Nova, you're not funny, and you aren't clever. Gays didn't cause the problems that we're facing, you're just another problem, another straw on the back of the camel. The point is that we have enough on our plate without having to babysit the road company if Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Yeah, I know that I'm stereotyping, but if you can't take that kind of mild barb, imagine what your pals are going to get in boot camp. Drill sergeants aren't exactly known for their sensitivity and PC niceties.

Ummmm. I have to agree with you, those drill sergeants aren't exactly known for their sensitivty and PC niceities. NOW. TODAY. In five years, those drill sergeants are going to be looking at the pensions like everyone else and sitting there handing out hankies to the next Bradley Manning with a broken heart. Or, they will be replaced by a drill sergeant that WILL. Competence will cease to be required. Leadership will be ignored. The single most important characteristic will be how accommodating to gay sensitivities the officer is and now effective at making the men and women under the command accommodating. Nothing else will matter. Truly, we're there right now. Special Forces will go the way of the SWAT teams.

Sad to say. I really hate what's happening, because I've seen it before. That's what terrifies me. I've seen it all before. Over and over again. It always goes the same way.

marv
09-24-2011, 07:53 PM
Tired of all this. I just couldn't resist..............

Our Air Force open bay barracks in '58; everybody straight here.....


http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/USAF1.jpg

C'mon in Nova, but, uhhh, I don't think you'd be safe hai! The guitar probably isn't the only thingy you play.............:D

hai
09-24-2011, 08:21 PM
Tired of all this. I just couldn't resist..............

Our Air Force open bay barracks in '58; everybody straight here.....


http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/USAF1.jpg

C'mon in Nova, but, uhhh, I don't think you'd be safe hai! The guitar probably isn't the only thingy you play.............:D

No it isn't.

BTW,i think one of the power tubes{5881) on my amp has a issue,they don't seem to light up in standby mode.

Rockntractor
09-24-2011, 08:27 PM
No it isn't.

BTW,i think one of the power tubes on my amp has a issue,they don't seem to light up in standby mode,plus i think i saw frost on them.

You will have to run that past Badcat.

newshutr
09-24-2011, 08:32 PM
C'mon in Nova, but, uhhh, I don't think you'd be safe hai! The guitar probably isn't the only thingy you play.............:D



You suggesting he plays the.....flute?

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2010/04/08/it-means-what-oh-my-god-i-am-so-sorry

hai
09-24-2011, 08:49 PM
You suggesting he plays the.....flute?

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2010/04/08/it-means-what-oh-my-god-i-am-so-sorry

I see what you did there.

Odysseus
09-24-2011, 09:27 PM
I'm gay,i had a blowjob once.
Another poseur. What a shock.

Ummmm. I have to agree with you, those drill sergeants aren't exactly known for their sensitivty and PC niceities. NOW. TODAY. In five years, those drill sergeants are going to be looking at the pensions like everyone else and sitting there handing out hankies to the next Bradley Manning with a broken heart. Or, they will be replaced by a drill sergeant that WILL. Competence will cease to be required. Leadership will be ignored. The single most important characteristic will be how accommodating to gay sensitivities the officer is and now effective at making the men and women under the command accommodating. Nothing else will matter. Truly, we're there right now. Special Forces will go the way of the SWAT teams.

Sad to say. I really hate what's happening, because I've seen it before. That's what terrifies me. I've seen it all before. Over and over again. It always goes the same way.

Yep. After this, I'm sure that the transgendered will demand the same rights that the gays have, followed by the handicapped. Eventually, Special Forces may be "special" in the same way that the Special Olympics are special. We can go to war in short yellow armored vehicles. Who knows, maybe our next major adversary will take one look at the future force and laugh itself to death.

hai
09-24-2011, 09:58 PM
Another poseur. What a shock.


Yep. After this, I'm sure that the transgendered will demand the same rights that the gays have, followed by the handicapped. Eventually, Special Forces may be "special" in the same way that the Special Olympics are special. We can go to war in short yellow armored vehicles. Who knows, maybe our next major adversary will take one look at the future force and laugh itself to death.

Poseur?

Zathras
09-24-2011, 09:59 PM
Poseur?

yeah DUmbass, a fake.

hai
09-24-2011, 10:05 PM
yeah DUmbass, a fake.

dude,i had a blow job and gay.

Rockntractor
09-24-2011, 10:09 PM
dude,i had a blow job and gay.

So what?:confused:

Zathras
09-24-2011, 10:10 PM
dude,i had a blow job and gay.

TMI dude TMI. Nobody here wants to know about that.

hai
09-24-2011, 10:11 PM
TMI dude TMI. Nobody here wants to know about that.

K

I used to be on the Soulforce forums,but the forums are closing down.

Odysseus
09-24-2011, 11:06 PM
Poseur?

Yeah, someone who talks big, but does nothing. In your case, a gay man who celebrates that the armed forces have to let him join, but won't bother joining. Your concern about DADT is a pose.

hai
09-24-2011, 11:20 PM
Yeah, someone who talks big, but does nothing. In your case, a gay man who celebrates that the armed forces have to let him join, but won't bother joining. Your concern about DADT is a pose.

http://humour.200ok.com.au/img/pancake_bunny.jpg

Zathras
09-24-2011, 11:27 PM
http://humour.200ok.com.au/img/pancake_bunny.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/HeroesAtWork/demotivational-poster-lion-facepaw.jpg

hai
09-24-2011, 11:39 PM
BTW,anyone saw that thing where the soldier was booed?

I didn't like that at all,because he fought for his country,the least people could do is show respect for our servicemen.

Zathras
09-24-2011, 11:58 PM
BTW,anyone saw that thing where the soldier was booed?

I didn't like that at all,because he fought and died for his country,the least people could do is show respect for our servicemen.

Ummm, for someone who's dead, Steven Hill seems to be very alive.

You might want to do a little research before putting your foot in your pie hole and post some of the most ignorant shit I've ever seen.

hai
09-25-2011, 12:16 AM
Ummm, for someone who's dead, Steven Hill seems to be very alive.

You might want to do a little research before putting your foot in your pie hole and post some of the most ignorant shit I've ever seen.

It's just a expression.

I should have said,you don't treat service members like that.

Zathras
09-25-2011, 12:28 AM
It's just a expression.

I should have said,you don't treat service members like that.

Just an expression eh? Bzzzzzzt....wrong answer, thanks for playing.

You fucked up, simple as that.

As for the booing? You're correct, it shouldn't have happened but it did.

hai
09-25-2011, 12:33 AM
Just an expression eh? Bzzzzzzt....wrong answer, thanks for playing.

You fucked up, simple as that.

As for the booing? You're correct, it shouldn't have happened but it did.

yeah,sorry for that.

It's a hot topic on Youtube right now.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 12:50 AM
Yeah, I know that I'm stereotyping, but if you can't take that kind of mild barb, imagine what your pals are going to get in boot camp. Drill sergeants aren't exactly known for their sensitivity and PC niceties.

As long as it's the same as everyone else then there shouldn't be a problem.

I've long suspected that a major point of resistance was the inability to imagine life without being able to call other men faggot, pansy, or other terms which also tend to be sexist in nature. But you have assured me that we can expect nothing but professionalism from supervisory personnel. I also sincerely doubt that a sergeant of any occupation is going to be shouting anti-gay epithets within the possible earshot of gay superiors.

lacarnut
09-25-2011, 02:56 AM
As long as it's the same as everyone else then there shouldn't be a problem.

I've long suspected that a major point of resistance was the inability to imagine life without being able to call other men faggot, pansy, or other terms which also tend to be sexist in nature. But you have assured me that we can expect nothing but professionalism from supervisory personnel. I also sincerely doubt that a sergeant of any occupation is going to be shouting anti-gay epithets within the possible earshot of gay superiors.

Wrong Bozo. In gay parades, these perverted misfits use those words, FAGS, Queer World, Punks, etc. You are a lying sack of shit if you say otherwise.

You do not understand how the military works and never will. Everyone thinks you are an idiot when you compare your fantasies of military life with Ody's. You really can not be that dumb.

Zathras
09-25-2011, 03:42 AM
Wrong Bozo. In gay parades, these perverted misfits use those words, FAGS, Queer World, Punks, etc. You are a lying sack of shit if you say otherwise.

You do not understand how the military works and never will. Everyone thinks you are an idiot when you compare your fantasies of military life with Ody's. You really can not be that dumb.

Yes he can LA, yes he can, along with every other person who uses the military for PC experimentation the Gay lobby is insisting on.

newshutr
09-25-2011, 06:59 AM
Ummm, for someone who's dead, Steven Hill seems to be very alive.



Wait...he seems alive...but dead..????

HOLY SHIT!! We've got GAY SOLDIER ZOMBIES...!! AND THEY HAVE GUNS!!!


To distract and disarm....play some of Barbara Streisand's or Judy Garland's music..

Tipsycatlover
09-25-2011, 09:23 AM
Another poseur. What a shock.


Yep. After this, I'm sure that the transgendered will demand the same rights that the gays have, followed by the handicapped. Eventually, Special Forces may be "special" in the same way that the Special Olympics are special. We can go to war in short yellow armored vehicles. Who knows, maybe our next major adversary will take one look at the future force and laugh itself to death.

In San Francisco, now that gays have the right to public nudity, the fight is over whether there should be a law requiring towels or other barriers between bare bottoms and public seating. What few citizens remain to object are accused of wanting to legislate "courtesy". Picture that one at your base messhall!

It's more than using our defensive institutions as laboratories for social engineering, this kind of wholesale but accepted degeneration is really just a symptom of a generalized degeneration prevalent in our entire culture. It's a disintegration of moral fiber, a confusion not only between right and wrong, good and evil, but a genuine and deliberate disregard of what works from what doesn't work. We have decisions at the highest levels made on the basis of whose feelings are hurt.

If you want to know what is going to happen to Special Forces, I suggest (unless you have already done so) that you look at the case of the straight San Diego Firefighters (most of whom were married) who were ordered by a lesbian supervisor to particiapate in the gay pride parade. (Next might be an Armed Forces Day Parade) Failure to follow this order would result in immediate suspension.

This is what's going to happen to Special Forces. This is their future:

We did follow the chief' s order and took part in the parade to avoid any disciplinary
action . While moving down the parade route we were subjected to verbal abuse, (show
me your hose, you can put out my fire, give me mouth to mouth, f**k you fireman)
sexual gestures , (showing their penis, blowing kisses, grabbing their crotch, rubbing their
nipples , tongue gestures , flipping us off)- We were subject to this type of abuse and more
throughout the parade route . You could not even look at the crowd without getting some
type of sexual gesture .
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/070806firefighters.pdf

If you want to know what's going to happen with this type of social tinkering, just look at what is already happening where the tinkering has taken affect.

Odysseus
09-25-2011, 09:45 AM
As long as it's the same as everyone else then there shouldn't be a problem.

I've long suspected that a major point of resistance was the inability to imagine life without being able to call other men faggot, pansy, or other terms which also tend to be sexist in nature. But you have assured me that we can expect nothing but professionalism from supervisory personnel. I also sincerely doubt that a sergeant of any occupation is going to be shouting anti-gay epithets within the possible earshot of gay superiors.
Yeah, well, we've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue. This isn't about namecalling, it's about issues of privacy, sexual conduct in areas where sex wasn't previously permitted and the introduction of people whose sexual behavior will be disruptive. You don't get that, or you pretend not to, so you tar everyone who disagrees as a bigot. Tell me, when the first wave of activist recruits washes out, will you continue that insult, or will you acknowledge that maybe being a member of ACT-UP isn't a good preparation for basic training?

http://humour.200ok.com.au/img/pancake_bunny.jpg
You don't understand that I'm calling you a hypocrite? Let me spell it out for you: You are a self-identified gay male. You claim that DADT was a bad thing, although you don't seem to understand why it was in place, and when I asked if you would be signing up now that the bar to your enlistment is gone, you failed to respond. In other words, you don't have any intention of serving your country, you're just happy that your agenda has taken another step forward. It's all just a big game to you. Got it now?

BTW,anyone saw that thing where the soldier was booed?

I didn't like that at all,because he fought for his country,the least people could do is show respect for our servicemen.
You mean like you're showing here? :rolleyes:

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 10:23 AM
In San Francisco, now that gays have the right to public nudity,

You're so much fun. When did "gays" get the "right to public nudity"? Answer: they didn't specifically. San Francisco, oddly enough, has never had a law against nudity per se. When I lived there in the early 1980's this came up because there was an old hippie who used to do Yoga in the nude at the park near the Hyde Street Pier. The Chronicle scoured the books and couldn't find a law against it. The largely heterosexual beach out by Sea Cliff, was clothing optional at the time as well. By comparison, gay people who wanted to go to a nude beach did what they typically do: picked a place best accessed by mountain goat or helicopter, ie San Gregorio.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 10:27 AM
What few citizens remain to object are accused of wanting to legislate "courtesy". Picture that one at your base messhall! .

Yes, because how people behave at Mardi Gras spills right over into the rules and standards of behavior in the mess hall of Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans.

Tipsycatlover
09-25-2011, 10:30 AM
You're so much fun. When did "gays" get the "right to public nudity"? Answer: they didn't specifically. San Francisco, oddly enough, has never had a law against nudity per se. When I lived there in the early 1980's this came up because there was an old hippie who used to do Yoga in the nude at the park near the Hyde Street Pier. The Chronicle scoured the books and couldn't find a law against it. The largely heterosexual beach out by Sea Cliff, was clothing optional at the time as well. By comparison, gay people who wanted to go to a nude beach did what they typically do: picked a place best accessed by mountain goat or helicopter, ie San Gregorio.

You just don't know what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with beach nudity. It's in the City. Specifically, the Castro. So, in your opinion as a gay man, should there be a law requiring using a towel in public seating? I assume you support nudity in the business district, where children have to walk to go to school. How about legislating courtesy?

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 10:37 AM
It's more than using our defensive institutions as laboratories for social engineering,

1949 is calling and wants its jargon back.




It's more than using our defensive institutions as laboratories for social engineering, this kind of wholesale but accepted degeneration is really just a symptom of a generalized degeneration prevalent in our entire culture. It's a disintegration of moral fiber, a confusion not only between right and wrong, good and evil, but a genuine and deliberate disregard of what works from what doesn't work.

When I think of the observable decay of the culture, I usually think about thug wannabe boys with tattoos on their necks who can't get a job because they have a felony conviction, and girls who look like they were made for those boys. I think about the Section 8 motels which double as brothels and drug markets. I think about hip hop music, illegal aliens, and criminals who rob hard working corner store owners. I think about vandals and people who don't keep their grass and curbs tidy. What has any of that got to do with gay people or the gay subculture?

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 10:51 AM
You just don't know what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with beach nudity. It's in the City. Specifically, the Castro. So, in your opinion as a gay man, should there be a law requiring using a towel in public seating? I assume you support nudity in the business district, where children have to walk to go to school. How about legislating courtesy?

Your claim was that gays now have the right to public nudity. My point was that there was public nudity in San Francisco long ago, and it had nothing to do with gay people.

Why San Francisco has not passed a law against public nudity is a theoretical discussion which would involve figuring out the mental processes of people who harbor illegal aliens and think that sea levels are rising even though they have sea walls which do not show this at all.

Gay people are a minority in San Francisco. They might wield considerable political power, but San Francisco has never been as closed a shop as it has been portrayed to be. The nudies in the Castro are just another chapter in the Bay Area's desperate attempt to stay edgy. There are overwhelmingly heterosexual nude events in Berkeley and San Francisco with some regularity; runs, walks, and bicycle rides for charities. It doesn't excuse the nudies in The Castro, it merely provides the context which you have shown a propensity to ignore in all aspects of this discussion.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 10:53 AM
........ This has nothing to do with beach nudity.

Just out of curiosity: Do you think that if it's legal for men to go shirtless that it's legally defensible to prosecute women for going shirtless?

Tipsycatlover
09-25-2011, 10:54 AM
This is really an argument that gets nowhere because we have an ideology that recognizes nothing but itself. It's the same LEVEL of ideology that demanded Allen West sacrifice his entire unit to ambush rather than frighten a prisoner. It's the same LEVEL of ideology that denied Dakata Meyer's request for support resulting in needless deaths. It is a reflection of the ideology that led to the change in the Rules of Engagement.

The culture of the military is changing to one of recognition that better 1,000 die than someone get their feelings hurt. Forcing open homosexuality in the ranks is only one part of this. It's only one more destructive facet. It is one that strikes at the unity and loyalty of troops to one another, the very foundation of the military establishment. It is BETTER that this foundation be undermined and destroyed than the ideology not be furthered to its eventual goal. No effective military at all. And, to reflect the new military, a fully degenerate culture as well.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 10:58 AM
Yeah, well, we've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue. This isn't about namecalling

Here is what you wrote which I was responding to. How can you now claim that you weren't referring to name calling?

if you can't take that kind of mild barb, imagine what your pals are going to get in boot camp. Drill sergeants aren't exactly known for their sensitivity and PC niceties.

barb - b : a biting or pointedly critical remark or comment

PC (political correctness) - politically correct adj

: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

Tipsycatlover
09-25-2011, 10:58 AM
Just out of curiosity: Do you think that if it's legal for men to go shirtless that it's legally defensible to prosecute women for going shirtless?

On the beach, or at the mall? Or picking up the kids from school? At the PTA meeting? Attorney's making court appearances? How about the teller at your bank? A pediatrician examining a six year old child?

Really make a STATEMENT! Don't fool around. If we are to have nude beaches, why not the first all nude surgical team.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 11:04 AM
On the beach, or at the mall? Or picking up the kids from school? At the PTA meeting? Attorney's making court appearances? How about the teller at your bank? A pediatrician examining a six year old child?

Really make a STATEMENT! Don't fool around. If we are to have nude beaches, why not the first all nude surgical team.

The question was a simple one. I don't know where you live, but where I live men do not go shirtless at PTA meetings, in court appearances, while working at a bank, or in the medical profession.

Henceforth, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to focus, to read what is written and respond to it without going off on some magical mystery tour inside your fertile mind.

marv
09-25-2011, 11:25 AM
I used to be on the Soulforce forums,but the forums are closing down.
http://soulforce.com/

Soulforce is committed to freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people from religious and political oppression through relentless nonviolent resistance. As we enter our second decade of work, we invite you to join our movement.

We recognize that oppression is most often rooted in religious belief and ideologies of power in which women, people of color and non-gender conforming (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer) people are subjugated and subjected to the violence of exclusion.
...so "soulforce" is opposed to the "...violence of exclusion."? How about the majority who are subjugated to the violence of forced inclusion?

Tipsycatlover
09-25-2011, 11:48 AM
1949 is calling and wants its jargon back.




When I think of the observable decay of the culture, I usually think about thug wannabe boys with tattoos on their necks who can't get a job because they have a felony conviction, and girls who look like they were made for those boys. I think about the Section 8 motels which double as brothels and drug markets. I think about hip hop music, illegal aliens, and criminals who rob hard working corner store owners. I think about vandals and people who don't keep their grass and curbs tidy. What has any of that got to do with gay people or the gay subculture?

Because it is all part of the general degredation of the culture. Each one putting in their own little pebble in the mosaic. It is not only that these things occur, but like the gay subculture, each one is being normalized, excused and explained. Hip hop music isn't destructive because it calls women hos and celebrates beating them up. It's destructive because hip hop music that does that gets a Grammy! Thugs with tats and a string of felony convictions aren't destructive, they've always been here. Having the right to sue a prospective employer for discrimination is destructive. Dressing little girls up as sluts isn't destructive, giving them a prize for the best showing of sluttiness is what's destructive. Giving the practice of titillating the sensibilities of child molesters by putting slutty looking three year old girls in a show on television is what's destructive.

The gay subculture is harmless. It is benign. It has always been with us as part of the human condition. The gay subculture, by its very nature of exclusion, cannot be destructive on its own. It is when that subculture is treated as normal culture, when it has the right to act out and the ability to punish for real or imagined or manufactured transgressions that it becomes destructive.

When it suits them, the gay subculture has absolutely no problem whatsoever in claiming the right to discriminate against heterosexuals. That's the whole purpose of gay only hotels, gay only resorts. More! Lesbians are excluded. Look up the number of gay male only facilities in Palm Springs. The normalization and recognition goes one way. You must accommodate US, while we retain the right to punish YOU when we so choose. I fully support the right of hoteliers to maintain gay only facilities. Just like I support the right of that bed and breakfast inn owner to tell gay couples no room at the Inn.

When the military was racially integrated, no special accommodation was made. The men fought, argued, worked around, beat each other up and eventually worked it out. No special accommodation was made. No accusations of racisim could be made and the accused automatically guilty and punished. There was no such thing as racial harassment, hostile work environment or any other PC nonsense. There is no comparison.

Tipsycatlover
09-25-2011, 11:53 AM
The question was a simple one. I don't know where you live, but where I live men do not go shirtless at PTA meetings, in court appearances, while working at a bank, or in the medical profession.

Henceforth, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to focus, to read what is written and respond to it without going off on some magical mystery tour inside your fertile mind.

The error was yours. You were not specific and invited generalizations.

Tipsycatlover
09-25-2011, 11:54 AM
http://soulforce.com/


...so "soulforce" is opposed to the "...violence of exclusion."? How about the majority who are subjugated to the violence of forced inclusion?

Now that is interesting, The Violence Of Exclusion. It takes non-violence to a whole new level of violence doesn't it.

I can see an entire panopoly of prosecutions based on the violence of exclusion.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 12:24 PM
When it suits them, the gay subculture has absolutely no problem whatsoever in claiming the right to discriminate against heterosexuals. That's the whole purpose of gay only hotels, gay only resorts. More! Lesbians are excluded. Look up the number of gay male only facilities in Palm Springs.

Once again, you omit context.

My friend managed a gay resort in Rehoboth Beach. He did not refuse to rent rooms to heterosexuals, he merely made them aware of the theme of the resort and allowed them to choose if they wished to stay. But that was not a clothing optional resort.

Many of the places you are referring to in Palm Springs are clothing optional. Nudist resorts (we have several of them here in Florida) have themes and standards which vary from place to place. They cater to different clienteles. Many heterosexual oriented nudist resorts are "couples only" and refuse to rent to single males while apparently renting to single females (though one suspects that there are few).

There are resorts which promote themselves as "all male" or "womens" resorts around the country. Some of these places are private membership clubs and can indeed discriminate arbitrarily as can a private club in most places. Others merely express their theme, but are actually public accommodations and cannot legally discriminate.

There are also hotels and campgrounds around the country which actively promote themselves as Christian facilities while actually being public accommodations, as well as some which are actually private reserved which can restrict membership or patronage to their target market. There have also traditionally been some resorts which were exclusively Jewish, perhaps born of discrimination against Jews elsewhere, but also to accommodate the special wishes of certain sects of Judaism.

And none of this has anything to do with a moral or cultural decline in the US. If you think that nudity is part of a cultural decline, then I invite you to go to a nude beach. Not only is there nothing interesting going on there, there is usually nothing worth taking a picture of. For some reason, those most given to public or semi-public nudity are the ones we least want to take a picture of.

Tipsycatlover
09-25-2011, 12:45 PM
Once again, you omit context.

My friend managed a gay resort in Rehoboth Beach. He did not refuse to rent rooms to heterosexuals, he merely made them aware of the theme of the resort and allowed them to choose if they wished to stay. But that was not a clothing optional resort.

Many of the places you are referring to in Palm Springs are clothing optional. Nudist resorts (we have several of them here in Florida) have themes and standards which vary from place to place. They cater to different clienteles. Many heterosexual oriented nudist resorts are "couples only" and refuse to rent to single males while apparently renting to single females (though one suspects that there are few).

There are resorts which promote themselves as "all male" or "womens" resorts around the country. Some of these places are private membership clubs and can indeed discriminate arbitrarily as can a private club in most places. Others merely express their theme, but are actually public accommodations and cannot legally discriminate.

There are also hotels and campgrounds around the country which actively promote themselves as Christian facilities while actually being public accommodations, as well as some which are actually private reserved which can restrict membership or patronage to their target market. There have also traditionally been some resorts which were exclusively Jewish, perhaps born of discrimination against Jews elsewhere, but also to accommodate the special wishes of certain sects of Judaism.

And none of this has anything to do with a moral or cultural decline in the US. If you think that nudity is part of a cultural decline, then I invite you to go to a nude beach. Not only is there nothing interesting going on there, there is usually nothing worth taking a picture of. For some reason, those most given to public or semi-public nudity are the ones we least want to take a picture of.

If you do not think there is a moral and a cultural decline, it is only because you are part of it! Yet, oddly enough, you cite several examples of cultural decline yourself! Nudity is not part of a cultural decline. Increasing acceptance of nudity in public is part of a cultural decline. Nude beaches are not part of a cultural decline. Increasing acceptance of nudity in cities are part of a cultural decline.

We are becoming a degenerate society. Not because of the presence of degeneracy, we've always had degeneracy. We are only now accepting degeneracy as normal and acceptable behavior. It might be appropriate that we have a military unable or even unwilling to maintain such a society. The nation is much more than its military. Behind that military might is an entire people. When the majority of those people refuse to support continued dysfunction and licentiousness masquerading as freedom, that country is going to fail. If you imagine that the majority of Americans are going to support a gay-focused military rather than a defense-focused military, you are in for a sad, and rude awakening. As you have been told, many times, right here, even the officers and enlisted ranks won't support that.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 01:03 PM
If you do not think there is a moral and a cultural decline, it is only because you are part of it! Yet, oddly enough, you cite several examples of cultural decline yourself! Nudity is not part of a cultural decline. Increasing acceptance of nudity in public is part of a cultural decline. Nude beaches are not part of a cultural decline. Increasing acceptance of nudity in cities are part of a cultural decline.



I didn't say that there wasn't a moral and cultural decline, I said that you aren't demonstrating it. Certain parts of San Francisco are a freak show and so to Berkeley and Los Angeles. New Orleans and New York both do a good job as well. Your ill conceived attempt to prove your borrowed and preconceived notion, ie trying to make the reality fit your philosophy, by listing isolated outrages ad nauseum is tiresome and disingenuous.

Heterosexual nudist yoga enthusiasts at the Waterpark or naked gay tennis players in the Castro, these things are not eroding American society. You are focussing on them because you can't do anything about the real problems and you are frustrated, so you are looking for someone to blame. You can't force parents to spend time with their kids, to teach solid and universal values, to supervise their kids, to be like our parents were. The Baby Boomers have largely raised a good crop of children, but the percentage of kids which have been intellectually, emotionally, and physically neglected is quite high. What have gay people or nudity in the Castro to do with that? Gay parents are by and large out there trying to prove to themselves and the world that they are the best parents in the history of parenting. They have a chip on their shoulder.

You want to blame the problems in the military or the problems you project for the military on gay people for the same reason: because culture and society won't let you place the blame where it actually belongs.

Tipsycatlover
09-25-2011, 01:32 PM
I didn't say that there wasn't a moral and cultural decline, I said that you aren't demonstrating it. Certain parts of San Francisco are a freak show and so to Berkeley and Los Angeles. New Orleans and New York both do a good job as well. Your ill conceived attempt to prove your borrowed and preconceived notion, ie trying to make the reality fit your philosophy, by listing isolated outrages ad nauseum is tiresome and disingenuous.

Heterosexual nudist yoga enthusiasts at the Waterpark or naked gay tennis players in the Castro, these things are not eroding American society. You are focussing on them because you can't do anything about the real problems and you are frustrated, so you are looking for someone to blame. You can't force parents to spend time with their kids, to teach solid and universal values, to supervise their kids, to be like our parents were. The Baby Boomers have largely raised a good crop of children, but the percentage of kids which have been intellectually, emotionally, and physically neglected is quite high. What have gay people or nudity in the Castro to do with that? Gay parents are by and large out there trying to prove to themselves and the world that they are the best parents in the history of parenting. They have a chip on their shoulder.

You want to blame the problems in the military or the problems you project for the military on gay people for the same reason: because culture and society won't let you place the blame where it actually belongs.

That's because you do not listen! It has nothing to do with whatever dysfunctions are taking place. They are ALL taking place. Pretty much always have. It is accepting these dysfunctions as normal and acceptable behavior that is actually doing the damage. Which is true of each and every instance YOU cited. Think about it instead of the knee jerk the only way is the gay way. There are two distinct issues, you are too one dimensional to see both. There is only ONE matter of importance, what gays WANT, everything else doesn't even make the list.

hai
09-25-2011, 02:45 PM
http://soulforce.com/


...so "soulforce" is opposed to the "...violence of exclusion."? How about the majority who are subjugated to the violence of forced inclusion?

Well during the 50's or so African Americans had to drink from different fountains,had to sit in the back of the bus and such,It seems ok for straight people to bring their couples to functions and such. Double standard much. Times are changing,this isn't 1950,we no longer film rockstars like Elvis from the waist up,get out of the past.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 02:54 PM
That's because you do not listen! It has nothing to do with whatever dysfunctions are taking place. They are ALL taking place. Pretty much always have. It is accepting these dysfunctions as normal and acceptable behavior that is actually doing the damage. Which is true of each and every instance YOU cited. Think about it instead of the knee jerk the only way is the gay way. There are two distinct issues, you are too one dimensional to see both. There is only ONE matter of importance, what gays WANT, everything else doesn't even make the list.

Gay people are not a dysfunction nor an element of erosion in the fabric of society. That is your religious prejudice talking.

hai
09-25-2011, 03:00 PM
Gay people are not a dysfunction nor an element of erosion in the fabric of society. That is your religious prejudice talking.

This.

If people actually read the bible they would know what it actually says. Parts of it talk about not eating shrimp,verses supporting slavery- Leviticus 25:44,verse saying i can't enter heaven if i have a defect in my sight- Lev. 21:20,that you can't work on the sabbath- Exodus 35:2.

The bible was written from a different time than we're living in,truth is slavery is a evil no one approves of today.

Zathras
09-25-2011, 03:42 PM
Well during the 50's or so African Americans had to drink from different fountains,had to sit in the back of the bus and such,It seems ok for straight people to bring their couples to functions and such. Double standard much. Times are changing,this isn't 1950,we no longer film rockstars like Elvis from the waist up,get out of the past.

Nice dodge....now answer Marv's question.

I'm sick and fucking tired of you gays saying they've been treated as bad or worse as the blacks and other minorities in America. It's a fucking lie and you all know it but you keep pushing it as if it were the truth.

hai
09-25-2011, 04:32 PM
Nice dodge....now answer Marv's question.

I'm sick and fucking tired of you gays saying they've been treated as bad or worse as the blacks and other minorities in America. It's a fucking lie and you all know it but you keep pushing it as if it were the truth.

herpderp.com

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 06:28 PM
Nice dodge....now answer Marv's question.

I'm sick and fucking tired of you gays saying they've been treated as bad or worse as the blacks and other minorities in America. It's a fucking lie and you all know it but you keep pushing it as if it were the truth.

COLONIAL LAWS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY
The first English statute against homosexuality was placed on the
books by Parliament in 1533, under Henry VIII. This law, which
made it a capital felony for any person to "commit the detestable and
Dr. Crompton is Professor of English, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588.
He wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Daylene Bennett, Larry Lackner, and Barbara
Vincent in searching colonial codes.
Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 1(3), 1976 277
278 JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
abominable vice of buggery with mankind or beast," was several times
reenacted and repealed, and finally reinstated under Elizabeth in
1563 in a form that remained unchanged until 1861, when the death
penalty was dropped for life imprisonment. The word "vice," the
biblical term "abominable," and the theological expression "buggery"
(from the "Bulgarian" heresy) all point to the religious background of
the law, as does the treatment of the offense in Coke's Institutes,
published early in the 17th century. Though Continental law, follow-
ing canon law, regularly made lesbian acts capital crimes (as in the
Constitutions of Charles V issued in 1532), English law was not inter-
preted as criminalizing these.

..............


In America, the five pre-Revolutionary southern colonies, follow-
ing the lead of Virginia, either regarded the English law as in force
without incorporating it into their statutes or else, as in the case of
South Carolina, adopted it verbatim. In the north, however, a special
Puritan code developed that uniquely distinguished America's legal
style (though not, in this case, the substance of the law) from that of
England...................

The first
American "code," if it can be called that, was a simple list of "Capitall
offences lyable to death" drawn up in Plymouth Colony in 1936.
These included treason, murder, witchcraft, arson, sodomy, rape,
buggery (here denoting bestiality), and adultery.
In the same year the General Court of Massachusetts asked the Rev.
John Cotton to draw up fundamental laws. Interestingly enough,
Cotton proposed to place lesbianism on a par with male homosexual-
ity as a capital offense..............

You will note that being nonwhite or Jewish is not listed in these capital offenses.

The Bay Colony, in making sodomy a capital crime, did not follow the
English statute but instead adopted the language of Leviticus 20: 13.
Section 8 of the 1641 laws was thus a word-for-word translation of a
Hebrew law more than 2,000 years old: "If any man lyeth with
mankinde as he lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed
abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death" (Whitmore,
1890, p. 55). Astonishingly, this phraseology was to remain on the
books of at least one American state-Connecticut-until some 46
years after the Declaration of Independence.

So much for this cultural bias not being rooted in religion, regardless of whether one actually attends the services of the religion with which he is ethnically identified.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=englishfacpubs&sei-redir=1#search=%22homosexuality%20capital%20crime% 20american%20until%22

marv
09-25-2011, 06:34 PM
And the point, Nova, of that rather lengthy post was.............

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 06:44 PM
And the point, Nova, of that rather lengthy post was.............

Zathras said that gay people hadn't had it as bad as (blacks and other minorities).

In the first place, the two are not mutually exclusive. In the second, while our government has had laws enslaving blacks, and discriminating against blacks and other minorities, as well as society discriminating in housing and employment and access to power by nonwhites and religious minorities, it has never been a capital offense to be one of those minorities.

As a rule, when a black or Jewish family discovered that their child was black or Jewish (or black and Jewish I suppose) they didn't disown that child.

Gay people have been discriminated against in housing and employment. And the lamest response to this fact appears to be that a gay person had the option theoretically of lying about his sexual orientation or his relationship to avoid discrimination, legal abuse, and/or violence.

The US military began dismantling its racist policies sixty years ago, and only now is it finally ending the policies which discriminate against gay Americans.

Blacks and American Indians can waste their time fighting for the top spot in the oppression hierarchy, but it's simply a lie to say that gay people are not in that company. No, most gay people living today haven't had it "as bad" as blacks under Jim Crow, and perhaps never as group had it as bad, though it's hard to quantify "bad" in this context. At least when a black man was treated badly, he could find safety and comfort in his own family. So, perhaps this can't be measured like water, it's simply all water.

hai
09-25-2011, 06:48 PM
Zathras said that gay people hadn't had it as bad as (blacks and other minorities).

In the first place, the two are not mutually exclusive. In the second, while our government has had laws enslaving blacks, and discriminating against blacks and other minorities, as well as society discriminating in housing and employment and access to power by nonwhites and religious minorities, it has never been a capital offense to be one of those minorities.

As a rule, when a black or Jewish family discovered that their child was black or Jewish (or black and Jewish I suppose) they didn't disown that child.

Gay people have been discriminated against in housing and employment. And the lamest response to this fact appears to be that a gay person had the option theoretically of lying about his sexual orientation or his relationship to avoid discrimination, legal abuse, and/or violence.

The US military began dismantling its racist policies sixty years ago, and only now is it finally ending the policies which discriminate against gay Americans.

Blacks and American Indians can waste their time fighting for the top spot in the oppression hierarchy, but it's simply a lie to say that gay people are not in that company.

This.

We have had it bad.

Even during the dark ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Spain#The_Spanish_Inquisition

Odysseus
09-25-2011, 06:50 PM
Here is what you wrote which I was responding to. How can you now claim that you weren't referring to name calling?

if you can't take that kind of mild barb, imagine what your pals are going to get in boot camp. Drill sergeants aren't exactly known for their sensitivity and PC niceties.

barb - b : a biting or pointedly critical remark or comment

PC (political correctness) - politically correct adj

: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

In all of my time in service, I have never heard a group of recruits addressed in sexual terms, to include calling them "faggots" or "ladies". That was especially true in OCS, which was CO-ED. Drill Sergeants don't need those kinds of names to make a recruit feel lower than whale crap. Simply screaming in someone's face while he is trying to make a decision usually does the trick. But, in your arrogance and lack of direct knowledge, you are assuming that we haven't changed basic training since Vietnam. When I went through, a Drill Sergeant who addressed his trainees with the kind of profanity that R Lee Ermey demonstrated would have been out on his ear, and a drill who physically assaulted a trainee would be subject to court martial. But, you keep pretending that this is all about you and yours, without any knowledge of the actual conditions in the force, because your prejudices, based on media presentations of the military, trump reality. You complain that I hold a religious prejudice, when I am neither religious nor prejudiced, but your prejudice, based on pop culture references, are far more obvious.

Wei Wu Wei
09-25-2011, 06:56 PM
In all of my time in service, I have never heard a group of recruits addressed in sexual terms, to include calling them "faggots" or "ladies". That was especially true in OCS, which was CO-ED. Drill Sergeants don't need those kinds of names to make a recruit feel lower than whale crap. Simply screaming in someone's face while he is trying to make a decision usually does the trick. But, in your arrogance and lack of direct knowledge, you are assuming that we haven't changed basic training since Vietnam. When I went through, a Drill Sergeant who addressed his trainees with the kind of profanity that R Lee Ermey demonstrated would have been out on his ear, and a drill who physically assaulted a trainee would be subject to court martial.

To some posters, what you are describing is a perfect example of the PC-ruled pussification of the defense force.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 07:10 PM
In all of my time in service, I have never heard a group of recruits addressed in sexual terms, to include calling them "faggots" or "ladies". That was especially true in OCS, which was CO-ED. .

I'm glad to hear it. I have never objected to or challenged your statements of fact or personal experience, only your predictions.


Simply screaming in someone's face while he is trying to make a decision usually does the trick.

That would be the thing I have always thought most difficult to tolerate in pursuit of a military career. We respect the British armed forces, right? Did we inherit this from them or do they do things differently? Just curious.


But, in your arrogance and lack of direct knowledge, you are assuming that we haven't changed basic training since Vietnam. When I went through, a Drill Sergeant who addressed his trainees with the kind of profanity that R Lee Ermey demonstrated would have been out on his ear, and a drill who physically assaulted a trainee would be subject to court martial.

I didn't see the movie. I love Ermey in the psychiatrist commercial though.

I also don't think I have ever been arrogant in this discussion. You and others have repeatedly insisted that one has to have been an enlisted man to get what you are saying, to grasp the dynamics and gravity of the situation. All I have done is respond with facts, logic, and a reasonable analysis and critique of what you are saying. Arrogance would be not participating in the discussion, from the comfort of victory.

Odysseus
09-25-2011, 08:01 PM
I'm glad to hear it. I have never objected to or challenged your statements of fact or personal experience, only your predictions.
Except that my predictions are based on facts and my personal experience. Your predictions are based on wishful thinking and the absence of experience.


That would be the thing I have always thought most difficult to tolerate in pursuit of a military career. We respect the British armed forces, right? Did we inherit this from them or do they do things differently? Just curious.

Every army has hazed its recruits in one way or another. It toughens them up and forces them to react under stress. The softer that we make basic training, the harder we make war. There is an old Russian saying, "One can either sweat in training, or bleed in combat."


I didn't see the movie. I love Ermey in the psychiatrist commercial though.

I also don't think I have ever been arrogant in this discussion. You and others have repeatedly insisted that one has to have been an enlisted man to get what you are saying, to grasp the dynamics and gravity of the situation. All I have done is respond with facts, logic, and a reasonable analysis and critique of what you are saying. Arrogance would be not participating in the discussion, from the comfort of victory.

You have responded to facts, logic and analysis with your own (dubious) assumptions which you presume to be facts, wishful thinking which masquerades as logic, and an inability to grasp what I am saying. I'm in the same position as the US military was in Vietnam, having won every battle, but lost the war. Politics trumps reality once again.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 08:12 PM
Politics trumps reality once again.

Should the policies of a civilian controlled military be put to a vote of the officers and enlisted?

Rockntractor
09-25-2011, 08:23 PM
What stands between gays and a hangman's noose is the US military, islam would love to rule the west and they have said so many times, why would you wish to weaken that which protects you?
The proverbial sawing off the limb you are sitting on!
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/images/iran_hanging_outrage_2.jpg
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/10/shocking_new_ph.html

Chuck58
09-25-2011, 08:42 PM
I see nothing wrong with basic training being brutal, even to a slap or punch. Those recruits who survive will be grateful once they see combat for the first time.

I'll grant that the type of stress used today in basic is different than what I went through. I was never slapped or punched, but it did happen in my day when the drill sergeants could still be physical with the troops. Profanity was a given. To me, R Lee Ermey's character was no worse than my drill sergeant at Ft. Polk, in 1965.

Believe me, nothing can prepare a recruit for the stress of combat, but tough training helps. Maybe tougher basic would result in less PTSD too.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 09:07 PM
What stands between gays and a hangman's noose is the US military, islam would love to rule the west and they have said so many times, why would you wish to weaken that which protects you?
The proverbial sawing off the limb you are sitting on!


So the Sharia which would be applied to the destruction of America is also what makes the American military strong? Wow, and you have accused me of being disrespectful to the military?

CueSi
09-25-2011, 09:16 PM
Well mostly i blame it on America's Puritan heritage,like it seems that many Americans seem to tie almost everything to secks,compared to people like the Italians,Japanese and such who don't view everything as about secks.

LOL !!

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/demotivational-posters-ive-seen-enough-hentai.jpg

Sorry. That was funny as hell.

~QC

CueSi
09-25-2011, 09:29 PM
o.O

Why you lookin' at me like that?! I'm just saying. . .before Brazil took the "OH MY GOD, WHAT UNNATURAL PORN IS THIS I DON'T WANT TO LIVE ON THIS PLANET ANYMORE!?!" crown, Japan was the winner for 5 decades running. I'm wondering if we didn't nuke them enough or nuked them too much. (I am FIRMLY kidding about the last part. It's just funny.)

~QC

hai
09-25-2011, 09:32 PM
Why you lookin' at me like that?! I'm just saying. . .before Brazil took the "OH MY GOD, WHAT UNNATURAL PORN IS THIS I DON'T WANT TO LIVE ON THIS PLANET ANYMORE!?!" crown, Japan was the winner for 5 decades running. I'm wondering if we didn't nuke them enough or nuked them too much. (I am FIRMLY kidding about the last part. It's just funny.)

~QC


My head hurts.

CueSi
09-25-2011, 09:34 PM
My head hurts.

Go take an asprin. :p

~QC

djones520
09-25-2011, 09:38 PM
Why you lookin' at me like that?! I'm just saying. . .before Brazil took the "OH MY GOD, WHAT UNNATURAL PORN IS THIS I DON'T WANT TO LIVE ON THIS PLANET ANYMORE!?!" crown, Japan was the winner for 5 decades running. I'm wondering if we didn't nuke them enough or nuked them too much. (I am FIRMLY kidding about the last part. It's just funny.)

~QC

I've actually heard an interesting theory about how the impacts of WW2 and everything associated with it can be seen through the differant variations of Anime.

Rockntractor
09-25-2011, 09:40 PM
I've actually heard an interesting theory about how the impacts of WW2 and everything associated with it can be seen through the differant variations of Anime.

My head hurts.

CueSi
09-25-2011, 09:54 PM
I've actually heard an interesting theory about how the impacts of WW2 and everything associated with it can be seen through the differant variations of Anime.

I LIKE where this thread is going. Please elucidate, Jonsey. :D

~QC

djones520
09-25-2011, 10:13 PM
I LIKE where this thread is going. Please elucidate, Jonsey. :D

~QC

Well I don't remember all the specifics myself, and I honestly thought it was a load of horse crap. But it was interesting none the less.

CueSi
09-25-2011, 10:50 PM
Well I don't remember all the specifics myself, and I honestly thought it was a load of horse crap. But it was interesting none the less.

Either way, gotta be better than this thread. :p

~QC

djones520
09-25-2011, 10:56 PM
Either way, gotta be better than this thread. :p

~QC

Who needs to type out a big long thesis, when this sums it up so nicely.

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0805/first-rule-of-japanese-porn-demotivational-poster-1209747919.jpg

hai
09-25-2011, 11:27 PM
Who needs to type out a big long thesis, when this sums it up so nicely.

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0805/first-rule-of-japanese-porn-demotivational-poster-1209747919.jpg

I think it's because of rule 34

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/2945/original/630px-Rule_34_original.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
09-25-2011, 11:36 PM
I think part of the conservative opposition to all things related to homosexuality is, to put it simply: "if one thing taboo becomes acceptable, then all things taboo become acceptable"..

:eek:

Rockntractor
09-25-2011, 11:40 PM
I think

:eek:

Nah:rolleyes:

CueSi
09-26-2011, 12:12 AM
I think it's because of rule 34

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/2945/original/630px-Rule_34_original.jpg

The Japanese have been doing this long before the internet.

http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/1/3017.jpg

~QC

hai
09-26-2011, 12:18 AM
The Japanese have been doing this long before the internet.

http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/1/3017.jpg

~QC

Blocked by adblockplus

Zathras
09-26-2011, 01:32 AM
herpderp.com

So that's where you get your stupidity from.

Zathras
09-26-2011, 01:35 AM
This.

We have had it bad.

Even during the dark ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Spain#The_Spanish_Inquisition

Hey asswipe, learn to read you ignorant fucktard. Since when did the Spanish Inquisition take place in America you deviant waste of skin?

I could give a flying fuck what happened to your evolutionary dead ended scum in the Dark Ages.

Zathras
09-26-2011, 01:36 AM
My head hurts.

That's because your head is spinning due to people blowing your lame assed arguments out of the water.

hai
09-26-2011, 01:42 AM
Hey asswipe, learn to read you ignorant fucktard. Since when did the Spanish Inquisition take place in America you deviant waste of skin?

No,i mean it was a part of oppression towards gays.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L7JSg_nsDxw/TDt8b3eDPKI/AAAAAAAADfU/JVwZxSiswWw/s400/RageFace.png

Zathras
09-26-2011, 01:44 AM
No,i mean it was a part of oppression towards gays.

And totally unrelated to my statement you dumbfuck. Nice try though.

hai
09-26-2011, 01:45 AM
And totally unrelated to my statement you dumbfuck. Nice try though.

i know you are but what am i

Zathras
09-26-2011, 01:47 AM
i know you are but what am i

Is that the best you can come up with....Fluffy.

Oh yeah....I know who you are....Fluffy.

hai
09-26-2011, 01:51 AM
Is that the best you can come up with....Fluffy.

Oh yeah....I know who you are....Fluffy.

Kinda blew out my ears switching channels on my tube amp,forgot to turn down master volume first.

Was playing death metal earlier.

Rockntractor
09-26-2011, 02:07 AM
We shaved Fluffy with a weed eater, now he's Hai!

Zathras
09-26-2011, 02:08 AM
Kinda blew out my ears switching channels on my tube amp,forgot to turn down master volume first.

Was playing death metal earlier.

I see Non Sequitur Man strikes again.

hai
09-26-2011, 02:30 AM
I see Non Sequitur Man strikes again.

lolwut

Zathras
09-26-2011, 02:40 AM
lolwut

Laughing at your own stupidity eh?


non se·qui·tur (nn skw-tr, -tr) KEY

NOUN:

1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.

2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

hai
09-26-2011, 02:41 AM
moooo

LMAO

Zathras
09-26-2011, 02:44 AM
LMAO

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/HeroesAtWork/462.jpg