PDA

View Full Version : Transgendered want rights to serve in the military



Pages : [1] 2

Tipsycatlover
09-29-2011, 12:20 PM
Oh come on, you all knew it was coming.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/28/after-demise-of-dont-ask-activists-call-for-end-to/

“SLDN supports the revision of medical regulations to ensure that transgender Americans may serve.”

SLDN has raised the possibility of filing lawsuits to attain its goals, which include housing and other benefits for the partners of gay military members.

Transgenders are not banned by law, but rather by a Defense Department instruction, “Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment or Induction in the Military Service.”

It lists scores of medical conditions that make one ineligible, including: “Current or history of psychosexual conditions, including but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias.”

Bailey
09-29-2011, 12:24 PM
I knew these f%&king freaks would want to join as soon as dadt fell.

Zathras
09-29-2011, 03:32 PM
http://www.lolbrary.com/lolpics/17/shark-herp-derp-3017.jpg

Fixed for accuracy.

Bailey
09-29-2011, 03:45 PM
Fixed for accuracy.

What did he post? It was removed

Zathras
09-29-2011, 05:21 PM
What did he post? It was removed

The troll pic in response to your first message.

Zathras
09-29-2011, 05:22 PM
I'm a troll who can't stand the truth.

Go ahead and move the picture troll. I'll just follow it.

Odysseus
09-29-2011, 07:12 PM
I knew these f%&king freaks would want to join as soon as dadt fell.
Of course. The camel's hump is still outside of the tent. It's hard to imagine who's next after them, though. Perhaps the handicapped? I can't wait to run the first pistol range for the visually impaired.

Dude,i'm no troll.

Because she called transgendered people "Freaks" which is inflammatory and the same as calling African American people the "N" word.
From freedictionary.com:


freak 1 (frk)
n.

1. A thing or occurrence that is markedly unusual or irregular: A freak of nature produced the midsummer snow.
2. An abnormally formed organism, especially a person or animal regarded as a curiosity or monstrosity.
3. A sudden capricious turn of mind; a whim: "The freaks of the psyche can no more be explained than the Devil" (Maurice Collis).
4. Slang

a. A drug user or addict: a speed freak.
b. An eccentric or nonconformist person, especially a member of a counterculture.
c. An enthusiast: rock music freaks.

With the exception of the word "monstrosity", each of these definitions is non-judgmental and certainly applicable, and one can argue that the mutilation of genitalia to satisfy a psychological aberration qualifies as "monstrous". It is not our obligation to neuter the language in order to avoid giving offense to those who incapable of not taking offense.

And i'm no troll,i belong to the deviantart anti-trolls club,
That doesn't mean that you aren't a troll, it just means that you signed up for an online club that has no verification requirements. As the saying goes, if your cat has kittens in an oven, that doesn't make them biscuits.

which means i'm important,
No, it just means that you can write your email address in a box on a website.


because i go after trolls.
http://the-anti-trolls-club.deviantart.com/
You haven't even established that the club goes after trolls, or does anything else except call itself the "deviantart anti-trolls club" and post silly graphics. See my comment about kittens and biscuits.

Zathras
09-29-2011, 07:20 PM
Dude,i'm no troll.

Yes you are hai, yes you are. You've become what you hate.


Because she called transgendered people "Freaks" which is inflammatory and the same as calling African American people the "N" word.

Oh please, it's not the same thing. Using the N word on a black person is many times worse than calling a TG what they truthfully are.


And i'm no troll,i belong to the deviantart anti-trolls club,which means i'm important,because i go after trolls.

http://the-anti-trolls-club.deviantart.com/

I'll bet you're a member of the He Mans Women Hater Club too.

You are a troll hai. Deal with it. What better way to hunt a troll than to use a troll to do so.

EDIT: BTW hai the troll....removing the post won't change the fact that, not only are you a troll, but a cowardly one at that.

hai
09-29-2011, 07:23 PM
Yes you are hai, yes you are. You've become what you hate.



Oh please, it's not the same thing. Using the N word on a black person is many times worse than calling a TG what they truthfully are.



I'll bet you're a member of the He Mans Women Hater Club too.

You are a troll hai. Deal with it. What better way to hunt a troll than to use a troll to do so.

dude,i'm no troll,i once belonged to a vigilante group once too,before some drama happened that i won't discuss here.

Zathras
09-29-2011, 07:26 PM
dude,i'm no troll,i once belonged to a vigilante group once too,before some drama happened that i won't discuss here.

Oooooh, scary....I'm shakin in my boots [/sarcasm]

you going to remove this post too, oh cowardly troll?

hai
09-29-2011, 07:28 PM
mooo

just drop it.

I also posted about Facebook in another thead.

Zathras
09-29-2011, 07:29 PM
Herpa derp.

fixed

hai
09-29-2011, 07:31 PM
Buenos

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=453641#post453641

Zathras
09-29-2011, 07:37 PM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=453641#post453641

Yawn...and?

Zathras
09-29-2011, 07:40 PM
lights zathras's farts

What are you...10?

Only a troll would do that. I thought you weren't a troll hai. Are you lying or are you just that dense?

hai
09-29-2011, 07:42 PM
What are you...10?

Only a troll would do that. I thought you weren't a troll hai. Are you lying or are you just that dense?

i'm no troll,you didn't see the link in my sig?

BadCat
09-29-2011, 07:45 PM
i'm no troll,you didn't see the link in my sig?

Which operation do you want? The Takeadickoffame or the Addadicktome?

hai
09-29-2011, 07:48 PM
Which operation do you want? The Takeadickoffame or the Addadicktome?

Dude,i'm not transgendered.

BadCat
09-29-2011, 07:53 PM
Dude,i'm not transgendered.

If you say so, but back on topic...I don't think they even belong in society much less in the military.

CueSi
09-29-2011, 07:55 PM
I hate using Encylopedia Dramatica (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Aspierations). . .but this may help ya'll a little bit:


Aspierations are the fundamental flaws in the overly simplistic world view of a sufferer of Asperger's Syndrome which causes them to fail at the internet so much. This is intended as a factual article which will enable you to support and comprehend the sufferer in your life in a more effective way.

hai, I've given you as much help as I can offer, now the help is gonna turn into rope. Most people on the internet don't give an oven baked shit about your mental shortcomings, especially if you're an Aspie. You're espousing pro-gay views on a conservative website. I don't know if you know what conservative means, but on this forum it means they don't care, if they're nice. If they're not, they pretty much want you to fuck off and die. So, you can say you're a member of whatever dA anti-troll thing you want, but. . .here, if you don't dance to the tune that's called, you're a troll. Or something like that.

~QC

hai
09-29-2011, 07:58 PM
I hate using Encylopedia Dramatica (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Aspierations). . .but this may help ya'll a little bit:



hai, I've given you as much help as I can offer, now the help is gonna turn into rope. Most people on the internet don't give an oven baked shit about your mental shortcomings, especially if you're an Aspie. You're espousing pro-gay views on a conservative website. I don't know if you know what conservative means, but it means they don't care, if they're nice. If they're not, they pretty much want you to fuck off and die. So, you can say you're a member of whatever dA anti-troll thing you want, but. . .here, if you don't dance to the tune that's called, you're a troll. Or something like that.

~QC

o.O

sorry about that.

Novaheart
09-29-2011, 08:44 PM
This will be interesting. The "ties" which bond the gay community to transgenders are thin at best, generally only sincere in the hipper than thou microsection of gay society. That microsection is severely over represented in groups like HRC.

I haven't done a survey of the silent majority in the gay population, but would safely go out on a limb to say that most gay people do not consider themselves to be first cousins to transgenders. Gay people are people who are male or female and physically (though not always) and emotionally attracted to members of the same sex. They don't require treatment, pills, therapy, or surgery to be themselves. If they want to dress or act as a member of the opposite sex, it all washes off as it does for heterosexuals who amuse themselves in the same practice.

So I would say that the gay community is about to experience mass onset of deafness. The clever thing for heterosexuals to do would be to simply refuse to acknowledge that this is even happening.

That being said, I can't see what difference it would make if a passible MTF wants to be an Army nurse. In fact, such a person would likely bring some snap back to the look. So few biological women these days go in for the sharp career girl polish.

CueSi
09-29-2011, 09:24 PM
This will be interesting. The "ties" which bond the gay community to transgenders are thin at best, generally only sincere in the hipper than thou microsection of gay society. That microsection is severely over represented in groups like HRC.

I haven't done a survey of the silent majority in the gay population, but would safely go out on a limb to say that most gay people do not consider themselves to be first cousins to transgenders. Gay people are people who are male or female and physically (though not always) and emotionally attracted to members of the same sex. They don't require treatment, pills, therapy, or surgery to be themselves. If they want to dress or act as a member of the opposite sex, it all washes off as it does for heterosexuals who amuse themselves in the same practice.

So I would say that the gay community is about to experience mass onset of deafness. The clever thing for heterosexuals to do would be to simply refuse to acknowledge that this is even happening.

That being said, I can't see what difference it would make if a passible MTF wants to be an Army nurse. In fact, such a person would likely bring some snap back to the look. So few biological women these days go in for the sharp career girl polish.

Yeah, and TG's are gonna be sore as hell about it, but ... when has to be be said somewhere.

That's why I wear garters and stockings to work once a week. I'm not gonna let transgirls take my birthright from me. I love my transgirls to death, but ... no. We wore 'em first, dammit. :p

~QC

Odysseus
09-29-2011, 09:52 PM
dude,i'm no troll,i once belonged to a vigilante group once too,before some drama happened that i won't discuss here.
This just gets sillier and sillier.


This will be interesting. The "ties" which bond the gay community to transgenders are thin at best, generally only sincere in the hipper than thou microsection of gay society. That microsection is severely over represented in groups like HRC.
And yet, Columbia University's various lefty student groups used the ban on transgenders in the military to justify keeping ROTC off campus a few weeks after the repeal of DADT was announced, so apparently the Ivy League didn't get the memo. Of course, the good news is that ROTC won't be back at Columbia anytime soon, so we won't be recruiting those idiots.


I haven't done a survey of the silent majority in the gay population, but would safely go out on a limb to say that most gay people do not consider themselves to be first cousins to transgenders. Gay people are people who are male or female and physically (though not always) and emotionally attracted to members of the same sex. They don't require treatment, pills, therapy, or surgery to be themselves. If they want to dress or act as a member of the opposite sex, it all washes off as it does for heterosexuals who amuse themselves in the same practice.
This is shocking to me. Not the idea that gays aren't going to identify with transgenders, but that there is a silent gay anything.


So I would say that the gay community is about to experience mass onset of deafness. The clever thing for heterosexuals to do would be to simply refuse to acknowledge that this is even happening.
Yeah, that would be really clever. That way, when the left has marshaled its resources to argue on their behalf, we will have ceded even more to them by not preparing a defense of the current policy. :rolleyes: Nope, sorry, but you can play deaf all that you want, but this is a direct consequence of DADT repeal, and you know it.


That being said, I can't see what difference it would make if a passible MTF wants to be an Army nurse. In fact, such a person would likely bring some snap back to the look. So few biological women these days go in for the sharp career girl polish.

Seriously? You cannot be this clueless. Let me try to explain this to you again: The armed forces do not have the resources to deal with the medical needs of someone who will require massive amounts of hormones on a regular basis, not to mention the psychological issues raised by a person who is so repelled by their own skin that they have to have it surgically mutilated into something that they are not. As for the career girl polish, the uniforms worn by all military personnel are prescribed by the regulations of the various services. In the case of the army, AR 670-1 does not make allowances for "snap." Like the song says, we're not here for your entertainment.

Novaheart
09-29-2011, 10:16 PM
Seriously?

Did it read serious?

Rockntractor
09-29-2011, 10:31 PM
Did it read serious?

Maybe we are going at this from the wrong angle for you, is there anyone unfit for military service in your opinion?

Novaheart
09-30-2011, 12:16 AM
Maybe we are going at this from the wrong angle for you, is there anyone unfit for military service in your opinion?

It's difficult to imagine how a case can be made for those who identify as transgendered. They have painted themselves into a corner. They claim to have a medical condition which needs to be remedied by drugs and surgery and that government and private healthcare programs should pay for it. Even if we disregard the elective nature of this "remedy", we have to compare it to other restrictions of the military.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the military doesn't permit people to dress as a member of the opposite biological sex while on the job, right? The military doesn't permit anyone else to take elective hormones for the purpose of physical enhancement, right? The military doesn't allow insulin dependent diabetics or anyone else who needs sustaining medication to enlist, right?

If those things are true, then this is simply chatter.

txradioguy
09-30-2011, 04:20 AM
Yup I called it.

Next up...forcing all 50 states to accept same sex couples that are "married" even when their own state law doesn't recognize gay marriage.

I can see the arguement now..."why don't you support the troops?"

And I wonder how long it will be before the advocates are calling for changes to Tri-Care to allow for sex change operations?

Odysseus
09-30-2011, 07:59 AM
Did it read serious?
Hard to tell. I couldn't see if you were typing with a (you will forgive the expression) straight face, but the question was so blown brain and clueless that I couldn't imagine someone with the brain capacity to type it actually asking it.

It's difficult to imagine how a case can be made for those who identify as transgendered. They have painted themselves into a corner. They claim to have a medical condition which needs to be remedied by drugs and surgery and that government and private healthcare programs should pay for it. Even if we disregard the elective nature of this "remedy", we have to compare it to other restrictions of the military.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the military doesn't permit people to dress as a member of the opposite biological sex while on the job, right? The military doesn't permit anyone else to take elective hormones for the purpose of physical enhancement, right? The military doesn't allow insulin dependent diabetics or anyone else who needs sustaining medication to enlist, right?
We also don't permit cross-dressing off the job, or at least we didn't use to. DADT repeal now means that we may, in fact, have to accomodate cross-dressers, provided that they only do it outside of duty hours. I'm sure that this will liven up the nightlife at the Officers' Club (although probably not in a good way), but otherwise, I don't see any benefits to this, although I'm sure that you do. As to the rest, you are correct about the sustaining drug conditions being a bar to enlistment, but I'm sure that the diabetic lobby will decide that this is a violation of their civil rights any day now.

If those things are true, then this is simply chatter.

Twenty years ago, repealing the gay ban was just chatter. So was putting women in combat positions. You of all people should know how slippery the slope has gotten, now that we'll be selling KY at the PX.

Tipsycatlover
09-30-2011, 09:00 AM
The military is being deliberately changed from a means of national defense, to just another organization whose purpose it is to make people feel good about themselves.

Novaheart
09-30-2011, 09:51 AM
We also don't permit cross-dressing off the job, or at least we didn't use to.

That's debatable. I say that because it's practically impossible to define "cross dressing" in off-duty society. Women (heterosexual or lesbian) in particular not only wear male styled clothing they wear actual male clothing. In uniform, male and female clothing are clearly defined. When you toss in costumes, comedic effect, and the deliberate androgyny of fashion at times then "cross dressing" would seem to be too broad to effectively enforce, which means it would be selectively enforced and selective-enforcement is what has actually been under attack.





DADT repeal now means that we may, in fact, have to accomodate cross-dressers, provided that they only do it outside of duty hours.

DADT to the best of my knowledge made no mention of cross dressing. It's difficult to imagine that it would given that DADT was about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not fashion choices. And you are questioning my brain power?




I'm sure that this will liven up the nightlife at the Officers' Club (although probably not in a good way), .

Your imagination is only matched by your special logic.




As to the rest, you are correct about the sustaining drug conditions being a bar to enlistment, but I'm sure that the diabetic lobby will decide that this is a violation of their civil rights any day now.

Took you long enough to get around to that.




....... sustaining drug conditions being a bar to enlistment, but I'm sure that the diabetic lobby will decide that this is a violation of their civil rights any day now.

And I am sure that you and your ilk will by some stretch of reason figure that gay people are the reason for it. However, there are indeed some people who are upset that what they see as benign medical conditions are cause for exclusion. While looking for the rules excluding diabetics, I came across a forum where patriotic young men were expressing their disappointment that they were not eligible to serve due to a diabetic condition which they claimed had not kept them from being a scholar nor an athlete.




Twenty years ago, repealing the gay ban was just chatter. So was putting women in combat positions. You of all people should know how slippery the slope has gotten, now that we'll be selling KY at the PX.

I would imagine that KY has been sold at the PX since it escaped from its original purpose as a surgical lubricant. I have never seen it marketed to gay people, if that was supposed to be the joke. I guess my juvenile yuck-yuck interpreter is broken today.

Novaheart
09-30-2011, 09:59 AM
Yup I called it.

It hardly took a psychic, since the transgenders were already politically active on this point before DADT was repealed. I myself predict rain in Florida sometime this week.




Next up...forcing all 50 states to accept same sex couples that are "married" even when their own state law doesn't recognize gay marriage.

You mean like they already do with heterosexual marriages? First cousins can marry in Florida where it is legal to marry, and their marriage will be recognized by Pennsylvania where cousin-marriage is prohibited as well as by the federal government and the Pentagon.



And I wonder how long it will be before the advocates are calling for changes to Tri-Care to allow for sex change operations?

Spend all the time you want on that.

Novaheart
09-30-2011, 10:11 AM
The camel's hump is still outside of the tent. It's hard to imagine who's next after them, though. Perhaps the handicapped? I can't wait to run the first pistol range for the visually impaired. .

Maybe those who misuse alcohol will volunteer to be separated?

HEALTH, READINESS, EVEN LIFE AT RISK FROM HEAVY DRINKING
COL Michael H. Custer
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine

Did you know that according to the latest results of DOD's "Survey of Health-Related Behaviors Among Active-Duty Military Personnel" (2005), the rate for heavy drinking (five or more drinks on one occasion once a week) in the Army increased at a statistically significant level from 17.2 percent in 1998 to 26.8 percent in 2005? Among Soldiers age 21 to 25, the rate was 35.7 percent.

Another study in "The Science of Health Promotion" (2008) estimated that heavy alcohol consumption costs DOD $425 million in excess medical costs each year. DOD pays another $677 million in alcohol-related costs associated with early separation, replacing non-deployable Soldiers and alcohol-related legal issues.

Just think of the dangerous behaviors associated with heavy drinking—suicide, spouse abuse, physical assaults, sexual assaults, motor vehicle accidents and injuries at work, to name some serious high-risk behaviors. As well, heavy drinking is associated with diseases such as pancreatitis, hepatitis and various cancers, to name just a few. Heavy drinking and associated behaviors and illnesses affect readiness and pose a serious challenge to Army leaders, not to mention their effects on individual Soldiers and those close to them.


http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/hc/healthtips/13/201002soldierdrinking.cfm

Odysseus
09-30-2011, 01:01 PM
That's debatable. I say that because it's practically impossible to define "cross dressing" in off-duty society. Women (heterosexual or lesbian) in particular not only wear male styled clothing they wear actual male clothing. In uniform, male and female clothing are clearly defined. When you toss in costumes, comedic effect, and the deliberate androgyny of fashion at times then "cross dressing" would seem to be too broad to effectively enforce, which means it would be selectively enforced and selective-enforcement is what has actually been under attack.
So, what you are saying is that because the rest of the culture has pursued androgyny with a vengeance, the armed forces should follow suit? Pass.


DADT to the best of my knowledge made no mention of cross dressing. It's difficult to imagine that it would given that DADT was about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not fashion choices. And you are questioning my brain power?
I gave up questioning your brain power long ago. DADT was about sexual orientation, but there were also other rules governing off-duty conduct under the UCMJ that applied. For example, the general article, or Article 134, provides a general guideline of conduct:


Article 134. General article:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
—10 U.S.C. § 934

One can argue that publicly dressing in drag constitutes "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces", but I'm sure that you don't.


Your imagination is only matched by your special logic.
As opposed to your utter lack of logic?


Took you long enough to get around to that.
I didn't realize that your attention span was that short. Next time, I'll confine myself to shorter words and sentences so that I don't overtax your faculties.


And I am sure that you and your ilk will by some stretch of reason figure that gay people are the reason for it. However, there are indeed some people who are upset that what they see as benign medical conditions are cause for exclusion. While looking for the rules excluding diabetics, I came across a forum where patriotic young men were expressing their disappointment that they were not eligible to serve due to a diabetic condition which they claimed had not kept them from being a scholar nor an athlete.

Just as gays claimed that their sexual orientation didn't keep them from participating in the rest of society. Once you accept the premise that military service is a right, and something that should be offered to anyone in need of a self-esteem boost, rather than an obligation undertaken for the sole purpose of national defense, all standards go out the window. Today, it's DADT. Tomorrow, it will be transgenders. Then diabetics, epileptics, paraplegics, quadraplegics, geriatrics and mentally challenged folks. On the plus side, when those last two barriers fall, you'll finally be able to sign up.


I would imagine that KY has been sold at the PX since it escaped from its original purpose as a surgical lubricant. I have never seen it marketed to gay people, if that was supposed to be the joke. I guess my juvenile yuck-yuck interpreter is broken today.
One would have to have a sense of humor to appreciate humor.


It hardly took a psychic, since the transgenders were already politically active on this point before DADT was repealed. I myself predict rain in Florida sometime this week.
But will you have the sense to come in out of it?


Maybe those who misuse alcohol will volunteer to be separated?

HEALTH, READINESS, EVEN LIFE AT RISK FROM HEAVY DRINKING
COL Michael H. Custer
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine

Did you know that according to the latest results of DOD's "Survey of Health-Related Behaviors Among Active-Duty Military Personnel" (2005), the rate for heavy drinking (five or more drinks on one occasion once a week) in the Army increased at a statistically significant level from 17.2 percent in 1998 to 26.8 percent in 2005? Among Soldiers age 21 to 25, the rate was 35.7 percent.

Another study in "The Science of Health Promotion" (2008) estimated that heavy alcohol consumption costs DOD $425 million in excess medical costs each year. DOD pays another $677 million in alcohol-related costs associated with early separation, replacing non-deployable Soldiers and alcohol-related legal issues.

Just think of the dangerous behaviors associated with heavy drinking—suicide, spouse abuse, physical assaults, sexual assaults, motor vehicle accidents and injuries at work, to name some serious high-risk behaviors. As well, heavy drinking is associated with diseases such as pancreatitis, hepatitis and various cancers, to name just a few. Heavy drinking and associated behaviors and illnesses affect readiness and pose a serious challenge to Army leaders, not to mention their effects on individual Soldiers and those close to them.


http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/hc/healthtips/13/201002soldierdrinking.cfm

They don't have to volunteer. We separate those who cannot control their drinking, and the UCMJ has specific prohibitions against drinking on duty and many issues that arise from off-duty drinking. Prior to separation, we provide counseling, rehab and a host of other services in order to try to salvage the offending troop, but ultimately, the mission comes first, and if they cannot be salvaged, then we separate them. As a commander, I had to refer a couple of cases to separation boards, including a field grade officer who got a DWI. However, I do not recall any alcoholics who tried to appeal their separations on the grounds that their drinking constitutes an alternative lifestyle that we must respect. Perhaps now that you've stormed the barricades on behalf of gays and seem ready to do so for cross-dressers, transgenders and diabetics, you'll take up the case of those alcoholics (oops! My bad, make that Inebriated-Americans, since we cannot be judgmental about these things), who are certainly no less fit for service than many of the other groups that you champion.

Tipsycatlover
09-30-2011, 01:34 PM
Seems like the "mission" is now to make individual military members feel really good about whatever disability or derangement they have. Everything else is secondary.

txradioguy
09-30-2011, 01:58 PM
It hardly took a psychic, since the transgenders were already politically active on this point before DADT was repealed. I myself predict rain in Florida sometime this week.

And yet if IRRC you and other Libs on here did the old eye roll "that's not what this is about" routine when I and others said that repeal of DADT had nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with s radical social agenda being shoved down the throats of soldiers.

Still want to say that DADT repeal is going to stop with gays being allowed to openly serve and nothing else?




You mean like they already do with heterosexual marriages? First cousins can marry in Florida where it is legal to marry, and their marriage will be recognized by Pennsylvania where cousin-marriage is prohibited as well as by the federal government and the Pentagon.

Your example is pathetic at best.

Find me a state that bans heterosexual marriage or doesn't recognize it and you'd have a point.

For that matter find me two first cousins that are married and serving in the military.


As it is now you're flailing desperately on this one. There are military bases in states that don't recognize gay "marriage". It won't be long before the first lawsuit from a gay "married" couple is filed in one of those states trying to force them to recognize the gay couples union.




Spend all the time you want on that.

I don't have to spend long..unless some common sense is restored in this matter it is going to happen.

txradioguy
09-30-2011, 02:02 PM
Then diabetics, epileptics, paraplegics, quadraplegics, geriatrics and mentally challenged folks. On the plus side, when those last two barriers fall, you'll finally be able to sign up.

There's already a guy that's deaf wanting to become a comissioned officer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/21/keith-nolan-deaf-man-army_n_932465.html

Odysseus
09-30-2011, 03:57 PM
Seems like the "mission" is now to make individual military members feel really good about whatever disability or derangement they have. Everything else is secondary.
No, the goal is to advance the normalization homosexuality and other leftist constituencies. One of the few meritocracies remaining in America is the military, and the left knows that service in the armed forces commands more respect than a job at the DOE or State Department, and they want that respect, no matter how badly they have to maul the organizations in their crosshairs.

And yet if IRRC you and other Libs on here did the old eye roll "that's not what this is about" routine when I and others said that repeal of DADT had nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with s radical social agenda being shoved down the throats of soldiers.

Still want to say that DADT repeal is going to stop with gays being allowed to openly serve and nothing else?
That's his story and he's sticking to it. He can't admit that he's tilting the slippery slope even further, so he will just pretend that each group is distinct and separate from the others, and ignore the fact that once the precedent of a "right" to military service was established, it was only a matter of time before everyone would want in.


There's already a guy that's deaf wanting to become a comissioned officer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/21/keith-nolan-deaf-man-army_n_932465.html

And, the libs at Huffpo have written an article that is incredibly sympathetic to his position, but not a single mention of why his disability could prevent him from serving. The article points out that he has to communicate through interpreters, for example, which means that he would not be able to interact with his troops without the intervention of a third party, but they don't make that obvious connection, instead trying to make it seem that this was a sign of his dedication and motivation, and not a huge impediment to doing his basic functions. Imagine trying to give and receive orders in combat under those conditions. For that matter, imagine being an officer who cannot communicate with a radio or telephone. This guy's story is heartbreaking, but we cannot allow sentiment to erode rules that are critical to maintaining, not just effectiveness, but basic standards of safety in the field. If Nolan could hear, he'd probably have been a great officer, but his disability makes him a liability under combat conditions, and no amount of maudlin sentimentality will change that.

Novaheart
09-30-2011, 04:41 PM
So, what you are saying is that because the rest of the culture has pursued androgyny with a vengeance, the armed forces should follow suit? Pass.


No, if you will actually read what I wrote, I said that it would be difficult to define cross dressing in a fair and equally applied way OFF DUTY/BASE.



DADT was about sexual orientation, but there were also other rules governing off-duty conduct under the UCMJ that applied. For example, the general article, or Article 134, provides a general guideline of conduct:

It would be reasonable to assume that only those rules which are or can be equally and fairly applied regardless of sexual orientation will stand. It's difficult to imagine that you would argue that it should be otherwise.





Article 134. General article:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
—10 U.S.C. § 934

OK, so basically that's a loophole you can drive a truck through. However, we could rightly look for precedents in which this catch-all (basically a moral turpitude clause) has been applied in an unfair or discriminatory fashion to those other than homosexuals. We're already quite aware of the selective way such things have been applied or attempted to be applied to homosexuals.





One can argue that publicly dressing in drag constitutes "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces", but I'm sure that you don't.

One can argue that the miscegenation observed in enlisted housing brings discredit on the armed forces, but that doesn't mean it's actionable.



Once you accept the premise that military service is a right, and something that should be offered to anyone in need of a self-esteem boost, rather than an obligation undertaken for the sole purpose of national defense, all standards go out the window.

No one has said that serving in the military is a right. The successful argument was that Americans shouldn't be barred from military service (and let's not forget that this is inseparable from opportunity for many who serve) merely for sexual orientation. The rest of the bullshit you went on after that is in your head.




Today, it's DADT. Tomorrow, it will be transgenders. Then diabetics, epileptics, paraplegics, quadraplegics, geriatrics and mentally challenged folks. On the plus side, when those last two barriers fall, you'll finally be able to sign up.

Then this all started when we allowed the Jewish or Irish immigrants to serve in the Civil War. Blame the yankees.

Novaheart
09-30-2011, 04:55 PM
We separate those who cannot control their drinking, and the UCMJ has specific prohibitions against drinking on duty and many issues that arise from off-duty drinking.

I have watched many people learn how to be professional alcoholics in my lifetime. And I lived in a military town with more than its share of alcoholics who never missed a day of work directly due to hangovers.

There isn't much I don't know about alcoholics, and I despise working with people who drink habitually, even those who never get a DWI, start a bar fight, hit their wife, or get caught with a hooker. The professional alcoholic is one of the harder ones to get recovery, because in their opinion they do everything they are supposed to do, and the fact that they drink too much before bed is none of your business.

The article makes it clear, alcohol costs the military a fortune. Oddly, it still tries to dance around it though, mentioning that it's a legal and age old custom.

Odysseus
09-30-2011, 05:51 PM
No, if you will actually read what I wrote, I said that it would be difficult to define cross dressing in a fair and equally applied way OFF DUTY/BASE.
It wouldn't be difficult at all. There is a clear difference between a woman wearing slacks and a man wearing a cocktail dress. You may not see this as fair and equitable, but the, you don't see most things that other people seem to see.


It would be reasonable to assume that only those rules which are or can be equally and fairly applied regardless of sexual orientation will stand. It's difficult to imagine that you would argue that it should be otherwise.

I'm all for equal and fair applications of the regulations, but I was also in favor of that back when DADT was policy. What I'm not in favor of is changing the policy to accomodate your lifestyle.


OK, so basically that's a loophole you can drive a truck through. However, we could rightly look for precedents in which this catch-all (basically a moral turpitude clause) has been applied in an unfair or discriminatory fashion to those other than homosexuals. We're already quite aware of the selective way such things have been applied or attempted to be applied to homosexuals.

On the contrary. This has not been selectively applied. The UCMJ used to forbid homosexual conduct between all Soldiers, not just the gay ones. It was one standard, equally applied to all. It wasn't the selectivity of the application that you objected to, but the standard itself.


One can argue that the miscegenation observed in enlisted housing brings discredit on the armed forces, but that doesn't mean it's actionable.
One can only argue that if one is being deliberately obtuse enough to attempt to equate race with sexual orientation, which you keep doing, then backpedaling when you're called on it. Crossdressing as a lifestyle does not inspire confidence in the ranks, or good order and discipline.


No one has said that serving in the military is a right. The successful argument was that Americans shouldn't be barred from military service (and let's not forget that this is inseparable from opportunity for many who serve) merely for sexual orientation. The rest of the bullshit you went on after that is in your head.
You appear incapable of understanding your own argument. In fact, you did argue that it was a right, and are doing so here. Why shouldn't Americans be barred from military service if it is not a right? By phrasing it the way that you just have, you have argued that military service should be a right for all Americans. Once you have established that premise, the remainder falls into place. If gays have that right, why not transgenders? Why not diabetics or the disabled? You've even asked this yourself, in previous threads. Remember this exchange?

I've thought about that from time to time. Are we really making he best use of our resources by demanding that all persons fit one of two molds? They only fit for a portion of their career anyway. I have been sailing with naval officers who were no longer physically fit; masters of the skills but unable to do things they once could. Why can't a guy with no legs be a phone operator or facilities manager in Virginia? As long as he understands that there are career limitations.


I take it back. You are that stupid. First, warfare, even in rear areas, is physically demanding, especially in an insurgency, where anyone can be attacked at any time. That's why we are required to maintain standards of fitness in accordance with the regulations of our respective services. Those naval officers that you claim to have sailed with were still physically capable of passing a PT test and making weight, or they would be out of the Navy. The reason for that is that every member of the service has to be deployable and able to do their jobs in combat.

That leads to the second issue: When we aren't in combat, what do you think that we're doing? I'll give you a hint: What do athletes do in the off season?

Train.

We train to do our jobs in circumstances that replicate the conditions of combat. Why? so that when we deploy, we are proficient at our tasks. Do you understand that a guy with no legs who stays behind keeps his skills with him, that the skills that he possesses are lost to his unit when they deploy and he does not? Hiring non-deployables to do certain jobs means that when those jobs need to be done downrange, the people who are trained to do them will not be available. A radio operator in Virginia does us little good if he can't be a radio operator in Iraq, and if he has to stay behind, then the person who replaces him will have poorer skills because he didn't do the job in CONUS. And before you assume that they can deploy to safe areas in theater, allow me to point out that the largest, safest base in Iraq, Balad, or LSA Anaconda (depending on when you were there) used to get mortared and rocketed daily, and when that happen, we had to put on our body armor and helmets. Paraplegics have a hard time getting around with 40lbs of armor on. The jobs that don't require deployment are the jobs that we hire civilians for.

In other words, it's not "bullshit ... that is in [my] head' so much as BS that was in your head, and appears to still be there. Trying to backpedal now because you looked stupid when you raised the issue doesn't change the fact that you proposed it in the first place. The only thing that's changed is that what I said at the time, that this would lead to other groups demanding the same inclusion regardless of qualification, has proven to be true. If you had even an ounce of integrity, you'd admit that I was correct. Integrity is one of the seven core Army Values. I hope that the gay recruits that you plan to send our way have more of it than you do.


Then this all started when we allowed the Jewish or Irish immigrants to serve in the Civil War. Blame the yankees.

Ah, so now we have Irish/Jewish=black=gay=transgendered=disabled=all Americans. Nice try. Once again, I commend you on your consistency. Unfortunately, it is a foolish and ignorant consistency, but I commend you on it anyway. And, once again, you're wrong on the facts. There was no ban on Irish or Jewish troops in the US military prior to the Civil War. In fact, the sole case about an attempt to exclude Jews from military service in America occurred before the Revolutionary War, when the Dutch governor of New Amsterdam, Peter Stuyvesant, attempted to exclude Jews from the militia. He was overruled by the Dutch East India Company, and that was the last time that the matter was an issue.

Novaheart
09-30-2011, 06:37 PM
One can only argue that if one is being deliberately obtuse enough to attempt to equate race with sexual orientation, which you keep doing, then backpedaling when you're called on it. Crossdressing as a lifestyle does not inspire confidence in the ranks, or good order and discipline.

Then cross dressing clearly needs to be proscribed. However, it has nothing to do with gay people, other than the fact that drag shows are a popular form of entertainment in gay bars. I'm guessing that a number of forms of entertainment, even some generally associated with an ethnicity aren't considered good form on the flight deck. I can't recall ever seeing a soldier or sailor tap dancing or eating watermelon in uniform. It would seem that good order and discipline preclude some off duty behaviors generally associated with a given minority, or the majority (except excessive drinking of course).

Novaheart
09-30-2011, 06:47 PM
I'm all for equal and fair applications of the regulations, but I was also in favor of that back when DADT was policy. What I'm not in favor of is changing the policy to accomodate your lifestyle.

You can be openly heterosexual but he can't be openly homosexual is not fair and equal. Therefore, you are not all for these things, and you have said something untrue.




On the contrary. This has not been selectively applied. The UCMJ used to forbid homosexual conduct between all Soldiers, not just the gay ones. It was one standard, equally applied to all. It wasn't the selectivity of the application that you objected to, but the standard itself. .

Yeah, yeah, Ralph, that's right up there with "You have the equal right to marry a female." It's horsewookie and you know it. The fair rule is no sex between soldiers of any sex, if that's what you want. Limiting that to soldiers of the same sex is discrimination. But at least you appear to be grasping the idea that not all sexual contact between two males involves gay males, which is of course why public health agencies use the term "MSM" rather than gay. If a straight man (for whatever reason) has sex with or on another male, he's an MSM, but he's not gay.




By phrasing it the way that you just have, you have argued that military service should be a right for all Americans.

A right is something unalienable. The only right that gay people have to serve in the military is the right as American citizens to be treated fairly and to not be excluded in an arbitrary and capricious fashion in support of a religious prejudice.

Hawkgirl
09-30-2011, 06:57 PM
Next, NAMBLA will want to serve in the military....luckily, you must be 18 to serve, so maybe not.

Odysseus
09-30-2011, 09:09 PM
You can be openly heterosexual but he can't be openly homosexual is not fair and equal. Therefore, you are not all for these things, and you have said something untrue.

I'm going to explain something to you that my seven year old and my three year old have begun to grasp, but you have not. Are you ready? Here it is: Life is not fair.

To put it another way, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same. The latter is the societal norm, the former is not. Grow up and deal with it.


Yeah, yeah, Ralph, that's right up there with "You have the equal right to marry a female." It's horsewookie and you know it. The fair rule is no sex between soldiers of any sex, if that's what you want. Limiting that to soldiers of the same sex is discrimination.

See above about life not being fair. Also see above about growing up and dealing with it. And, since you raised the issue, it used to be that any sexual relations between Soldiers, male or female, was not a problem because the females were a separate auxiliary. When women were integrated into the force, new rules were implemented, and then narrowed. Now, the rule is no sex between any officer and any enlisted troop, and no sex within the same chain of command. The only difference between this and DADT was that homosexual acts were not permitted between service members and anyone. Before you start whining again, see above about life not being fair.


But at least you appear to be grasping the idea that not all sexual contact between two males involves gay males, which is of course why public health agencies use the term "MSM" rather than gay. If a straight man (for whatever reason) has sex with or on another male, he's an MSM, but he's not gay.

That sounds like more PC BS. A straight man having sex with another man is no longer straight. Bi, maybe, but the straight ship has sailed.


A right is something unalienable. The only right that gay people have to serve in the military is the right as American citizens to be treated fairly and to not be excluded in an arbitrary and capricious fashion in support of a religious prejudice.
The only "right" that anyone has to serve in the military is the right to conform to the standards set by the services in order to maintain good order and discipline in pursuit of the defense of the United States. If you cannot conform to the standard, then the armed forces aren't for you, but since you can't grasp that, your "solution" is to demolish the standard.

And. for the I-don't-know-how-many time, this is not a religious prejudice, it's a rule based on the need to maintain an orderly disciplined force. Redefining it to suit your agenda doesn't change the facts, and pretending that everyone who disagrees is a theocratic bigot simply reflects your prejudice and your inability to discuss the issues that I have repeatedly raised and which you have not been able to rebut.

Next, NAMBLA will want to serve in the military....luckily, you must be 18 to serve, so maybe not.

The minimum enlistment age is 17, with a parent's permission and more activism from Nova and his pals, but I'm sure that younger teens will soon demand their "rights".

Novaheart
09-30-2011, 09:50 PM
That sounds like more PC BS. A straight man having sex with another man is no longer straight. Bi, maybe, but the straight ship has sailed.

And here you demonstrate the level of your expertise and why you probably shouldn't have been in any decision making position under DADT.

All you think about is the body parts and where people put them, isn't it?

Sexual orientation isn't about sex acts. If it were then all the guys who had ever "fooled around" with another guy would be bisexual or gay by your definition. If that's the case, then you need to revise that ridiculously low percentage you got from some right wing trash organization because the majority of all males have had such an experience. That's part of the BS around gay bashing.

It's called experimentation, Mama.
http://www.cinemorgue.com/piperlaurie.jpg

Odysseus
09-30-2011, 10:47 PM
And here you demonstrate the level of your expertise and why you probably shouldn't have been in any decision making position under DADT.

All you think about is the body parts and where people put them, isn't it?
No, I try not to think about that. Seriously.


Sexual orientation isn't about sex acts. If it were then all the guys who had ever "fooled around" with another guy would be bisexual or gay by your definition. If that's the case, then you need to revise that ridiculously low percentage you got from some right wing trash organization because the majority of all males have had such an experience. That's part of the BS around gay bashing.
As opposed to the gay magazines that fed you that bogus statistic? Even Kinsey, who was conducting his surveys in prison, where homosexual conduct was far more common than in society as a whole, only claimed 10%.


It's called experimentation, Mama.
http://www.cinemorgue.com/piperlaurie.jpg

And, apparently your view of religion and anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality comes from Steven King books, or at least movies based on his books. Maybe that's the problem. You think that things will go well because the first time some kid gets upset in basic training, he'll go all telekinetic on them. :rolleyes:

newshutr
09-30-2011, 11:04 PM
Nova's lies are really starting to make me sick.

Novaheart
10-01-2011, 12:12 AM
As opposed to the gay magazines that fed you that bogus statistic? Even Kinsey, who was conducting his surveys in prison, where homosexual conduct was far more common than in society as a whole, only claimed 10%.

Kinsey's 10% was not his figure for males who had had sexual contact with another male. It was for males who are exclusively homosexual for three years between the ages of 16 and 55. Kinsey also emphasized that his study and his scale were inadequate to define a moving target, ie human sexual orientation.

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history [...] An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. [...] A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.


—Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)

Novaheart
10-01-2011, 12:21 AM
And, apparently your view of religion and anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality comes from Steven King books .........

My view of religion comes from experience and observation. However, Mencken has expressed it in ways that have withstood the test of time.

God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos; He will set them above their betters.


No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.

For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing.

The only way to reconcile science and religion is to set up something which is not science and something that is not religion




We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

Odysseus
10-01-2011, 01:32 AM
Nova's lies are really starting to make me sick.
Nova's not lying, at least not to us. He really believes what he's saying, which is the pity.

Kinsey's 10% was not his figure for males who had had sexual contact with another male. It was for males who are exclusively homosexual for three years between the ages of 16 and 55. Kinsey also emphasized that his study and his scale were inadequate to define a moving target, ie human sexual orientation.

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.
While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history [...] An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. [...] A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.

”—Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)
I'm familiar with the Kinsey scale. But my point is that his estimate was still grossly overstated, and like you, he seeks to expand the spectrum of homosexuality so that it encompasses far more than it does. The desire to normalize your lifestyle is understandable, but it is not rational. Homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't interchangeable, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll stop trying to overturn the entire culture just to validate yourself.

My view of religion comes from experience and observation. However, Mencken has expressed it in ways that have withstood the test of time.

God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos; He will set them above their betters.


No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.

For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing.

The only way to reconcile science and religion is to set up something which is not science and something that is not religion




We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

Wikiquotes is a wonderful thing, but it isn't an argument, it's just you cutting and pasting, and it is not germane to this discussion for several reasons. The first is that I am not religious, and my arguments against DADT repeal are not based on religious morality tests but 25 years of military service, my understanding of the attitudes of the troops and the leadership, and the core principals of the military culture. You deliberately distort or ignore arguments that don't fit your paradigm of opposition as bigotry, and then make the same straw man arguments over and over again. Your ignorance of the military and its mission is why you can ask whether the handicapped can serve, or argue that since the troops didn't shower much during the Civil War, it's obviously overrated, or that someday men and women will be "advanced" enough to ignore all gender differences and shower together. This is the kind of cluelessness that I expect from a teenager, not an adult who one would hope has some experience in the world.

The second reason that your attack on religion is irrelevant is that this thread isn't about religion, it's about transgenders demanding the same "rights" that you've invented to force yourselves onto the armed forces. This is why you want desperately to distance yourself from them. Their arguments are identical to yours, and you know that when they make their case, not only will the public reject them as absurd, but the they will then reexamine the entire DADT debate and see it as just as absurd. That scares you, which is why you said that gays will suddenly feign deafness when they start agitating, because you don't want to hear your arguments coming from their lips.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's late, I'm tired, and unlike you, I actually have to deal with the fallout of your imbecilic crusade.

Novaheart
10-01-2011, 09:31 AM
This is why you want desperately to distance yourself from them. Their arguments are identical to yours, and you know that when they make their case

I haven't actually seen any of "their" arguments or demands. All I have read is that SLDN has taken on the cause of allowing trangenders to serve. I don't know in what capacity or circumstance, or even what they mean by transgender. Now if that surprises you, consider that I have been around the gay community for a long time, and I have noted that there is a lot of bullshit in academia and activism when it comes to 'Queer Theory'. Something consistent through this exposure is that transgender has been a nebulous catch all of make it up as you go along. I have read articles which claim that gay people, all gay people are actually transgender, just as there are "everybody is gay" people out there. But don't leave out that there is also a whack job counterpart in the religious prejudice camp as well. Just as there are transgenders who think all gay people are trans, and gay people who think everyone is gay or bisexual, there are religious nuts who proclaim that homosexual orientation doesn't exist, that everyone is heterosexual but that some are damaged or perverted.

And again, it doesn't matter if you or the Atlanta-bomber have never been to a church, synagogue, or religious class in your life. It doesn't matter if you have never bought a Christmas present, crushed a wine glass, or made a sacrifice to the Blessed Virgin in a Santeria ritual. The religious law and custom criminalizing homosexuality is ASIAN, not European, it's HEBRAIC not European, it's IMPORTED, not European. We know when this took place. Unlike Leviticus, it's an event in modern history with a date and a person's signature. It was forced on our culture by a dictator and the armies of religious aggression. And it may be native to you, but it is not native to the people you claim to be representing the interests of, they have simply inherited it from our culture which was infected with these Asian religions centuries ago.

Islam is a cancer, but its parents arrived in Europe long before it did.

Novaheart
10-01-2011, 09:47 AM
And, apparently your view of religion and anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality

Why would anyone approve or disapprove of homosexuality or heterosexuality? They simply are. Can you imagine the frustration if I were to decide that God hated heterosexuals and that I needed to go through life looking for ways to let them know it and discriminate against them?

You have a single argument: You're in the majority. Well guess what? You keep saying that gay people are 2.5% of the population and that that is supposed to mean something in terms of being treated equally under law and policy. Jews are 2.2% of the population. You want to play majority rules?

Age and Anti-Semitism

In the three previous studies, age has been one of the strongest demographic predictors for anti-Semitic beliefs. Although it is less of a factor in the current study, anti-Semitic beliefs continue to be noticeably more prevalent among the elderly than among the rest of the adult population.

Those adults over age 65 remain twice as likely as those under 65 to fall into the most anti-Semitic category. The current survey shows that 22% of Americans age 65 or older are in the most anti-Semitic group, compared to 10% of those under 65.

Both these figures are down from 1992, when 34% of elderly Americans were in the most anti-Semitic group, versus 17% of those under 65.

As the 1992 study found, the negative images of Jews which continue to linger among elderly Americans include many of the traditional financial and ethical stereotypes that have been largely rejected by the rest of the public.

Four of the seven statements that are accepted by those age 65 and over at a significantly higher level than by younger Americans are:

Jews have too much control and influence on Wall Street.
Jews have too much power in the business world.
Jewish businessmen are so shrewd that others don't have a fair chance in competition.
Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices.
The 1998 survey also reaffirms a trend that was discussed in the 1992 study -- namely,that the overall decline in the level of anti-Semitism in the U.S. over the last three to four decades is a result of two factors related to age:

1.)The gradual passing on of older Americans, who are more likely to hold anti-Jewish attitudes, and the steady and concurrent influx of younger, more tolerant citizens into the adult population; and

2.)A slow but steady change in the attitudes toward Jews among older Americans over their lifetime. Tracking the cohort of Americans who were alive in 1964 through the three subsequent surveys in 1981, 1992 and 1998 reveals a gradual decrease in the propensity of this group to accept anti-Semitic beliefs.

African-Americans continue to be significantly more likely than white Americans to hold anti-Jewish beliefs. As with whites, education level is the most important factor affecting the attitudes of blacks toward Jews.

The comparisons are undeniable. The demographics are the same shape.

NJCardFan
10-01-2011, 07:54 PM
For starters, let me clarify something:

Being black, Hispanic, White, Indian, Arab, etc is not a choice and to a similar degree, neither is being Jewish as most abide by the religion of their parents. However, with a very, very, very small segment of the population the exception, being gay is a choice. Also, what I find ironic is that during the days of the draft, some guys used to claim they were gay to get out of military service. To say that pendulum has swung is an understatement. And it reminds me of Klinger of M*A*S*H who, if we all remember, used to wear women's clothing so the Army would thing he was crazy. Well, in one episode, Sydney Freeman, the psychiatrist who made on and off appearances, told Klinger all he had to do was sign a paper saying he was homosexual and he was a free man. Klinger didn't like that too much. Now, if Nova gets his way, as with the Gay Pride parades, clothing will be optional.

Now, as for Nova's assertion that what someone does off base should be incidental, as we all know, I'm in corrections. Do you think that my behavior off duty and out of uniform can adversely affect my employment? You better believe it does. I've seen my share of co-workers allowing their asshattery outside of work cost them their jobs. But I'm wondering if Nova would be OK if someone pissed hot then claimed that they are Rastafarian and smoking dope a part of their religion.

Odysseus
10-01-2011, 09:47 PM
I haven't actually seen any of "their" arguments or demands. All I have read is that SLDN has taken on the cause of allowing trangenders to serve. I don't know in what capacity or circumstance, or even what they mean by transgender.

If you'd bothered to read the article, you'd have seen their demands:


“Our position is that the military should re-examine the policy, the medical regulations, so as to allow open service for transgender people,” said Vincent Paolo Villano, spokesman for the 6,000-member Center for Transgender Equality.

>SNIP<

SLDN’s goal is contained on a Web page with the headline, “Working toward transgender military service.” The page states that a decision to remove the ban must be made at the Pentagon. “Relationships between transgender organizations, medical associations, and military allies will be crucial for advancing this issue,” it says.

Additionally, the website mentioned in the article provides their definition, so with two mouseclicks, you'd have found this:


WHAT DOES “TRANSGENDER MILITARY SERVICE” MEAN?

The word “transgender” is commonly considered an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. The term includes, but is not limited to, transsexuals, cross-dressers, gender-queer people, intersex people, and other gender-variant individuals.
Transgender people may or may not decide to alter their bodies hormonally and/or surgically.
SLDN has urged the adoption of a policy that bars discrimination in the military on the basis of gender identity and is working to maximize the opportunities for military service for individuals who fall into the various communities under the transgender umbrella.

So, it's not that hard to figure out what they want, and how they define it, unless, of course, knowing that would force you to acknowledge that similarities between your arguments and theirs, and so continue your feigned deafness.


And again, it doesn't matter if you or the Atlanta-bomber have never been to a church, synagogue, or religious class in your life. It doesn't matter if you have never bought a Christmas present, crushed a wine glass, or made a sacrifice to the Blessed Virgin in a Santeria ritual. The religious law and custom criminalizing homosexuality is ASIAN, not European, it's HEBRAIC not European, it's IMPORTED, not European. We know when this took place. Unlike Leviticus, it's an event in modern history with a date and a person's signature. It was forced on our culture by a dictator and the armies of religious aggression. And it may be native to you, but it is not native to the people you claim to be representing the interests of, they have simply inherited it from our culture which was infected with these Asian religions centuries ago.

Islam is a cancer, but its parents arrived in Europe long before it did.
What an insanely stupid rant. There are lots of objections to homosexuality in the armed forces that are not rooted in religious objections. Health issues, for example, both physical and psychological. For example, in 2009, a group of gays in Canada filed complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, charging the nation's entire healthcare system with homophobia, demanding that more attention be given to "the many health issues that are endemic to our community."
The list that they provided stated that gays suffer from:

lower life expectancy--"[G]ay/bisexual men have a life expectancy 20 years less than the average man" in Canada. Even the life expectancy of lesbians, though not as severely impacted, "is still lower than the life expectancy of the general population."
higher rates of substance abuse--gay alcohol use is up to seven times higher, and illicit drug use up to 19 times higher than the general population.
depression
HIV/AIDS-- 76.1% of all AIDS cases since statistics were first kept occur in gay and bisexual men, and the infection rate is up to 26 times higher than among the population as a whole.
anal cancer
suicide--Suicide rates among gays are anywhere from double to 13.9 times higher than the general population. They stated that homosexuals comprise 30% of all suicides in Canada.
higher rates of breast cancer and cervical cancer among lesbians.


You complain that troops are more likely to abuse alcohol, but ignore the fact that civilian gays have alcoholism rates that dwarf the military's rate. AIDS and other STDs have been pretty much eliminated from the armed forces through rigorous testing and bans on high risk sexual behavior, but with DADT repeal, the latter are no longer banned, and the former will only capture the data after transmission occurs. Think that we might have an issue with tainting the military blood supply?


Why would anyone approve or disapprove of homosexuality or heterosexuality? They simply are. Can you imagine the frustration if I were to decide that God hated heterosexuals and that I needed to go through life looking for ways to let them know it and discriminate against them?

Once again, you keep bringing up religion. This isn't about religion. A lifestyle that has the physical and psychological impacts described above warrants, if not disapproval, at least increased scrutiny and concern. BTW, that's not just my position, but the Center for Disease Control. Have you seen this news release from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html)?


The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.

While CDC data have shown for several years that gay and bisexual men make up the majority of new HIV and new syphilis infections, CDC has estimated the rates of these diseases for the first time based on new estimates of the size of the U.S. population of MSM. Because disease rates account for differences in the size of populations being compared, rates provide a reliable method for assessing health disparities between populations.

"While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations," said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. "It is clear that we will not be able to stop the U.S. HIV epidemic until every affected community, along with health officials nationwide, prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men with HIV prevention efforts."

For the purposes of determining rates of disease for MSM, CDC researchers first estimated the size of the gay and bisexual male population in the United States – defined as the proportion of men who reported engaging in same-sex behavior within the past five years. Based on an analysis of nationally representative surveys, CDC estimated that MSM comprise 2.0 percent (range: 1.4-2.7 percent) of the overall U.S. population aged 13 and older, or 4 percent of the U.S. male population (range: 2.8-5.3 percent). Disease rates per 100,000 population were then calculated using 2007 surveillance data on HIV and primary/secondary syphilis diagnoses and U.S. Census data for the total U.S. population.


You have a single argument: You're in the majority. Well guess what? You keep saying that gay people are 2.5% of the population and that that is supposed to mean something in terms of being treated equally under law and policy. Jews are 2.2% of the population. You want to play majority rules?

>SNIP<

The comparisons are undeniable. The demographics are the same shape.

The critical difference is that the objections to Judaism are based on perceptions of financial and political disparities. Objections to homosexuality are based on factual health criteria. Jewish life expectancy, rates of disease and substance abuse do not differ significantly from the general population's. Gay stats are an order of magnitude worse. In fact, by trying to equate anti-semitism with opposition to gay military service, you've proven my point. There is no rational reason to exclude Jews from military service, while there are a host of physical and mental issues that come with adding gays, not to mention the shower and billeting issues, which are irrelevant to Jewish-Gentile accommodations, but which which have huge impacts when gays and straights are billeted together. This is another epic fail on your part, but you'll never admit it, not even to yourself.

Odysseus
10-01-2011, 09:48 PM
For starters, let me clarify something:

Being black, Hispanic, White, Indian, Arab, etc is not a choice and to a similar degree, neither is being Jewish as most abide by the religion of their parents. However, with a very, very, very small segment of the population the exception, being gay is a choice. Also, what I find ironic is that during the days of the draft, some guys used to claim they were gay to get out of military service. To say that pendulum has swung is an understatement. And it reminds me of Klinger of M*A*S*H who, if we all remember, used to wear women's clothing so the Army would thing he was crazy. Well, in one episode, Sydney Freeman, the psychiatrist who made on and off appearances, told Klinger all he had to do was sign a paper saying he was homosexual and he was a free man. Klinger didn't like that too much. Now, if Nova gets his way, as with the Gay Pride parades, clothing will be optional.

Now, as for Nova's assertion that what someone does off base should be incidental, as we all know, I'm in corrections. Do you think that my behavior off duty and out of uniform can adversely affect my employment? You better believe it does. I've seen my share of co-workers allowing their asshattery outside of work cost them their jobs. But I'm wondering if Nova would be OK if someone pissed hot then claimed that they are Rastafarian and smoking dope a part of their religion.

Nova only believes that gay conduct should not count off post, even if that conduct results in the health issues described above, or creates zones of obvious discomfort and risk in the barracks. It's all about him.

Novaheart
10-01-2011, 10:33 PM
Being black, Hispanic, White, Indian, Arab, etc is not a choice and to a similar degree, neither is being Jewish as most abide by the religion of their parents.

Utterly irrelevant.



However, with a very, very, very small segment of the population the exception, being gay is a choice.

This thread isn't about gay people, it's about transgendered people.



Also, what I find ironic is that during the days of the draft, some guys used to claim they were gay to get out of military service.

The lies of heterosexuals are only relevant to the fact that in the 21st century , a military draft would be impossible if the military were going to exclude gay people, because there would be little in the way of a social penalty for anyone who claimed to be gay to avoid service. In 1944, being excluded or separated for being homosexual was a Scarlett letter, or folks feared it would be. Now, it doesn't matter. No one cares.

Did you honestly think that DADT was done away with out of the goodness of their hearts? How long do you think it will be until we have another draft?



Now, if Nova gets his way, as with the Gay Pride parades, clothing will be optional.



You can't show where I even came close to saying that. You seem to mistake when I am objectively discussing something for an endorsement. Unlike the amen-section, I am not concerned about the response which endears me to the likes of Bailey or Tipsy. What I said was that SF had no law against nudity, that SF had nude beaches which predate the issue at hand, and that a law which allows men to go topless while forbidding women to go topless is discriminatory.




Now, as for Nova's assertion that what someone does off base should be incidental, as we all know, I'm in corrections. Do you think that my behavior off duty and out of uniform can adversely affect my employment? You better believe it does. I've seen my share of co-workers allowing their asshattery outside of work cost them their jobs. But I'm wondering if Nova would be OK if someone pissed hot then claimed that they are Rastafarian and smoking dope a part of their religion.

You jump around a lot. I never said that someone's offbase/offduty illegal activity was none of the military's business. I never even said that their offbase/duty moral turpitude was none of the military's business. I don't know how you read plain English and come away with what you imagine that it said, but I would appreciate it if you are going to respond to my posts, that you respond to my post, not your fucked up idea of what I was actually saying.

Odysseus
10-01-2011, 10:52 PM
This thread isn't about gay people, it's about transgendered people.
Who are demanding the same consideration from the DOD as gay people, using the same arguments, therefore it is about both.

The lies of heterosexuals are only relevant to the fact that in the 21st century , a military draft would be impossible if the military were going to exclude gay people, because there would be little in the way of a social penalty for anyone who claimed to be gay to avoid service. In 1944, being excluded or separated for being homosexual was a Scarlett letter, or folks feared it would be. Now, it doesn't matter. No one cares.
It doesn't matter, but what does matter is attracting recruits to an all-volunteer force. The presence of openly gay troops will not fill out the ranks very much, but the losses through attrition and diminished recruitment will have serious impacts, and when gay troops begin to bring their greater range of health and behavioral issues into the force, those impacts will increase.


Did you honestly think that DADT was done away with out of the goodness of their hearts? How long do you think it will be until we have another draft?
Sometime shortly after Hell freezes over. DADT was repealed because Obama, Reid and Pelosi needed to shore up the support from a highly affluent and vocal part of their political base. This had nothing to do with readiness or making up manpower shortages. In fact, Obama is proposing massive cuts to DOD end strength. Reducing the size of the force makes DADT repeal doubly pointless from a readiness point of view.


I never said that someone's offbase/offduty illegal activity was none of the military's business. I never even said that their offbase/duty moral turpitude was none of the military's business. I don't know how you read plain English and come away with what you imagine that it said, but I would appreciate it if you are going to respond to my posts, that you respond to my post, not your fucked up idea of what I was actually saying.

How about if off base activities incur added costs to the military in the form of high-risk behaviors that result in increased rates of STDs, including AIDS. colo-rectal cancers resulting from exposure to HPV and higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse? Think maybe some of the consequences of homosexual conduct just might have some negative effects on the force?

Rockntractor
10-01-2011, 11:02 PM
Meh! I'm bored, somebody hit somebody!:rolleyes:

Zathras
10-02-2011, 12:40 AM
Meh! I'm bored, somebody hit somebody!:rolleyes:

Ok....

Playing the part of Odysseus is Chuck Norris and playing the part of Novaheart is Joe Piscopo

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2QfQIeLmlg

Novaheart
10-02-2011, 01:01 AM
There are lots of objections to homosexuality in the armed forces that are not rooted in religious objections. Health issues, for example, both physical and psychological.

Ah so your moral, social, and legal arguments have failed and now you're resorting to this.





For example, in 2009, a group of gays in Canada ........

I couldn't care less what a group of gay people in Canada did, but the operative paragraph is this:

"Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada have developed policies, strategies and funding initiatives for most other populations in this country but they seem unwilling to do the same for gay, lesbian, bisexual Canadians even though we have one of the poorest health statuses in this country."

The general averages are numbers, they do not apply to any segment of society as a rule. Every segment of society has its own numbers, and often its own problems.

The average life expectancy for example, is a national average at birth. Your own life expectancy at birth is calculated by a number of factors including your ethnicity. As you get older, your life expectancy gets longer.


What an insanely stupid rant.

What is stupid, is you attempting to prove your case in this way. You can't pull gay people out of the stats and then compare them to the average, with the assumption that the average is the figure for the heterosexual male. It isn't the figure for the heterosexual male. In fact, Negro heterosexual males have a dreadful disparity with the national average for a variety of factors.

We have also had public protests about our health care system's effectiveness with regards to certain sub-groups of the national population. Negroes have a number of elevated health issues and activists complain that they are 'underserved' in health care. You'll recall the movement on and in the medical field to get attention paid to women as potential victims of heart attack.

Of course, the difference between those cases and the one you are ineptly trying to make, is that studies of a minority of the minority are not generally projected on the entire group. The studies you referred to were of urban gay men. And you ineptly or dishonestly pull that out and try to compare it to the whole of heterosexuals, or perhaps you only meant white heterosexuals. If you weren't being dishonest, and you were as intelligent as you would like us to believe that you are, then you would know that you have to compare the urban white single homosexual male to the urban white single heterosexual male. Comparing either one to a busload of dorks going to their bird watching club won't yield useful information.


You complain that troops are more likely to abuse alcohol, but ignore the fact that civilian gays have alcoholism rates that dwarf the military's rate.

gay alcohol use is up to seven times higher

"Up to"? Either it is or it isn't. This is the kind of term to look for when trying to spot bullshit. If it's "up to" 700% then why not "up to 10,000%"?

Alcohol use in the US is at about 50%. So if gay people are seven times higher, then that would mean that 350% of gay people use alcohol. Perhaps they meant "abuse alcohol." We'll give them the benefit of the doubt. That would mean that 49% of gay people are alcoholics. I'm sure that doesn't seem plausible even to you. But the real sticking point here is methodology. Again, these claims are based in the study of "an urban population". If you count alcoholics in New Orleans and project that on the nation as a whole, we in big trouble. But see, you can't do that with these bullshit studies, because the study group is self selected. You can't even tell me exactly how many gay people there are in the populations, so you can't make these kinds of claims with any authority.

However, the military has a more effective way of determining the alcoholism rate and the exact size of the subject population is known. So if that figure is five times the population as a whole, then that is indeed a more meaningful figure. Not to mention that the young men in downtown Toronto who are burning the candle at both ends are not under the supervision of the military, the military personnel are. And yet, this is the case.


Suicide rates among gays are anywhere from double to 13.9 times higher than the general population.

What a ridiculous thing to quote. I don't even need to do the math on this one because the variation of extremes renders it worthless. From "double to 13.9 times higher"? Wow, how specific. That's right up there with the ten to four hundred million American Indians who died shortly after the arrival of Europeans in the 15th century. LOL.


AIDS and other STDs have been pretty much eliminated from the armed forces through rigorous testing and bans on high risk sexual behavior, but with DADT repeal, the latter are no longer banned, and the former will only capture the data after transmission occurs. Think that we might have an issue with tainting the military blood supply?


Citation needed.

Novaheart
10-02-2011, 01:18 AM
PS- You guys can have the last word if you want. Unless my my mood changes, I'm tired of this conversation.

NJCardFan
10-02-2011, 11:04 AM
PS- You guys can have the last word if you want. Unless my my mood changes, I'm tired of this conversation.

Ah, the "screw you guys I'm going home" approach. Gotcha.

NJCardFan
10-02-2011, 11:14 AM
Utterly irrelevant.
Uhh, you brought it up dimwit. You were the one who tried to compare barring gays from serving in the same light as barring Irish and Jews from serving...or did I dream this....





Then this all started when we allowed the Jewish or Irish immigrants to serve in the Civil War. Blame the yankees.

Thought not. But, as usual, you're called on it and you dance through it with such finesse that Fred Astaire would have been an amateur by comparison.

Tipsycatlover
10-02-2011, 11:52 AM
Somewhere along the line we lost the concept of the troops in the military being there for the benefit of the military instead of the other way around. The military does not exist to make a comfortable life for ANYONE. The way it's going, blind snipers (who really REALLY want the job, it has a nifty title) are in the future.

Tipsycatlover
10-02-2011, 11:58 AM
This is a sickness in our entire society. You can see it in all those warm fuzzy stories about the crippled child, or severely mentally disabled child that the team lets "play". The whole team cheers at the loss they elected to take. They have done the right thing and let his kid enjoy the feeling of playing and the feeling of victory.

The object of the game is not to let failures feel like they won. The object is to win. The military does not exist so that gays and transgendered people can feel good. It's to provide for the national defense.

When the national defense depends on whether some homosexual cries when he doesn't get his way the country is in deep DEEP trouble. This is not an idle outlook because the national defense IS in deep deep trouble because Bradley Manning got dumped by his gay lover and decided the nation had to suffer because no one was sensitive enough to his loss.

Zathras
10-02-2011, 04:13 PM
PS- You guys can have the last word if you want. Unless my my mood changes, I'm tired of this conversation.

Translation: I'm tired of having my lame assed arguments being disected with surgical precision so, in the words of Eric Cartman.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTc3zcnIZOw

txradioguy
10-02-2011, 04:33 PM
Ah, the "screw you guys I'm going home" approach. Gotcha.

Typical cut and run approach favored by Libs everywhere.

Novaheart
10-02-2011, 09:03 PM
Typical cut and run approach favored by Libs everywhere.

Are you kidding? We have beaten this topic to death. It's toxic at this point.

CueSi
10-02-2011, 09:05 PM
Are you kidding? We have beaten this topic to death. It's toxic at this point.

Yeah, I think we had like 3 simultaneous threads about DADT at one point. :o

~QC

Odysseus
10-02-2011, 09:15 PM
Ok....

Playing the part of Odysseus is Chuck Norris and playing the part of Novaheart is Joe Piscopo

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2QfQIeLmlg
I always loved that last shot where Piscopo goes head over heals to the mat.

Ah so your moral, social, and legal arguments have failed and now you're resorting to this.
My moral, social and legal arguments haven't failed, they've only failed to convince you, but since nothing will convince you, that's hardly a fair standard. I'm also not "resorting" to anything. I've raised these issues before, as you well know. However, you continue to pretend that they don't have any relevance, which would be funny if the end results weren't so tragic. The fact is that homosexuality has profound health consequences, and your refusal to accept this condemns anyone who listens to you to a host of mental and physical consequences.


I couldn't care less what a group of gay people in Canada did, but the operative paragraph is this:

"Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada have developed policies, strategies and funding initiatives for most other populations in this country but they seem unwilling to do the same for gay, lesbian, bisexual Canadians even though we have one of the poorest health statuses in this country."

The general averages are numbers, they do not apply to any segment of society as a rule. Every segment of society has its own numbers, and often its own problems.

The average life expectancy for example, is a national average at birth. Your own life expectancy at birth is calculated by a number of factors including your ethnicity. As you get older, your life expectancy gets longer.
And some segments have more problems than others. Your comments on life expectancy, for example, demonstrate one of yours, namely an inability to deal with inconvenient facts. Your irrelevant aside about the various factors that impact on life expectancy ignores the one salient fact, which is that, all other factors aside, the average gay man lives twenty years less than everyone else. It's desperate spin, but it doesn't change the facts, and speaking of the facts, I notice that you don't address the CDC numbers. If a group of Canadian gays isn't of interest to you, one would think that the US government's own health administration would be. Let's go to the CDC for their take on gay health issues, shall we?

First, substance abuse, http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/substance-abuse.htm:

Studies have shown that, when compared with the general population, gay and bisexual men, lesbian, and transgender individuals are more likely to:

Use alcohol and drugs
Have higher rates of substance abuse
Are less likely to abstain from alcohol and drug use
Are more likely to continue heavy drinking into later life[1]
Alcohol and drug use among some men who have sex with men (MSM) can be a reaction to homophobia, discrimination, or violence they experienced due to their sexual orientation and can contribute to other mental health problems.

Substance abuse is associated with a wide-range of mental health and physical problems. It can disrupt relationships, employment, and threaten financial stability.

Alcohol and illegal drug use in some gay and bisexual men also contributes to increased risk for HIV infection and other STDs, especially methamphetamines, amyl nitrates (poppers) and drugs used to treat erectile dysfunction. Individuals under the influence of drugs or alcohol may increase their risk for HIV transmission by engaging in risky sexual behaviors or through sharing needles or other injection equipment.
I even included the PC line about this preponderance being a possible reaction to us awful heterosexuals, but regardless, the facts are what they are.


However, the military has a more effective way of determining the alcoholism rate and the exact size of the subject population is known. So if that figure is five times the population as a whole, then that is indeed a more meaningful figure. Not to mention that the young men in downtown Toronto who are burning the candle at both ends are not under the supervision of the military, the military personnel are. And yet, this is the case.
OTOH, the young men in downtown Toronto aren't dealing with multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, now are they? Imagine their reactions when they get some real stress in their lives.


What a ridiculous thing to quote. I don't even need to do the math on this one because the variation of extremes renders it worthless. From "double to 13.9 times higher"? Wow, how specific. That's right up there with the ten to four hundred million American Indians who died shortly after the arrival of Europeans in the 15th century. LOL.
Well, if the math you did previously was any indication, then LOL is right. So, let's go to the CDC again, shall we?


Males in the United States are more likely to take their own life at nearly four times the rate of females and represent 79% of all U.S. suicides. Suicide is the seventh leading cause of death for males in the United States. Men who have sex with men are at even greater risk for suicide attempts, especially before the age of 25. Some risk factors are linked to being gay or bisexual in a hostile environment and the effects that this has on mental health.

How much greater is the suicide rate among gay men? Unfortunately, the CDC doesn't provide the numbers, but another study gives some insights. From the online journal, Pediatrics, as reported in LifesiteNews:


Study: gay teens five times more likely to attempt suicide (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-gay-teens-five-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide/)
BY KATHLEEN GILBERT
Fri Apr 29, 2011 13:04 EST

NEW YORK, April 29, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Teens who self-identify as homosexual are five times more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to attempt suicide, according to a study released last week.

The study, published in the journal Pediatrics online on April 18, was conducted in order to determine whether living in a gay friendly social environment affected the risk of a teen identifying as homosexual committing suicide. It found that teens in “unsupportive” social environments were 20 percent more at risk of attempting suicide than those in “supportive” environments.
>SNIP<
The study gathered self-report data from nearly 32,000 grade 11 students in Oregon. The findings also revealed that 21.5 percent of the gay teens surveyed reported suicidal tendencies, while only 4.2 percent of straight teens did the same.

So LBGT teens are five-times more likely to report suicidal tendencies and to attempt suicide, and that the support of the environment reduces that to only four times more likely. Does basic training strike you as a "supportive" environment?


PS- You guys can have the last word if you want. Unless my my mood changes, I'm tired of this conversation.
Unfortunately, the last word on this will not be here, but in barracks throughout the US military, where DADT repeal will have direct impacts on the force. Those troops will have the last word, and hopefully it won't be their last words.

Well i think it has to do with the Puritans who came to America,supposedly as late as the 1800's it was considered obscene for a woman to bare her ankle,and supposedly in more recent times Elvis could only be filmed from the waist up. Reminds me,the more things change,the more things stay the same.

What are you talking about? :confused:

Rockntractor
10-02-2011, 09:30 PM
What are you talking about? :confused:


http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/forums/jim-beam-puritans-small-11252.jpg

hai
10-02-2011, 10:07 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/forums/jim-beam-puritans-small-11252.jpg


?????????:confused:

Rockntractor
10-02-2011, 10:10 PM
?????????:confused:

You need to brush up on your history a bit.

hai
10-02-2011, 10:11 PM
You need to brush up on your history a bit.

Sorry.

o.O

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 09:02 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/forums/jim-beam-puritans-small-11252.jpg

Not to be Buzz Killington, but that wasn't the Puritans. It was my people in Virginia. The original complaint was not that the bar at Jamestown was built soon after (or at the same time) as the church, but that they spent twice as much on the bar as the church.

Puritans were no fun. The Virginians were the ancestors of the modern Episcopalians: dry to bawdy humor and moderation in al things (while others are watching).

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 09:23 AM
And some segments have more problems than others. Your comments on life expectancy, for example, demonstrate one of yours, namely an inability to deal with inconvenient facts. Your irrelevant aside about the various factors that impact on life expectancy ignores the one salient fact, which is that, all other factors aside, the average gay man lives twenty years less than everyone else.

OK, I'm back because I have the high moral inability to stand it when someone else is wrong.

About life expectancy.

There is no "everyone else", there is an average. That average is derived from those with the lowest life expectancy at birth to those with the highest. In racial demographics, white females live the longest. So if this is your yardstick then only white females should serve in the military. Blacks and American Indian vie for the lowest life expectancy by race in this country. Blacks and American Indians have higher rates of STD's (Blacks also have a higher rate of AIDS than average), alcoholism, drug addiction, high blood pressure, diabetes, and death by violence. Clearly, they cannot serve in the military by your dynamic.

There is no legitimate life expectancy figure for gay people. And even if it were less, Rottweilers don't live as long as toy poodles, which one do you want to guard your house?

Tipsycatlover
10-03-2011, 09:32 AM
A Rottweiller that lays around and doesn't bite is FAR less able to protect your home than a toy poodle that will rip out your throat.

A military that has become a leftist laboratory for social justice instead of an efficient machine to protect the country is so ineffective as to be useless. Which is how the left wants it. All those nasty men that don't care if they hurt people's feelings have to GO.

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 09:32 AM
The fact is that homosexuality has profound health consequences, and your refusal to accept this condemns anyone who listens to you to a host of mental and physical consequences.

Homosexuality does not have profound health consequences. Choices have profound health consequences. If homosexuality were the operative factor, then gay men and women would have the same stats. They don't. Neither do straight men and straight women. So again, if you are going to make the sliding scale argument, then clearly, we're down to straight white women in the armed forces.

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 10:01 AM
........ the average gay man lives twenty years less than everyone else.

What do you think this means in actual numbers?

Tipsycatlover
10-03-2011, 11:40 AM
I
And some segments have more problems than others. Your comments on life expectancy, for example, demonstrate one of yours, namely an inability to deal with inconvenient facts. Your irrelevant aside about the various factors that impact on life expectancy ignores the one salient fact, which is that, all other factors aside, the average gay man lives twenty years less than everyone else. It's desperate spin, but it doesn't change the facts, and speaking of the facts, I notice that you don't address the CDC numbers. If a group of Canadian gays isn't of interest to you, one would think that the US government's own health administration would be. Let's go to the CDC for their take on gay health issues, shall we?


My understanding is a bit different. The average gay man has a life expectancy on an average of 20 years less than the average straight person. It's probably much less than that if you limit the average to a man married to a woman who has the longest life expectancy of all.

This is not because they are gay. It is because they are men. Even the most committed of committed homosexual relationships permits routine infidelities. The whole idea of love and committment is different. Love means I love you most. Committment is I will always come back to you. Gay men have a much higher incidence of promiscuity which impacts their health. The resurgence of syphyllis for instance is far more prevalent among homosexuals. The syphyllis rate in gay mecca Palm Springs has skyrocketed prompting health officials to attend events to explain the risks. Lesbians have the same life expectancy as anyone else because the female need for exclusive relationships limits promiscuity. There are gay resorts where the primary activity is a frequent change of partners. Gay bathhouses promise anonymous sex with multiple partners. There is nothing among lesbians that compare. While lesbian relationships may frequently break up and change, while within a given relationship lesbians are for the most part faithful. Not because they are lesbians, but because they are WOMEN.

The only straight men that have the same risk as gay men are unusually promiscuous men. The average man, even if he would like to be that promiscuous is limited in his behavior by the average woman.

lacarnut
10-03-2011, 12:45 PM
My understanding is a bit different. The average gay man has a life expectancy on an average of 20 years less than the average straight person. It's probably much less than that if you limit the average to a man married to a woman who has the longest life expectancy of all.

This is not because they are gay. It is because they are men. Even the most committed of committed homosexual relationships permits routine infidelities. The whole idea of love and committment is different. Love means I love you most. Committment is I will always come back to you. Gay men have a much higher incidence of promiscuity which impacts their health. The resurgence of syphyllis for instance is far more prevalent among homosexuals. The syphyllis rate in gay mecca Palm Springs has skyrocketed prompting health officials to attend events to explain the risks. Lesbians have the same life expectancy as anyone else because the female need for exclusive relationships limits promiscuity. There are gay resorts where the primary activity is a frequent change of partners. Gay bathhouses promise anonymous sex with multiple partners. There is nothing among lesbians that compare. While lesbian relationships may frequently break up and change, while within a given relationship lesbians are for the most part faithful. Not because they are lesbians, but because they are WOMEN.

The only straight men that have the same risk as gay men are unusually promiscuous men. The average man, even if he would like to be that promiscuous is limited in his behavior by the average woman.

Another good reason (diseases) to ban these perverts from military service.

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 01:33 PM
My understanding is a bit different. The average gay man has a life expectancy on an average of 20 years less than the average straight person. It's probably much less than that if you limit the average to a man married to a woman who has the longest life expectancy of all.

You are doing two things here: ignoring the actual methodology, and stacking one statistic onto another. Both are mistakes commonly made by people not accustomed to dealing in statistics.

First off understand that this is not the definitive study being used for this claim. It is a study, a study done in Vancouver British Columbia and the comparison is not to the average straight person, it is to the average of all Canadian males. You are correct that there are other factors which affect life expectancy related to whether one is married or not, but these are also a factor in heterosexuals. INteresting that you would point that out since you support denying marriage licenses to gay people.

The subject class is not "the average gay man". The subject group was 20 year old gay men in Vancouver British Columbia, a gay urban magnet. I have repeated told you , and you keep ignoring that this sort of study is tantamount to taking "an average sample" of persons in New Orleans. Trust me that the stats for New Orleans are not the same as the national averages.

If you honestly believe that only 50% of gay men as a group will make it to age 65 then you are as big an idiot as Paul Cameron, the one who is promoting this position.

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 01:41 PM
Even the most committed of committed homosexual relationships permits routine infidelities. The whole idea of love and committment is different. Love means I love you most. Committment is I will always come back to you.

You really don't know what you are talking about. This is because you confuse sexual fidelity with trust and loyalty and think that it's a standard. It isn't a standard, it's common but it is not the rule. Not by a long shot.

You also don't appear to actually know any or many gay people. I see situations with gay people that I rarely if ever see with straight people. One of my best friends is living in Miami, with his exlover (ended 20 years ago). They co-own a business, their house, and are financially intertwined. It simply didn't make sense to stop being partners because they stopped being married. Does that even makes sense in the world of screaming ex-wives and ballistic exhusbands? I know gay people who are caretakers to their former lover, or his family. When you go to Tampa General Hospital medical practice center, you'll notice something odd, if you head isn't still up your crack. An inordinate number of gay people care for their elderly parent. Many of them live with an elderly parent. Did it occur to your bigoted little mind that maybe in "God's plan" there were some people who were supposed to be the caretakers? Has it ever occurred to your malfunctioning brain that tribes which have gay genes have extra females for child care, and extra males for defense and hunting?

No, it hasn't occurred to you because you read bullshit from the American Family Association and the Family Research Council and think it makes sense.

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 01:45 PM
Another good reason (diseases) to ban ..... from military service.

Then negroes should be banned from the military?

By the way, it wasn't homosexuals who brought syphilis to Europe. It was heterosexual white males who had no more decency than to fuck the aboriginals.

Bailey
10-03-2011, 01:54 PM
Then negroes should be banned from the military?

By the way, it wasn't homosexuals who brought syphilis to Europe. It was heterosexual white males who had no more decency than to fuck the aboriginals.

I have to hand it to you gays, a vast majority of aids infected were/are gays but you fooled the country into believing that hiv is an equal opportunity disease. How and why did they do this? Instead of pinning it on your kind?

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 02:20 PM
I have to hand it to you gays, a vast majority of aids infected were/are gays but you fooled the country into believing that hiv is an equal opportunity disease. How and why did they do this? Instead of pinning it on your kind?

It's impossible to know how AIDS would have manifested in the developed nations had it not early on disproportionately affected upper and middle class young white males with health insurance. Surely you know that worldwide AIDS has much different demographics, but the effect on the Third World doesn't have the same impact that it does on the countries which develop medical cures, like the English speaking countries, Japan, Europe, and Israel.

I know that you are not being nice, but it really doesn't matter to what needs to be said. Had AIDS not struck the Goldwater, Getty, DuPont, and other prominent families, it might not have gotten the push it did. You should also be aware that that push or rush to work, came after a long hard effort by the gay community to get something done as Americans, taxpayers, and humans.

And you can bitch and moan about it, but the research that has gone into HIV and continues in this field was not then nor is it now for the sole benefit of gay people or those infected with HIV. It's research into the core of the human body's ability to deal with viral infections and mutating diseases. It was research which ought to have been funded at the highest levels from the 1950's. We knew there were strange and new diseases coming. We knew that there were infections our antibiotics couldn't kill.

You probably won't think to do this, but one day as an "AIDS drug" is administered to you or a loved one (assuming you actually have any) for a condition other than AIDS, you might think to posthumously thank some of the nasty, perverted, morally unfit gay men who acted as the Guinea pigs for the advance of immunology.

fettpett
10-03-2011, 02:23 PM
I have to hand it to you gays, a vast majority of aids infected were/are gays but you fooled the country into believing that hiv is an equal opportunity disease. How and why did they do this? Instead of pinning it on your kind?

:rolleyes: HIV will infect anyone, why the hell do you think that blood banks now screen for it, that a heterosexual that spreads it knowingly is charged with crime just as much as a homosexual.

not only that, but an infectious disease will spread much faster in a smaller population than it will in a large one, particularly one where the lifestyle is much different than the average.

Bailey
10-03-2011, 02:32 PM
:rolleyes: HIV will infect anyone, why the hell do you think that blood banks now screen for it, that a heterosexual that spreads it knowingly is charged with crime just as much as a homosexual.

not only that, but an infectious disease will spread much faster in a smaller population than it will in a large one, particularly one where the lifestyle is much different than the average.


Then why are gays prohibited from giving blood? All I'm saying is how the gays took a majority gay disease and deflected the blame off of them, it was a work of art.

hai
10-03-2011, 02:38 PM
Not to be Buzz Killington, but that wasn't the Puritans. It was my people in Virginia. The original complaint was not that the bar at Jamestown was built soon after (or at the same time) as the church, but that they spent twice as much on the bar as the church.

Puritans were no fun. The Virginians were the ancestors of the modern Episcopalians: dry to bawdy humor and moderation in al things (while others are watching).

This. Plus i feel America has always been Puritan,like during the 1800's it was considered obsene for a woman to bare her ankle,in more recent times Elvis could only be filmed from the waste up,and the various scandals involving jean companies. Reminds me,the more things change the more things stay the same.

Odysseus
10-03-2011, 02:43 PM
OK, I'm back because I have the high moral inability to stand it when someone else is wrong.
The operative word there being "else", otherwise you'd be unable to live with yourself.

About life expectancy.

There is no "everyone else", there is an average. That average is derived from those with the lowest life expectancy at birth to those with the highest. In racial demographics, white females live the longest. So if this is your yardstick then only white females should serve in the military. Blacks and American Indian vie for the lowest life expectancy by race in this country. Blacks and American Indians have higher rates of STD's (Blacks also have a higher rate of AIDS than average), alcoholism, drug addiction, high blood pressure, diabetes, and death by violence. Clearly, they cannot serve in the military by your dynamic. [/QUOTE]
Once again, you are cherry-picking the data. Life expectancy is one aspect of the health issues that negatively impact gay men far more than the rest of the population. AIDS, STDs, depression, suicide, all are far more common among gay men than anyone else. In the case of the first two, they are more common than among everyone else, as the 2% of the population (as per CDC) that comprises gay/bi men accounts for the vast majority of AIDS and STD cases in America. Black and American Indian rates for the pathologies that you cited are cultural, rather than physical attributes that are the result of being black or American Indian (with the possible exception of high blood pressure, which usually does have genetic factors). But, the very fact of gay sexual behavior exposes the body to practices which are inherently destructive. MSM sexual practices result in infection rates that are an order of magnitude higher than for non-MSMs (the "everyone else" that you pretend doesn't exist).


There is no legitimate life expectancy figure for gay people.

No? Another falsehood. Observe (http://www.sodahead.com/living/is-the-homosexual-life-span-shorter-than-the-population-at-large/question-1142847/):


All of this changed in April, 1993, when Dr. Paul Cameron (Family Research Institute, Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640) presented a paper to a meeting in Washington of the Eastern Psychological Association, entitled, "The Homosexual Lifespan."

Dr. Cameron was investigating a question of interest: do "married" homosexuals live longer than single ones? It is well known that while the present life expectancy of a 21 year old male who gets married is age 75; a man who never marries can expect to live to age 58. Similarly, a married female can expect to reach age 80, while an unmarried female can expect to reach 67 years. Marriage has a positive (good) effect on longevity. Does something similar hold true for homosexual men and women?

It occurred to Dr. Cameron that the obituary columns of periodic publications might yield a statistical basis for such an analysis. To test this hypothesis, he compiled the obituaries from 46 consecutive days of the Washington Post and 23 days of the Oregonian and found that 73 percent of the men and 80 percent of the women lived to age 65. Comparable census figures were 73 and 85 percent. He then started to collect newspapers and periodicals published by and for the homosexual community. It took three years to accumulate enough information to reach some conclusions. His organization has continued to collect information and analyze it since 1993, but no significant modifications to his published conclusions have been necessary. His paper is based on 6,383 death notices from sixteen journals over the preceding eight years. He obtained basic information on the age at time of death, occupation, whether or not there was a live-in companion, and cause of death. He found that the presence or absence of partners made no significant difference to the life expectancy.

About 15 percent of the obituaries were of people who did not die of AIDS. The life expectancy of such homosexual men was age 42 and nine percent lived to be 65. This compares with 75 percent of "straight", married males who reach age 65. The lesbian life expectancy was age 46 and 24 percent reached the age of 65 compared with 85 percent of married women. Subtract three years of longevity for AIDS sufferers. The male and female life expectancy of AIDS sufferers is 39 and 43 years, respectively. Of homosexual males with AIDS only one percent reached age 65, as compared to 73 percent of married males. Nine percent of AIDS-stricken lesbians reached age 65 as compared to 85 percent of married females.

Homosexual practices have serious side-effects other than an increase in illnesses and early death for the practitioners. First, most homosexuals contract the HIV virus. As early as July of 1987, Navy Surgeon General J.A. Zimble recommended reassigning flight-crew personnel who tested positive for HIV, because of HIV's apparent deleterious effect on the nervous system. We find interesting evidence in other statistics: death by motor vehicle accident is 18 times as likely for homosexual men as for white males; the death rate of homosexual men in other accidents is 10 times higher than it is for white males. The heart failure rate indicates both stress and the toll of disease on the cardiovascular systems of homosexual: the death rate was 22 times that of white males in the 25-54 age range. The suicide rates, homicide rates and rates of death from other causes were similarly elevated compared to statistics from any comparable group of the general public.

The likely explanation for many of these observations lies in the continual attacks on the immune system that is generated by homosexual practices. In addition, the person's physical system is grossly overstressed. These effects are intensified by use of drugs to increase the duration of erections and the stimulus produced by these efforts. The cumulative effects are an underlying, constant fatigue which results in poor judgment and loss of self-control. This is the condition that homosexuals of either sex find themselves in most of the time. Hence the high accident rate and high death rate.


And even if it were less, Rottweilers don't live as long as toy poodles, which one do you want to guard your house?
Neither. I want the German Shepard, which has a better temperment, works well with others in a team and is bred for obedience over viciousness. But, you keep trying to replace the shepards with the toy poodles in the mistaken belief that they have the "right" to guard my house. Wrong answer. Again.

Homosexuality does not have profound health consequences. Choices have profound health consequences. If homosexuality were the operative factor, then gay men and women would have the same stats. They don't. Neither do straight men and straight women. So again, if you are going to make the sliding scale argument, then clearly, we're down to straight white women in the armed forces.
Okay, let's clarify this: The choice by some males to have sex with other males has profound health consequences. Those consequences will have serious impacts on the force. These are not limited to life expectancy, which you have focused on to the exclusion of all other factors. Being HIV+ is currently a bar to enlistment, but a Soldier who, after enlistment, becomes HIV+ is permitted to remain in for the remainder of his term, although that Soldier gets what is known as a P3 profile, which prevents deployment OCONUS. It is a bar to reenlistment due to the health risks that the Soldier poses to himself and to others (training injuries bleed too). A group that has an astronomically higher rate of HIV transmission may enter without the virus, but will separate at far higher rates, incurring increased costs to TriCare while in the system and to the VA when they separate. While still in uniform, they will be non-deployable and unable to participate in any field training where there is any risk of injury.

What do you think this means in actual numbers?
I'd say that it means what the article that I cited said that it meant:


About 15 percent of the obituaries were of people who did not die of AIDS. The life expectancy of such homosexual men was age 42 and nine percent lived to be 65. This compares with 75 percent of "straight", married males who reach age 65. The lesbian life expectancy was age 46 and 24 percent reached the age of 65 compared with 85 percent of married women. Subtract three years of longevity for AIDS sufferers. The male and female life expectancy of AIDS sufferers is 39 and 43 years, respectively. Of homosexual males with AIDS only one percent reached age 65, as compared to 73 percent of married males. Nine percent of AIDS-stricken lesbians reached age 65 as compared to 85 percent of married females.


Then negroes should be banned from the military?
See above.


By the way, it wasn't homosexuals who brought syphilis to Europe. It was heterosexual white males who had no more decency than to fuck the aboriginals.

Actually, syphillis started out as a sheep disease. It spread into the human population from shepherds, some of whom pursued what you might call an "alternative lifesyle". However, even if it was originally transmitted by straight white males in Medieval Europe, gay men have picked up that torch and run much faster and further with it. How the disease first occurred is of far less importance today than the current epidemiology of it.

Bailey
10-03-2011, 04:03 PM
It's impossible to know how AIDS would have manifested in the developed nations had it not early on disproportionately affected upper and middle class young white males with health insurance. Surely you know that worldwide AIDS has much different demographics, but the effect on the Third World doesn't have the same impact that it does on the countries which develop medical cures, like the English speaking countries, Japan, Europe, and Israel.

I know that you are not being nice, but it really doesn't matter to what needs to be said. Had AIDS not struck the Goldwater, Getty, DuPont, and other prominent families, it might not have gotten the push it did. You should also be aware that that push or rush to work, came after a long hard effort by the gay community to get something done as Americans, taxpayers, and humans.

And you can bitch and moan about it, but the research that has gone into HIV and continues in this field was not then nor is it now for the sole benefit of gay people or those infected with HIV. It's research into the core of the human body's ability to deal with viral infections and mutating diseases. It was research which ought to have been funded at the highest levels from the 1950's. We knew there were strange and new diseases coming. We knew that there were infections our antibiotics couldn't kill.

You probably won't think to do this, but one day as an "AIDS drug" is administered to you or a loved one (assuming you actually have any) for a condition other than AIDS, you might think to posthumously thank some of the nasty, perverted, morally unfit gay men who acted as the Guinea pigs for the advance of immunology.


Well since I'm not a fag or screw Africans I'm not going to worry about. I don't have any gay family (will disown them) that I know about so there's a very good chance of none of my family getting hiv.

Odysseus
10-03-2011, 04:40 PM
Well since I'm not a fag or screw Africans I'm not going to worry about. I don't have any gay family (will disown them) that I know about so there's a very good chance of none of my family getting hiv.

I hate to agree with Nova, but in this case, he's right, at least about the benefits of the research. However, he fails to point out that the reason that AIDS decimated so many affluent families is because western gays tend to be among the most affluent stratas of society, which is quite a trick for a group that claims that the west's discrimination against them amounts to the same level of discrimination as Jim Crow in the south or the Nuremberg Laws in Germany.

hai
10-03-2011, 04:57 PM
Well since I'm not a fag or screw Africans I'm not going to worry about. I don't have any gay family (will disown them) that I know about so there's a very good chance of none of my family getting hiv.

And you would be a bigot for disowning any gay members in your family. Groups like PFLAG say that us gays are members of families too,and to disown us is discrimination.

lacarnut
10-03-2011, 05:02 PM
Then negroes should be banned from the military?

By the way, it wasn't homosexuals who brought syphilis to Europe. It was heterosexual white males who had no more decency than to fuck the aboriginals.

The negroes are not mentally impared like you queers.

These freaks do not belong in the military.

CueSi
10-03-2011, 05:06 PM
The negroes are not mentally impared like you queers.

Wow, that's so generous. :rolleyes:

~QC

hai
10-03-2011, 05:13 PM
The negroes are not mentally impared like you queers.

These freaks do not belong in the military.

Cool story bro

Is everyone here a redneck as opposed to cityfolk as myself?

Rockntractor
10-03-2011, 05:24 PM
Cool story bro

Is everyone here a redneck as opposed to cityfolk as myself?

I thought you were an is lander?:confused:

Bailey
10-03-2011, 05:25 PM
And you would be a bigot for disowning any gay members in your family. Groups like PFLAG say that us gays are members of families too,and to disown us is discrimination.

There is a term "freedom of association" look it up. I don't like gays and i don't believe in their deviant lifestyle choices and i will not soil myself dealing with them.

hai
10-03-2011, 05:26 PM
I thought you were an is lander?:confused:

Well i live in the city as opposed to the country.

hai
10-03-2011, 05:27 PM
There is a term "freedom of association" look it up. I don't like gays and i don't believe in their deviant lifestyle choices and i will not soil myself dealing with them.

Bigot.

http://community.pflag.org/page.aspx?pid=541

Rockntractor
10-03-2011, 05:28 PM
Well i live in the city as opposed to the country.

Do they have the city in the middle of the island so it doesn't capsize?:confused:

Bailey
10-03-2011, 05:31 PM
Bigot.

http://community.pflag.org/page.aspx?pid=541

If you don't approve of my choices then I'll wear that title with pride.

hai
10-03-2011, 05:31 PM
Do they have the city in the middle of the island so it doesn't capsize?:confused:

What??

Rockntractor
10-03-2011, 05:57 PM
What??

Balance dude, balance!

CueSi
10-03-2011, 06:06 PM
Cool story bro

Is everyone here a redneck as opposed to cityfolk as myself?

I have had redneck IN me, but... I don't think that counts. :D

And BTW, remember that lecture I gave you earlier? You're gonna make me give it to you again. :p

~QC

Rockntractor
10-03-2011, 06:12 PM
I have had redneck IN me, but... I don't think that counts. :D

:p

~QC

I thought that was just a one nighter.:confused::nono:

lacarnut
10-03-2011, 07:04 PM
Cool story bro

Is everyone here a redneck as opposed to cityfolk as myself?

Glad you liked my story. Fyi, I live in a med. sized city. I would rather live ina small city...less crime, less traffic. I find country people more honest and friendly opposed to rude liberal assholes in the big cities.

hai
10-03-2011, 07:09 PM
Glad you liked my story. Fyi, I live in a med. sized city. I would rather live ina small city...less crime, less traffic. I find country people more honest and friendly opposed to rude liberal assholes in the big cities.

Excuse me?

lacarnut
10-03-2011, 07:16 PM
Excuse me?

You are excused. What did you do? take a dump in your pants.

hai
10-03-2011, 07:20 PM
You are excused. What did you do? take a dump in your pants.

No.

It's just you said stuff about cityfolk.

CueSi
10-03-2011, 07:42 PM
I thought that was just a one nighter.:confused::nono:

Nope, I've got a couple good ol' boys in my past. They have their good parts and bad parts.


Glad you liked my story. Fyi, I live in a med. sized city. I would rather live ina small city...less crime, less traffic. I find country people more honest and friendly opposed to rude liberal assholes in the big cities.

Okay, that was funny. :D

~QC

fettpett
10-03-2011, 07:46 PM
Then why are gays prohibited from giving blood? All I'm saying is how the gays took a majority gay disease and deflected the blame off of them, it was a work of art.

and anyone who lived in Germany during the 80's is prohibited as well...whats your point?

Both the American Red Cross and American Blood Centers disagree with the FDA and believe that they should only be restricted for one year just like any one else from the high-risk group, which includes lesbians. The UK just lifted their ban in Sept of this year.

BadCat
10-03-2011, 07:51 PM
suicide--Suicide rates among gays are anywhere from double to 13.9 times higher than the general population. They stated that homosexuals comprise 30% of all suicides in Canada.

Certainly we can do better than this in the USA.

Let's shoot for at least 90%

CueSi
10-03-2011, 07:54 PM
Now they're gonna live just to spite you. :p

~QC

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 08:41 PM
It occurred to Dr. Cameron that the obituary columns of periodic publications might yield a statistical basis for such an analysis. To test this hypothesis, he compiled the obituaries from 46 consecutive days of the Washington Post and 23 days of the Oregonian and found that 73 percent of the men and 80 percent of the women lived to age 65. Comparable census figures were 73 and 85 percent. He then started to collect newspapers and periodicals published by and for the homosexual community. It took three years to accumulate enough information to reach some conclusions. His organization has continued to collect information and analyze it since 1993, but no significant modifications to his published conclusions have been necessary. His paper is based on 6,383 death notices from sixteen journals over the preceding eight years. He obtained basic information on the age at time of death, occupation, whether or not there was a live-in companion, and cause of death. He found that the presence or absence of partners made no significant difference to the life expectancy.

I already told you who Paul Cameron is, what he did, and you are quoting him to me? Paul Cameron did his "research" during the height of the AIDS crisis. He collected obituaries from gay publications which were almost exclusively for gay men who had died of AIDS, BECAUSE MAINSTREAM PAPERS WEREN'T DOING IT. Jesus X Christ Ody, You are not so dense as to not see what he did. Does it even make sense to you to claim to know the average life expectancy of gay men based on a collection of obituaries which only covered gay men in urban enclaves who had died from AIDS?

And in the other article you are quoting (whether you are aware of it or not), you have Paul Cameron again, claiming that a study of the life expectancy of gay men at 20 years of age, conducted in Vancouver BC and compared to Canada's population verifies Cameron's ridiculous "study"? Does that make sense to you?

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 08:52 PM
Okay, let's clarify this: The choice by some males to have sex with other males has profound health consequences. Those consequences will have serious impacts on the force. These are not limited to life expectancy, which you have focused on to the exclusion of all other factors. Being HIV+ is currently a bar to enlistment, but a Soldier who, after enlistment, becomes HIV+ is permitted to remain in for the remainder of his term, although that Soldier gets what is known as a P3 profile, which prevents deployment OCONUS. It is a bar to reenlistment due to the health risks that the Soldier poses to himself and to others (training injuries bleed too). A group that has an astronomically higher rate of HIV transmission may enter without the virus, but will separate at far higher rates, incurring increased costs to TriCare while in the system and to the VA when they separate. While still in uniform, they will be non-deployable and unable to participate in any field training where there is any risk of injury. .

So you were making a moral argument, and that didn't work.

Then you keep claiming that the problem is the prejudice of the heterosexuals, but that it's the homosexuals' fault and they should be denied the honor and opportunity to accommodate the bigots.

Now you are claiming that it's because of potential health issues. So we have to assume that were a cure or vaccine for AIDS found tomorrow (actually it looks like there might be a vaccine already) then you would be out of excuses? And how exactly do we explain that discrimination against gay people and criminalization of gay people in the military predates this argument by 7 to 16 centuries? There is a difference between a reason and an excuse.

All you have is lame attempts at excuses, you have no reasons.

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 09:11 PM
Actually, syphillis started out as a sheep disease. It spread into the human population from shepherds, some of whom pursued what you might call an "alternative lifesyle". However, even if it was originally transmitted by straight white males in Medieval Europe, gay men have picked up that torch and run much faster and further with it. How the disease first occurred is of far less importance today than the current epidemiology of it.

The latest theory is that someone else got it from the sheep, and it came to Europe on ships.

But you haven't really addressed the fact that negroes statistically have exponential rates of venereal diseases and you aren't saying that this is a reason to exclude them.

But you would like to wouldn't you? That's really what this is all about. Racial integration hasn't really worked out all that well. It has generated suspicion of favoritism, quotas, affirmative action, promotions without merit, and general discontent. No, I didn't make that up or imagine that, I read those kinds of posts on marine and army discussion boards like this.

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 09:13 PM
Glad you liked my story. Fyi, I live in a med. sized city. I would rather live ina small city...less crime, less traffic. I find country people more honest and friendly opposed to rude liberal assholes in the big cities.

They make and sell meth in small cities and towns too. Mayberry has a guy in a trailer on his parents' farm cooking meth, and that little friend of Opie's we only saw once is selling to the hookers on the other side of town (that we never saw).

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 09:15 PM
Nope, I've got a couple good ol' boys in my past. They have their good parts and bad parts.


~QC

I can overlook some major flaws in a plumber, electrician, HVAC guy, or auto mechanic.

CueSi
10-03-2011, 09:20 PM
I can overlook some major flaws in a plumber, electrician, HVAC guy, or auto mechanic.

I did too. Throw in a Marine from a town in TX so small they had to go to the next county to pick up mail. He had to play Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird... in blackface. Let that sink in.

Hell, even the local gay rags have a section of handymen who do their repair work in jockstraps or nothing at all.

And Gregg Avedon. :p

~QC

AmPat
10-03-2011, 09:39 PM
Where are all the apologies from those here that pooh-poohed me when I said this was a slippery slope?:cool:

Novaheart
10-03-2011, 09:54 PM
Where are all the apologies from those here that pooh-poohed me when I said this was a slippery slope?:cool:

Yeah, it all began when they started letting immigrants and Jewish people be officers.

Rockntractor
10-03-2011, 09:57 PM
Yeah, it all began when they started letting immigrants and Jewish people be officers.

Enough, you are not a race, no more race baiting, got that?

Odysseus
10-03-2011, 10:03 PM
And you would be a bigot for disowning any gay members in your family. Groups like PFLAG say that us gays are members of families too,and to disown us is discrimination.
I'd say that it goes further than discrimination, but could you please try to phrase it in grown up talk?

I already told you who Paul Cameron is, what he did, and you are quoting him to me? Paul Cameron did his "research" during the height of the AIDS crisis. He collected obituaries from gay publications which were almost exclusively for gay men who had died of AIDS, BECAUSE MAINSTREAM PAPERS WEREN'T DOING IT. Jesus X Christ Ody, You are not so dense as to not see what he did. Does it even make sense to you to claim to know the average life expectancy of gay men based on a collection of obituaries which only covered gay men in urban enclaves who had died from AIDS?
Actually, I don't recall you saying anything of the sort, and the article states that he separated the AIDS deaths from the other causes of mortality. In fact, it very clearly states the different mortality rates for AIDS sufferers and others, so either you cannot read, or you cannot accept information that goes against your prejudices. I'm betting on the last one.


And in the other article you are quoting (whether you are aware of it or not), you have Paul Cameron again, claiming that a study of the life expectancy of gay men at 20 years of age, conducted in Vancouver BC and compared to Canada's population verifies Cameron's ridiculous "study"? Does that make sense to you?
Well, yes, actually, it does.

So you were making a moral argument, and that didn't work.
I made several arguments. The moral argument was not that being gay is immoral, so much as that imposing gays on the military without taking the costs, which potentially include higher casualties in combat and training, is immoral, because a lack of concern for the safety and health of the people that keep you safe at night is immoral.


Then you keep claiming that the problem is the prejudice of the heterosexuals, but that it's the homosexuals' fault and they should be denied the honor and opportunity to accommodate the bigots.
Not wanting to shower with someone who is sexually attracted to you is not prejudice. If it were, then heterosexual women who didn't want to shower with men would be prejudiced against men, now wouldn't they? Only an ideologue who has no concept of other people's concerns would make the argument that you have, because to you, non-gays are simply an impediment to your lifestyle, not real people with real concerns.


Now you are claiming that it's because of potential health issues. So we have to assume that were a cure or vaccine for AIDS found tomorrow (actually it looks like there might be a vaccine already) then you would be out of excuses? And how exactly do we explain that discrimination against gay people and criminalization of gay people in the military predates this argument by 7 to 16 centuries? There is a difference between a reason and an excuse.
Not that you would know the difference. AIDS is only the latest health issue that afflicts gay men. This article appeared on a Catholic medical website (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#06), so I'm sure that you will disregard it, but it goes into great detail about the health issues affecting gay men and you would do well to read the whole thing. An excerpt:


The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient.23 Semen may have a similar impact on humans.24

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners.26 And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.27


All you have is lame attempts at excuses, you have no reasons.
Wrong answer. I've got a commission in the United States Army, which means that I have an obligation to protect the Soldiers entrusted to me. That's not an excuse, it's the best reason in the world to inform myself and determine the best ways to keep those troops safe in peacetime and war. OTOH, to you this is no different from the posturing of adolescents when a parent tells them that they can't have the car, or a TV in their room or whatever else they want at the moment. If, just once, you'd told me how DADT repeal would benefit the armed forces, make the nation safer or otherwise enhance our ability to protect you from the real bigots in the world ( like the mullahs who want to hang you for simply existing), I'd take you a lot more seriously, but the fact is that you don't have an answer to that question, because the one thing that you don't care about are the troops that will have to live with this policy. We're not on your radar, and our objections, concerns and issues are dismissed by you with a simple "get over it."

The latest theory is that someone else got it from the sheep, and it came to Europe on ships.

But you haven't really addressed the fact that negroes statistically have exponential rates of venereal diseases and you aren't saying that this is a reason to exclude them.
You're right, I haven't addressed it. It's irrelevant, and a mark of desperation that you'd even resort to that (I think that Cue si might have something to say about your use of the term "Negroes"). You're grasping at straws here. Sex/gender is not race. I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring, the fact that sexual conduct between Soldiers erodes unit cohesion, morale and good order and discipline. I've cited numerous examples between men and women, who are kept in separate quarters and use separate latrines, but still manage to hook up. I personally knew two Soldiers who committed suicide after barracks relationships went south on them, one in theater, and one a few days after he returned home. In other words, I have literally seen Soldiers die because of sexual relationships with other Soldiers. I keep telling you that this is the issue, and you keep ignoring it.


But you would like to wouldn't you? That's really what this is all about. Racial integration hasn't really worked out all that well. It has generated suspicion of favoritism, quotas, affirmative action, promotions without merit, and general discontent. No, I didn't make that up or imagine that, I read those kinds of posts on marine and army discussion boards like this.

This is really despicable, even for you. No, Nova, I do not want to resegregate the military. Just for the record, I do not want to return to the days of Jim Crow, not now, not ever. And only someone who has run out of arguments, and knows that he has lost would use the race card in such a vile manner. You are truly beneath contempt.

Rockntractor
10-03-2011, 10:13 PM
I want race and race baiting out of this discussion, it is about sexual orientation and has nothing to do with race.

Odysseus
10-03-2011, 10:43 PM
I want race and race baiting out of this discussion, it is about sexual orientation and has nothing to do with race.

Roger that.

Novaheart
10-04-2011, 12:11 AM
Wrong answer. I've got a commission in the United States Army, which means that I have an obligation to protect the Soldiers entrusted to me. .

Then I should think you would be quoting effectiveness studies done by countries which have had inclusive military services for a decade or more, rather than quoting a discredited psychologist from the Family Research Council who has found a way to sell stupid to the ignorant.

Novaheart
10-04-2011, 12:47 AM
British Security Minister Lord Alan West, a former head of the Royal Navy, told the Associated Press in July 2009 that allowing gays to serve openly was "much better".
"For countries that don't do that - I don't believe it's got anything to do with how efficient or capable their forces will be. It's to do with prejudices, I'm afraid," he said.
Like the US, 10 of the 27 countries in the European Union do not allow gay people to serve openly in the armed forces, according to the Palm Center at the University of California - Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia.

txradioguy
10-04-2011, 04:32 AM
Enough, you are not a race, no more race baiting, got that?

It's all he's got Rock. Smells like desperation. When Libs can't make an argument based on facts they start the dive towards toe bottom with the "racist" slur.

Novaheart
10-04-2011, 09:04 AM
It's all he's got Rock. Smells like desperation. When Libs can't make an argument based on facts they start the dive towards toe bottom with the "racist" slur.

All I have is facts, logic, valid statics, and sharp insight; it's crippling.

AmPat
10-04-2011, 09:08 AM
Still waiting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. Are those who were wrong willing to crawl out and eat their S*** sandwich now? I and many others said this issue was a slippery slope. We were right (naturally), and you were wrong. Now where are you? Nova? Hello, Buhler.:confused:

Tipsycatlover
10-04-2011, 09:28 AM
The latest theory is that someone else got it from the sheep, and it came to Europe on ships.

But you haven't really addressed the fact that negroes statistically have exponential rates of venereal diseases and you aren't saying that this is a reason to exclude them.

But you would like to wouldn't you? That's really what this is all about. Racial integration hasn't really worked out all that well. It has generated suspicion of favoritism, quotas, affirmative action, promotions without merit, and general discontent. No, I didn't make that up or imagine that, I read those kinds of posts on marine and army discussion boards like this.

Care to back that up with a link to some kind of proof?

Or is this just another incidence if "I'm gay you have to believe me".

Novaheart
10-04-2011, 09:33 AM
Still waiting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. Are those who were wrong willing to crawl out and eat their S*** sandwich now? I and many others said this issue was a slippery slope. We were right (naturally), and you were wrong. Now where are you? Nova? Hello, Buhler.:confused:

I'm afraid you will have to go without your apology. Suffice it to say that if avowed anarchists (those who do not support the constitution of the United States) or reconquistas demanded equal access to the military opportunities, I would not see it as a direct result of gay people being finally decriminalized. Gay and transgender are not the same dynamic.

But this discussion isn't really about transgenders and their demands. It's a given that those demands will go nowhere. This discussion is a rehash of the fact that gay people are now decriminalized in the military, and some people need to vent about it.

AmPat
10-04-2011, 09:37 AM
I'm afraid you will have to go without your apology. Suffice it to say that if avowed anarchists (those who do not support the constitution of the United States) or reconquistas demanded equal access to the military opportunities, I would not see it as a direct result of gay people being finally decriminalized. Gay and transgender are not the same dynamic.

But this discussion isn't really about transgenders and their demands. It's a given that those demands will go nowhere. This discussion is a rehash of the fact that gay people are now decriminalized in the military, and some people need to vent about it.

When were gays ever criminal in the military?
As for apology, I don't really expect it from people who are dishonest to their core anyway. I just thought I'd give them (you?) a chance to be decent people for a change. I guess that ship has sailed.

txradioguy
10-04-2011, 10:21 AM
All I have is facts, logic, valid statics, and sharp insight; it's crippling.

And yet you haven't presented anything anything close to what you mentioned above to refute anything Ody has said.

The only thing crippling around here is your ego and refusal to face reality.

txradioguy
10-04-2011, 10:22 AM
Care to back that up with a link to some kind of proof?

Or is this just another incidence if "I'm gay you have to believe me".

Bingo.

txradioguy
10-04-2011, 10:25 AM
Ok so I want to know...when did it become a right to serve in the Military?

These protected groups keep saying they want their "right" to serve...show me where it's a person's "right" to serve in the military.

fettpett
10-04-2011, 11:13 AM
When were gays ever criminal in the military?
As for apology, I don't really expect it from people who are dishonest to their core anyway. I just thought I'd give them (you?) a chance to be decent people for a change. I guess that ship has sailed.

well considering that a gay person could be honorably discharged from the military at a rate of 900/yr totaling 13,000 members does it matter?

Zathras
10-04-2011, 12:42 PM
All I have is facts, logic, valid statics, and sharp insight; it's crippling.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

You ever consider a career in comedy Nova? With material like this you'd be a hit. [/sarcasm]

Dude, Ody has carved up your pathetic arguments like a master sushi chef working on a piece of Fugu.

AmPat
10-04-2011, 12:43 PM
well considering that a gay person could be honorably discharged from the military at a rate of 900/yr totaling 13,000 members does it matter?

:confused:Does what matter? I'm trying to decipher what you are commenting on.:confused:

Novaheart
10-04-2011, 12:48 PM
Care to back that up with a link to some kind of proof?

Or is this just another incidence if "I'm gay you have to believe me".

Reliable stats on STD's for populations, calculated as rates of infection for populations of known size are available online at the CDC. Bullshit is available online at the FRC.

lacarnut
10-04-2011, 01:38 PM
Certainly we can do better than this in the USA.

Let's shoot for at least 90%

Plus 1

lacarnut
10-04-2011, 01:52 PM
Reliable stats on STD's for populations, calculated as rates of infection for populations of known size are available online at the CDC. Bullshit is available online at the FRC.

Keep dreaming. The grim reaper is going to take you perverts out early.:D

NJCardFan
10-04-2011, 02:41 PM
I want race and race baiting out of this discussion, it is about sexual orientation and has nothing to do with race.

Tell that to the HHIC.

Odysseus
10-04-2011, 05:33 PM
Then I should think you would be quoting effectiveness studies done by countries which have had inclusive military services for a decade or more, rather than quoting a discredited psychologist from the Family Research Council who has found a way to sell stupid to the ignorant.
I'd be happy to quote an effectiveness study. The US congress did one before DADT was adopted. Care to see the findings?


SEC. 571. POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED
FORCES.
(a) CODIFICATION.—(1) Chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces ‘‘
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
‘‘(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
‘‘(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
‘‘(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
‘‘(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
‘‘(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
‘‘(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
‘‘(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
‘‘(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—

‘‘(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
‘‘(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous
restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.‘‘
(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
‘‘(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
‘‘(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
‘‘(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
‘‘(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
‘‘(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
‘‘(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

The only thing that has changed since 1994, when that was passed by both houses of congress, is that the Democrats who actually cared about national defense are no longer in office.


British Security Minister Lord Alan West, a former head of the Royal Navy, told the Associated Press in July 2009 that allowing gays to serve openly was "much better".
"For countries that don't do that - I don't believe it's got anything to do with how efficient or capable their forces will be. It's to do with prejudices, I'm afraid," he said.
Like the US, 10 of the 27 countries in the European Union do not allow gay people to serve openly in the armed forces, according to the Palm Center at the University of California - Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia.
I guess that Churchill was right about British naval tradition being three centuries of rum, sodomy and the lash.

All I have is facts, logic, valid statics, and sharp insight; it's crippling.
To you, perhaps. But I notice that whenever I bring up points that you find objectionable, i.e., facts, logic, valid statistics and insights that you cannot answer, you devolve into your standard hissy fit. For example, you refuse to discuss the CDC's reports on gay health statistics, even though they mirror what the supposedly homophobic Dr. Cameron found out. And, BTW, you stated a complete whopper when you claimed that he was including AIDS deaths in his study of gay mortality. He specifically excluded those persons who died from AIDS (which, coincidently, or not, was 85% of the total) in order to focus on gay mortality among those who did not contract AIDS. It states this explicitly in the article and the study.

Odysseus
10-04-2011, 05:35 PM
I'm afraid you will have to go without your apology. Suffice it to say that if avowed anarchists (those who do not support the constitution of the United States) or reconquistas demanded equal access to the military opportunities, I would not see it as a direct result of gay people being finally decriminalized. Gay and transgender are not the same dynamic.

What you see and what is actually there are two radically different things. You have fought to create a right to military service for all Americans, whether you realize it or not. Once the precedent has been established, it will be applied across the board (that's how precedent works), and under this precedent, you cannot exclude anyone, no matter how unqualified. The deaf ROTC cadet will no doubt soon be calling for artillery fire through a sign language interpreter. Let's hope that he gets his coordinates right...


But this discussion isn't really about transgenders and their demands. It's a given that those demands will go nowhere. This discussion is a rehash of the fact that gay people are now decriminalized in the military, and some people need to vent about it.
Twenty years ago, it was a given that your demands would go nowhere. Look where we are now.

Reliable stats on STD's for populations, calculated as rates of infection for populations of known size are available online at the CDC. Bullshit is available online at the FRC.
Okay, then let's go to the CDC site. Do they have any commentary on infection rates for MSMs vs everyone else? Why, yes, I believe that they do. In fact, I quoted an article there (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html) earlier in the thread, which you conveniently ignored. Here it is again, in full. Enjoy:


CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men

A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.

The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.

While CDC data have shown for several years that gay and bisexual men make up the majority of new HIV and new syphilis infections, CDC has estimated the rates of these diseases for the first time based on new estimates of the size of the U.S. population of MSM. Because disease rates account for differences in the size of populations being compared, rates provide a reliable method for assessing health disparities between populations.

"While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations," said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. "It is clear that we will not be able to stop the U.S. HIV epidemic until every affected community, along with health officials nationwide, prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men with HIV prevention efforts."

For the purposes of determining rates of disease for MSM, CDC researchers first estimated the size of the gay and bisexual male population in the United States – defined as the proportion of men who reported engaging in same-sex behavior within the past five years. Based on an analysis of nationally representative surveys, CDC estimated that MSM comprise 2.0 percent (range: 1.4-2.7 percent) of the overall U.S. population aged 13 and older, or 4 percent of the U.S. male population (range: 2.8-5.3 percent). Disease rates per 100,000 population were then calculated using 2007 surveillance data on HIV and primary/secondary syphilis diagnoses and U.S. Census data for the total U.S. population.

The new analysis is the first step in more fully assessing the impact of HIV among MSM and other populations significantly affected by the disease. CDC is developing more detailed estimates of infection rates among MSM by race and age, as well as among injection drug users. CDC is also in the early stages of planning for estimates among heterosexuals. Ultimately, these data can be used to better inform national and local approaches to HIV and STD prevention to ensure that efforts are reaching the populations in greatest need.

Research shows that a range of complex factors contribute to the high rates of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men. These factors include high prevalence of HIV and other STDs among MSM, which increases the risk of disease exposure, and limited access to prevention services. Other factors are complacency about HIV risk, particularly among young gay and bisexual men; difficulty of consistently maintaining safe behaviors with every sexual encounter over the course of a lifetime; and lack of awareness of syphilis symptoms and how it can be transmitted (e.g., oral sex). Additionally, factors such as homophobia and stigma can prevent MSM from seeking prevention, testing, and treatment services.

Also, the risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities, and some gay and bisexual men are relying on prevention strategies that may be less effective than consistent condom use.

"There is no single or simple solution for reducing HIV and syphilis rates among gay and bisexual men," said Fenton. "We need intensified prevention efforts that are as diverse as the gay community itself. Solutions for young gay and bisexual men are especially critical, so that HIV does not inadvertently become a rite of passage for each new generation of gay men."

Preventing HIV and STDs among gay and bisexual men is a top CDC priority. CDC provides funding to health departments and community-based organizations throughout the nation to implement proven behavior-change programs for MSM and will soon expand a successful HIV testing initiative to reach more gay and bisexual men. Additionally, CDC is implementing an updated National Syphilis Elimination Plan in cities where MSM have been hardest hit by the disease, and will release an updated HIV prevention strategic plan within the next year to support the President's upcoming National HIV/AIDS Strategy. CDC officials note that the new analysis released today underscores the importance of the HIV and STD prevention efforts targeting gay and bisexual men recently announced as part of the President's fiscal year 2011 budget proposal.

For more information on HIV or syphilis, please visit www.cdc.gov/hiv or www.cdc.gov/std.

BTW, remember when you accused me of cribbing the 2% number from a "right wing" news source? Well, that's the first time that I've heard anyone call the CDC right wing.

Novaheart
10-04-2011, 06:16 PM
Twenty years ago, it was a given that your demands would go nowhere. Look where we are now.

It may have seemed that way to you. It did not seem that way in DC. This actually took a lot longer than we ever thought it would back in the 70's. But it's done, and now there is one thing left to do and we can take a break.

Novaheart
10-04-2011, 06:22 PM
Okay, then let's go to the CDC site.

It isn't reasonable to expect me to discuss this at this point, now that the referee has declared for your side and threatens action if discussion of other disproportionately affected populations continues. Sorry. Besides, it doesn't matter.

Odysseus
10-04-2011, 07:21 PM
It may have seemed that way to you. It did not seem that way in DC. This actually took a lot longer than we ever thought it would back in the 70's. But it's done, and now there is one thing left to do and we can take a break.
Except that in the 70s, there was exactly one service member who came out and opposed the ban. The vast majority of gays were perfectly happy to be exempt from the draft, and the only violence that you guys could bring yourselves to foment was the Stonewall riot. This wasn't an issue until Desert Storm, when gay activists realized that somebody was having a parade that they couldn't join, and that infuriated you, and even then, you couldn't accomplish what you wanted with a Democratic congress and a president who made the repeal of the gay ban his first priority. It took you the better part of twenty years to align the parties in congress your way, and even then, it only happened during the lame duck session, when the Dems had nothing else to lose. They dithered on it because they didn't want to have to run for reelection with this albatross over them.


It isn't reasonable to expect me to discuss this at this point, now that the referee has declared for your side and threatens action if discussion of other disproportionately affected populations continues. Sorry. Besides, it doesn't matter.

Well, so little of what you say or do is reasonable, so why is this any different? But, as excuses go, this is pretty pathetic. The "referee" said that you couldn't indulge in race-baiting and gratuitous accusations of racism. If that's your only argument, then you're right, you might as well put your tail between your legs and quit. It's what we've come to expect from the kind of activists who think that they have every right in the world to my uniform, but don't have the guts to take on the responsibilities.

lacarnut
10-04-2011, 08:50 PM
It isn't reasonable to expect me to discuss this at this point, now that the referee has declared for your side and threatens action if discussion of other disproportionately affected populations continues. Sorry. Besides, it doesn't matter.

You are a stupid queer that knows zero, ziilch about the military. Ody cleans your clock every time you open your mouth.

Novaheart
10-04-2011, 09:38 PM
Ody cleans your clock every time you open your mouth.

I think you misunderstand the dynamics of this discussion. The point of this discussion is merely to explain it to those who don't get it. Congress and the military leaders have spoken.

CueSi
10-04-2011, 09:54 PM
I think you misunderstand the dynamics of this discussion. The point of this discussion is merely to explain it to those who don't get it. Congress and the military leaders have spoken.

Some people don't want to get it. You can lead an imbecile to knowledge, but you can't make him think. :p

~QC

fettpett
10-04-2011, 09:59 PM
:confused:Does what matter? I'm trying to decipher what you are commenting on.:confused:

in regards to being gay in the military being illegal or not before DADT was repealed...no, it wasn't technically illegal but was grounds for being discharged, at the rate stated above.

Part of the reasoning behind it is that gays are promiscuous, and so what? Soldiers are promiscuous and always have been, STD's have been a problem because of that and many advances in medicine were because of the promiscuity of soldiers.

Rockntractor
10-04-2011, 09:59 PM
Congress and the military leaders have spoken.

I thought this was an executive order

fettpett
10-04-2011, 10:03 PM
I thought this was an executive order

no it was a bill, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Ask,_Don%27t_Tell_Repeal_Act_of_2010

Rockntractor
10-04-2011, 10:04 PM
in regards to being gay in the military being illegal or not before DADT was repealed...no, it wasn't technically illegal but was grounds for being discharged, at the rate stated above.

Part of the reasoning behind it is that gays are promiscuous, and so what? Soldiers are promiscuous and always have been, STD's have been a problem because of that and many advances in medicine were because of the promiscuity of soldiers.

So you are telling us that the US military are somehow more promiscuous than the rest of the population?

fettpett
10-04-2011, 10:07 PM
So you are telling us that the US military are somehow more promiscuous than the rest of the population?

not necessarily, but it's a stereotype...particularly during war time.

Novaheart
10-04-2011, 10:14 PM
So you are telling us that the US military are somehow more promiscuous than the rest of the population?

:popcorn:

Rockntractor
10-04-2011, 10:22 PM
not necessarily, but it's a stereotype...particularly during war time.

I don't think statements like that should be said about the modern US military without any study or personal experience to back it up. I think we are at a point in history where we probably have the most disciplined and professional military we have ever had and that has been stated by both sides of the argument.

Odysseus
10-04-2011, 10:23 PM
I think you misunderstand the dynamics of this discussion. The point of this discussion is merely to explain it to those who don't get it. Congress and the military leaders have spoken.
Actually, congress and the the president spoke, or rather, the teleprompter did. The military leadership simply did what we always do when presented with PC idiocy, which is salute and drive on.

Some people don't want to get it. You can lead an imbecile to knowledge, but you can't make him think. :p

~QC

True, some people do not want to get it. But, I will keep trying. Who knows, maybe the next congress and president actually might be concerned about national defense instead of PC nonsense.

fettpett
10-04-2011, 10:43 PM
I don't think statements like that should be said about the modern US military without any study or personal experience to back it up. I think we are at a point in history where we probably have the most disciplined and professional military we have ever had and that has been stated by both sides of the argument.

it's a historical fact dude, and one at soldiers in general NOT just the US Military.

I respect anyone who has and is serving in the Armed forces. However that doesn't take away from the facts from a historical view. Armies are notorious for sexual indiscretions. Even the US has had it's problems as i stayed. It may not be as BIG of an issue today as it was even during Vietnam, but it's still there. Don't take this as a knock to the US Military, it's just a fact of being human.

Rockntractor
10-04-2011, 10:47 PM
it's a historical fact dude, and one at soldiers in general NOT just the US Military.

I respect anyone who has and is serving in the Armed forces. However that doesn't take away from the facts from a historical view. Armies are notorious for sexual indiscretions. Even the US has had it's problems as i stayed. It may not be as BIG of an issue today as it was even during Vietnam, but it's still there. Don't take this as a knock to the US Military, it's just a fact of being human.

It's called talking shit and you are good at it and don't know when to quit.

fettpett
10-04-2011, 10:49 PM
It's called talking shit and you are good at it and don't know when to quit.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: w/e you want to think buddy

CueSi
10-04-2011, 11:11 PM
So you are telling us that the US military are somehow more promiscuous than the rest of the population?

This is not necessarily a bad thing, Rock. Many have good genes, so the straight ones are just boosting the genetic stock. ;)

~QC

AmPat
10-05-2011, 10:16 AM
Actually, congress and the the president spoke, or rather, the teleprompter did. The military leadership simply did what we always do when presented with PC idiocy, which is salute and drive on.


True, some people do not want to get it. But, I will keep trying. Who knows, maybe the next congress and president actually might be concerned about national defense instead of PC nonsense.

Nova thinks we all immediately put on our tights and danced in the hallways when DADT was repealed.

As a commander, I had to personally brief the change in policy and could not delegate it down. I witnessed the reactions first hand. I assure you the troops accepted it with military poise but the comments were flying. We will accept orders, we don't have to agree or like them.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 11:20 AM
Actually, congress and the the president spoke, or rather, the teleprompter did. The military leadership simply did what we always do when presented with PC idiocy, which is salute and drive on.

I was referring to the top military leaders. Sorry for the lack of specificity there.

"Last December, this department began a careful and methodical process to prepare for the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
"Since then, the Repeal Implementation Team has worked to coordinate the necessary changes to policy and regulations, and to provide education and training to service members. This effort, led by Undersecretary of Defense Clifford R. Stanley, was designed to ensure the smoothest possible transition for the U.S. military to accommodate and implement this important and necessary change.

"Today, as a result of strong leadership and proactive education throughout the force, we can take the next step in this process. The President, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I have certified that the implementation of repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the armed forces. This certification decision was carefully made after receiving input from the service chiefs, service secretaries and from all the combatant commanders, who stated their views that the force is prepared for this change.

"With this certification, and in accordance with the law, on Sept. 20, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will be repealed. We will have taken the time necessary to get this done right and to ensure that service members are properly trained for a change that I believe is essential to the effectiveness of our all-volunteer force.

"All men and women who serve this nation in uniform -- no matter their race, color, creed, religion, or sexual orientation -- do so with great dignity, bravery, and dedication. As secretary of defense, I am committed to promoting an environment free from personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility that their talents and capabilities warrant. They put their lives on the line for America, and that's what really matters. Thanks to the professionalism and leadership of the U.S. military, we are closer to achieving the goal that is at the foundation of America -- equality and dignity for all."

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)

On the Web: http://www.defense.gov/releases/

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 11:23 AM
Some people actually learn and grow.


WASHINGTON -- The Marine Corps commandant who once said openly gay service members would be a dangerous "distraction" and was among the most outspoken opponents of repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy said today he does not expect to lose troops over the change.

"I haven't had any indication yet at all, not at all," Gen. James Amos told reporters when asked if he expected the mass exodus of troops that Sen. John McCain and other critics predicted if the ban was lifted.

Amos was visiting troops in Afghanistan's Helmand Province when President Barack Obama signed the repeal in late December. He said he addressed some 12,000 Marines about the change and "everyone said, 'Sir, we got it. We're going to do this thing.'"

The about-face by the Marines' top general came before the ink was dried on the law and was underlined in a video Amos taped with the Corps' Sgt. Maj. Carlton W. Kent last month. In it, he said the service "will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new law. It's important that we value the diversity of background, culture and skills that all Marines bring to the service of our nation."

djones520
10-05-2011, 11:31 AM
So you are telling us that the US military are somehow more promiscuous than the rest of the population?

They do have a higher rate of STD's then the civilian side.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2460344/sexually_transmitted_diseases_in_the.html

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/sexual-health/mens-sexual-health/std-superspreaders

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 11:31 AM
........ I assure you the troops accepted it with military poise but the comments were flying. We will accept orders, we don't have to agree or like them.

The troops includes gay troops. You and Ody have made it clear that the military has tolerated or encouraged an attitude and atmosphere of hostility towards gay Americans in uniform. It's unfortunate that that is the case, but if you were allowed to continue, then we would simply have to deal with this down the road. There is and was no time like the present. The attitudes and behaviors hostile or dangerous to gay Americans in uniform have actually been unacceptable for some time, you are simply running a little behind. Welcome to 2011, I'm sure you will handle it with dignity.

djones520
10-05-2011, 11:33 AM
The troops includes gay troops. You and Ody have made it clear that the military has tolerated or encouraged an attitude and atmosphere of hostility towards gay Americans in uniform. It's unfortunate that that is the case, but if you were allowed to continue, then we would simply have to deal with this down the road. There is and was no time like the present. The attitudes and behaviors hostile or dangerous to gay Americans in uniform have actually been unacceptable for some time, you are simply running a little behind. Welcome to 2011, I'm sure you will handle it with dignity.

There has never been that atmosphere as far as I've seen in my 10 years. There has always been gay jokes, and probably still will be for sometime. Hell, a friend of mine in the Navy would joke that "you can't outgay a sailor" and he'd "stick the tip in, just to prove he's gayer then you". He is married and quite heterosexual, just to quell any speculation. Good natured ribbing is far from true hostility though. The Air Force and Navy are often differant beasts from the Army though, so who knows how it is with them.

lacarnut
10-05-2011, 11:35 AM
I think you misunderstand the dynamics of this discussion. The point of this discussion is merely to explain it to those who don't get it. Congress and the military leaders have spoken.

I understand fact from fiction. Having served in the Army, I have experience on my side. All you have is tunnel vision about fags and freaks.

BTW, the topic is about transgender freaks wanting to serve. You are the one that does not get it.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 11:37 AM
They do have a higher rate of STD's then the civilian side.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2460344/sexually_transmitted_diseases_in_the.html

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/sexual-health/mens-sexual-health/std-superspreaders

In defense of the military females and to also note that the stats for males are not expected to be accurate (they are expected to be lower than actual) , in an article explaining the STD rates, it says that females are checked for STD's in their annual exams, but that males are not. Thus, you probably have males seeking diagnosis and treatment outside the military medical system as well as those who are simply undiagnosed (bad news).




Contrary to what post officials said is a popular belief, not all soldiers are given mandatory STD tests.

"One of the myths that I hear all the time is that all soldiers are tested for STDs," said Charlene M. Fix, the disease intervention specialist and head of the epidemiology program at Fort Drum. "And that is just not true."

She said all soldiers are tested for HIV before and after each deployment. Female soldiers, just like women in the civilian population, are tested for gonorrhea and chlamydia during yearly gynecological exams. But male soldiers are not.

"We don't routinely test for gonorrhea and chlamydia in men, unless they request it. It's just not something we do automatically," Maj. Palm said. "There probably won't be a change in mandatory testing. There have been studies at certain posts with urine tests, but that wasn't found to be overly effective."


http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20090413/NEWS03/304139975/-1/NEWS

djones520
10-05-2011, 11:39 AM
The only mandatory STD test I've ever recieved was HIV, and that's done annually. As for treatment outside of the MTF, I doubt it's done to often. Our data is still confidential.

Edit: We do fill out yearly survey's that prompt info on our sexual activity among other things. I believe they use it to assess the risk of STD's, and if you trigger to many "warnings" on this survey you'll be scheduled for an actual examination for these warning signs.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 11:41 AM
Having served in the Army

How about giving us some details. When? How long? Voluntary enlistment or draftee? Branch, rank, assignments. It will be very interesting to know just what your experience is.

Bailey
10-05-2011, 11:43 AM
How about giving us some details. When? How long? Voluntary enlistment or draftee? Branch, rank, assignments. It will be very interesting to know just what your experience is.

Yours first

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 11:44 AM
The only mandatory STD test I've ever recieved was HIV, and that's done annually. As for treatment outside of the MTF, I doubt it's done to often. Our data is still confidential.

I haven't had any active duty person tell me that he went to an outside doctor for a social disease, but I know a number of civilians who have gone to a clinic or a cash doctor because they didn't want it "on my record" with the insurance company and possibly their employer. People talk.

djones520
10-05-2011, 11:44 AM
How about giving us some details. When? How long? Voluntary enlistment or draftee? Branch, rank, assignments. It will be very interesting to know just what your experience is.

That's not necessary for this topic. If you're interested in his military background, you can check the vet forum to see if he's disclosed any of that information.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 11:46 AM
Yours first

It's common knowledge here that I have not served in the military. I was not eligible then and am not eligible now. I also am not claiming to have superior knowledge based simply on status and not particulars as lacarnut has done.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 11:50 AM
That's not necessary for this topic. .

That's true. Besides, lacarnut hasn't exactly established an interest in a civil discussion. He mostly likes to do drive by comments wishing me ill.

Rockntractor
10-05-2011, 12:00 PM
That's true. Besides, lacarnut hasn't exactly established an interest in a civil discussion. He mostly likes to do drive by comments wishing me ill.

In many countries we go to there is substandard health care and health habits among the general population which would lead to higher risk not higher promiscuity.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 12:00 PM
.......... whatever..........

Speaking of your interest in my health, you'll be pleased to learn that my latest tests showed a 25% improvement in kidney function. My doctor was stunned. Apparently she's not used to having a patient who doesn't use alcohol/drugs, keeps track of everything he eats and his nutrient levels, and exercises daily. All that organic food and stuff is paying off.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 12:02 PM
In many countries we go to there is substandard health care and health habits among the general population which would lead to higher risk not higher promiscuity.

I agree, but was that in response to that post?

fettpett
10-05-2011, 12:06 PM
In many countries we go to there is substandard health care and health habits among the general population which would lead to higher risk not higher promiscuity.

so your saying that because the general population of an area has a higher risk that they can still get it through not sleeping with the locals?:confused: If they aren't sleeping around than there isn't a chance to get STD's.

you have to remember this is a group of the population that is trained to have a higher level of testosterone than the general public,couple that with higher levels of stress, which leads to higher libido, you get more sex in general.

Rockntractor
10-05-2011, 12:07 PM
I agree, but was that in response to that post?

Sorry, it was to Jones post.

djones520
10-05-2011, 12:09 PM
In many countries we go to there is substandard health care and health habits among the general population which would lead to higher risk not higher promiscuity.

STD Rates have been steadily climbing in the US, despite better healthcare.

Rates in the Air Force, which do not routinely visit countries like that significantly outpace the Navy, which does.

The Army, which is mostly bound to CONUS, or developed European countries, beats all other branches in Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and Syphilis.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.usminstitute.org/presentations/macintosh.ppt&sa=U&ei=W4CMTp7xM8ja0QG1o6SLBQ&ved=0CBgQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNFT47lqDIn18yJQ9zD7XcodLrU0qg

Rock, people in the military like to screw. Anyone in Security Forces that I've spoken (lots of cross trainee's into weather used to be Security Forces) to has tons of stories of busting people having orgies, sex in stranges places, etc...

lacarnut
10-05-2011, 12:10 PM
It's common knowledge here that I have not served in the military. I was not eligible then and am not eligible now. I also am not claiming to have superior knowledge based simply on status and not particulars as lacarnut has done.

I have stated on several occasions that I was in the Army for 2 years. You have no idea what Army life is about. Unwanted sexual advances will get the queer a blanket party. You can book it.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 12:11 PM
In many countries we go to there is substandard health care and health habits among the general population which would lead to higher risk not higher promiscuity.

Referring to no one or group in particular, I simply can't imagine how anyone could go to a whorehouse, even if hermetically sealed in latex and Lexan.

Yesterday, I picked up a dead animal in the front yard. Even though I was wearing a surgical glove and I used an inverted plastic bag to pick up and dispose of the varmint, I still felt the need to wash my hands.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 12:15 PM
I have stated on several occasions that I was in the Army for 2 years. You have no idea what Army life is about. Unwanted sexual advances will get the queer a blanket party. You can book it.

What have unwanted sexual advances got to do with this discussion? If you want we can talk about them, though. First, I need for you to define "unwanted sexual advance". Do you mean "Hey Ralph, would you like to go to Ft Lauderdale with me next weekend on a date?" or do you mean a hand placed on a body part? If it's the former then a "blanket party" should get those holding the blanket some time behind bars. If it's the latter, then it would probably fall into the category of mutual combat.

Can you accept that the rules governing this will be the same for male on male as they are for male on female?

lacarnut
10-05-2011, 12:22 PM
That's true. Besides, lacarnut hasn't exactly established an interest in a civil discussion. He mostly likes to do drive by comments wishing me ill.

That is true because you are such a self centered pervert; it's all about me, me, me, me, me.Plus, I have a problem with the mentally retarded that's main focus in life is their queer lifestyle.

Tipsycatlover
10-05-2011, 12:24 PM
I think you misunderstand the dynamics of this discussion. The point of this discussion is merely to explain it to those who don't get it. Congress and the military leaders have spoken.

They have spoken but not because such changes are beneficial to the military. Because they were hammered into it by activists.

lacarnut
10-05-2011, 01:00 PM
What have unwanted sexual advances got to do with this discussion? If you want we can talk about them, though. First, I need for you to define "unwanted sexual advance". Do you mean "Hey Ralph, would you like to go to Ft Lauderdale with me next weekend on a date?" or do you mean a hand placed on a body part? If it's the former then a "blanket party" should get those holding the blanket some time behind bars. If it's the latter, then it would probably fall into the category of mutual combat.

Can you accept that the rules governing this will be the same for male on male as they are for male on female?

The rules should be the same for men and women. But, they will not because queers will become a protected class. Ody explained this in detail but you are just too fucking stupid to understand.

Here is an example. Joe Blow invites Stallion Stud to spend the weekend with him. Stud says no and tells him not to ask again. Next Friday, same shit.Stud files a complaint that goes nowhere because of queers special status. Joe seeing that he can pursue this crap invites him again. Stallion gets pissed and beats Joe's ass.
Stallion gets a summary court martial and winds up in the stockade. This is how the new queerly protected PC class of soldiers will be treated. Many straight soldiers in the Army will leave.

Another thing you have no clue is how the military justice works. You can get a lawyer for a parking ticket in civilian life. Ask for a lawyer on an article 15 or summary courtmartial and you will get laughed at. Unlees it is a general court martial case, you have little rights. Like I said, you come off as an idiot when discussing the miltary.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 01:20 PM
Here is an example. Joe Blow invites Stallion Stud to spend the weekend with him. Stud says no and tells him not to ask again. Next Friday, same shit.Stud files a complaint that goes nowhere because of queers special status.

This is not how it works in the corporate world, which as you know is much more regulated by outside rules and court rulings. In Corporate World, the human resources department clearly defines how a person may ask another person for a date (or more) in the workplace, and how often it may be asked before it becomes harassment.

It's hard to imagine that the military doesn't already have a similar set of rules in place owing to females being asked and the persistence of some males.

What are the military rules for a male asking a female for a date and being refused? Rather than gay people being a protected class, they will simply have the rules applied without discrimination.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 01:23 PM
Stallion gets pissed and beats Joe's ass.
Stallion gets a summary court martial and winds up in the stockade.

As I understand it, that is exactly what should happen. Stallion's annoyance is not an excuse for him to attack another soldier, is it? IS there a provision for this or a "blanket party" in the UCMJ?

And back on the subject of blanket parties, since I am inexperienced and ignorant on such, can you explain to me why it takes four soldiers and a blanket to beat one queer? In the civilian world, we would have an unflattering name for four guys who ganged up on another.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 01:25 PM
Many straight soldiers in the Army will leave.

You are welcome to your predictions, but despite similar predictions being made in the Royal Navy and other services, these predictions did not materialize. I'd say that if the Commandant Marine Corps of the US hasn't resigned over it, we're not going to see that sort of silliness.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 01:26 PM
Like I said, you come off as an idiot when discussing the miltary.

Then I am in good company.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 01:26 PM
They have spoken but not because such changes are beneficial to the military. Because they were hammered into it by activists.

How are you today? Is the weather nice there?

lacarnut
10-05-2011, 01:53 PM
As I understand it, that is exactly what should happen. Stallion's annoyance is not an excuse for him to attack another soldier, is it? IS there a provision for this or a "blanket party" in the UCMJ?

And back on the subject of blanket parties, since I am inexperienced and ignorant on such, can you explain to me why it takes four soldiers and a blanket to beat one queer? In the civilian world, we would have an unflattering name for four guys who ganged up on another.

Joe deserved the ass beating since Stallian was on the receiving end of sexual harrassment and his PC superiors did not intervene.

Who said anything about taking 4 to whip up on a queer. One could do it in most cases if the whimp would not tattle like a pussy. That is the purpose of the blanket party. No one can be ID's

SaintLouieWoman
10-05-2011, 01:55 PM
That is true because you are such a self centered pervert; it's all about me, me, me, me, me.Plus, I have a problem with the mentally retarded that's main focus in life is their queer lifestyle.
Please knock this off. Nova has been discussing in a civil manner. No need for this.

CueSi
10-05-2011, 02:47 PM
Joe deserved the ass beating since Stallian was on the receiving end of sexual harrassment and his PC superiors did not intervene.

Who said anything about taking 4 to whip up on a queer. One could do it in most cases if the whimp would not tattle like a pussy. That is the purpose of the blanket party. No one can be ID's

Whoa. Time out.

So you're advocating breaking the rules, assaulting and potentially killing another soldier, and risking a court martial and a dishonorable discharge. . .for what, exactly?

~QC

txradioguy
10-05-2011, 03:11 PM
It isn't reasonable to expect me to discuss this at this point, now that the referee has declared for your side and threatens action if discussion of other disproportionately affected populations continues. Sorry. Besides, it doesn't matter.

LOL! Typical. Facts trump your bullshit...once again and you cut and run.

Odysseus
10-05-2011, 05:07 PM
I was referring to the top military leaders. Sorry for the lack of specificity there.

Oh, you mean at the 4-star level. At that point, we're talking about Colin Powell's definition of loyalty, which is that you argue your position as passionately and effectively as you can to your boss, then, when he has made his decision, you carry out the policy as enthusiastically as if it were your original position. What you are seeing is not GOs agreeing with the policy, but GOs obeying the policy, and in public, you'll see me do the same thing. It's how we roll.


"Last December, this department began a careful and methodical process to prepare for the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Which did not include analysis of whether or not to actually do it. Note the absence of findings in the subsequent paragraphs:


"Since then, the Repeal Implementation Team has worked to coordinate the necessary changes to policy and regulations, and to provide education and training to service members. This effort, led by Undersecretary of Defense Clifford R. Stanley, was designed to ensure the smoothest possible transition for the U.S. military to accommodate and implement this important and necessary change.
In other words, the DOD is implementing the policy change. Note that nothing here indicates whether or not the services agree with the idea, just how they would comply with it.


"Today, as a result of strong leadership and proactive education throughout the force, we can take the next step in this process. The President, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I have certified that the implementation of repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the armed forces. This certification decision was carefully made after receiving input from the service chiefs, service secretaries and from all the combatant commanders, who stated their views that the force is prepared for this change.
Translation: "Today, as a result of being ordered to do something really stupid, we are going to do our best to implement this idiocy. The President, who has never held a job that required any form of leadership, wants this done, and the CJCS will follow the orders of the President, because that's what we do under the Constitution. The certification was made after receiving inputs from the service chiefs, service secretaries and combatant commanders, who all want to remain service chiefs, service secretaries and combatant commanders."


"With this certification, and in accordance with the law, on Sept. 20, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will be repealed. We will have taken the time necessary to get this done right and to ensure that service members are properly trained for a change that I believe is essential to the effectiveness of our all-volunteer force.
Translation: I have my orders. We will ensure that the troops are indoctrinated and that anyone who doesn't like it knows that they'd better keep their mouths shut if they want to see the next rank.

"All men and women who serve this nation in uniform -- no matter their race, color, creed, religion, or sexual orientation -- do so with great dignity, bravery, and dedication. As secretary of defense, I am committed to promoting an environment free from personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility that their talents and capabilities warrant. They put their lives on the line for America, and that's what really matters. Thanks to the professionalism and leadership of the U.S. military, we are closer to achieving the goal that is at the foundation of America -- equality and dignity for all."
Translation: We're going ahead with this, no matter what happens as a result, and anyone who doesn't like it is obviously opposed to equality and dignity, and that's what their evaluations will read. Get the message, troop?


"U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Those are not findings, they are statements of actions that will occur and glossing over the process by which the change occurred. No findings, no facts, just the bureaucratic language for "we will shut up and do it."

Odysseus
10-05-2011, 05:08 PM
Some people actually learn and grow.

WASHINGTON -- The Marine Corps commandant who once said openly gay service members would be a dangerous "distraction" and was among the most outspoken opponents of repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy said today he does not expect to lose troops over the change.

"I haven't had any indication yet at all, not at all," Gen. James Amos told reporters when asked if he expected the mass exodus of troops that Sen. John McCain and other critics predicted if the ban was lifted.

Amos was visiting troops in Afghanistan's Helmand Province when President Barack Obama signed the repeal in late December. He said he addressed some 12,000 Marines about the change and "everyone said, 'Sir, we got it. We're going to do this thing.'"

The about-face by the Marines' top general came before the ink was dried on the law and was underlined in a video Amos taped with the Corps' Sgt. Maj. Carlton W. Kent last month. In it, he said the service "will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new law. It's important that we value the diversity of background, culture and skills that all Marines bring to the service of our nation."
The headline for this must have read, "Marine Corps Commandant to Follow Orders of Commander-in-Chief." In a related story, did you know that water is wet?

The troops includes gay troops. You and Ody have made it clear that the military has tolerated or encouraged an attitude and atmosphere of hostility towards gay Americans in uniform. It's unfortunate that that is the case, but if you were allowed to continue, then we would simply have to deal with this down the road. There is and was no time like the present. The attitudes and behaviors hostile or dangerous to gay Americans in uniform have actually been unacceptable for some time, you are simply running a little behind. Welcome to 2011, I'm sure you will handle it with dignity.
Oh, we will handle it with dignity, which is more than I can say for many of the troops that we've had to cashier out. In fact, we've been dealing with it quite well for the last two and a half centuries, thank you very much. We average about 850 discharges each year for DADT violations, most of which involve sexual misconduct beyond simply announcing one's orientation. That added up to a total of 13,650 from 1994 through 2010. The end strength of the DOD has hovered around 2 million during that time, so if we assume that no other separations of enlistments occurred during that period of sixteen years, that only 2 million troops have passed through the armed services during that time, then the total number discharged for DADT violations was 0.007% of the total. If we accept the premise that twice as many troops served while not asking or telling, then we have a total percentage of 0.014% in the current force. In other words, the odds of anyone having a gay Soldier in their command who might have been offended were roughly about the same as the odds of my being struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket.


It's common knowledge here that I have not served in the military. I was not eligible then and am not eligible now. I also am not claiming to have superior knowledge based simply on status and not particulars as lacarnut has done.
No? Then what do you base your claims of superior knowledge? Because you repeatedly impugn the rest of us as ignorant bigots. Just what do you base your superior understanding of something that you have never been part of upon?

What have unwanted sexual advances got to do with this discussion? If you want we can talk about them, though. First, I need for you to define "unwanted sexual advance". Do you mean "Hey Ralph, would you like to go to Ft Lauderdale with me next weekend on a date?" or do you mean a hand placed on a body part? If it's the former then a "blanket party" should get those holding the blanket some time behind bars. If it's the latter, then it would probably fall into the category of mutual combat.

Can you accept that the rules governing this will be the same for male on male as they are for male on female?
No, because a male in a female latrine or shower is automatically wrong. A gay male in a male latrine may or may not have instigated some improper act, and it will be a matter of he said/he said. Commanders will have to act on hearsay, rumor and even less evidence of impropriety than in male-female interactions, and any decision reached will be wrong as far as one party is concerned. I can hear the IG coming now...

This is not how it works in the corporate world, which as you know is much more regulated by outside rules and court rulings. In Corporate World, the human resources department clearly defines how a person may ask another person for a date (or more) in the workplace, and how often it may be asked before it becomes harassment.

It's hard to imagine that the military doesn't already have a similar set of rules in place owing to females being asked and the persistence of some males.

What are the military rules for a male asking a female for a date and being refused? Rather than gay people being a protected class, they will simply have the rules applied without discrimination.
The military rules are no fraternization within the same chain of command and no fraternization between officers and enlisted, period. Does it prevent sex or improper advances from happening? No, but it does make it easier to file complaints, real and imagined, and that's with sexually segregated barracks and other facilities, endless repetitions of training to prevent sexual behavior between troops, appointment of Unit Victim Advocates and a host of other measures which still haven't prevented young men and women from making like birds and bees. But, you must know more about this than I do, based on your vast experience in this area. :rolleyes:


Please knock this off. Nova has been discussing in a civil manner. No need for this.

Uh, no, not really. He's actually been quite uncivil in several exchanges, not that this justifies the namecalling, but for the record, he's given as good as he's gotten and then some. For example:



...But you haven't really addressed the fact that negroes statistically have exponential rates of venereal diseases and you aren't saying that this is a reason to exclude them.

But you would like to wouldn't you? That's really what this is all about. Racial integration hasn't really worked out all that well. It has generated suspicion of favoritism, quotas, affirmative action, promotions without merit, and general discontent. No, I didn't make that up or imagine that, I read those kinds of posts on marine and army discussion boards like this.

Sorry, but gratuitous accusations of racism aren't civil.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 05:28 PM
No, because a male in a female latrine or shower is automatically wrong.

What is with you and bathrooms? I have been gay all my life, and not once have I been asked out for a date in a bathroom. I have never been propositioned or groped in the gym locker room. I have been harassed in the locker room, but I took care of that by asking the young man in question exactly why he needed to know what he wanted to know, and if he had the money to pay for it if I agreed to it.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 05:32 PM
The headline for this must have read, "Marine Corps Commandant to Follow Orders of Commander-in-Chief."

So are you saying that the Commandant made false statements and affidavit merely to keep his job? That's quite an accusation against his integrity. I'm more inclined to believe that his first response in 2010 was emotional and his final position was after investigation and consideration. The article goes on to say that he spoke with some 12,000 marines in the process.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 05:37 PM
Joe deserved the ass beating since Stallian was on the receiving end of sexual harrassment and his PC superiors did not intervene.

Who said anything about taking 4 to whip up on a queer. One could do it in most cases if the whimp would not tattle like a pussy. That is the purpose of the blanket party. No one can be ID's

So reporting a violent crime committed against you by your alleged comrades makes you a pussy and a tattle tale, but bagging a persons head to avoid identity in a gang attack is acceptable. You have a very strange mind.

Novaheart
10-05-2011, 05:51 PM
No, but it does make it easier to file complaints, real and imagined, and that's with sexually segregated barracks and other facilities, endless repetitions of training to prevent sexual behavior between troops, appointment of Unit Victim Advocates and a host of other measures which still haven't prevented young men and women from making like birds and bees.

Sounds like you have some serious problems with the heterosexuals. Perhaps that is because you consider it natural and irresistible rather than an animalistic instinct to procreate or merely to get some. Fortunately, I have higher standards and greater expectations for gay personnel.

But seriously, I don't think it's just the Family Research Council rotting your brain. I think Will and Grace and cultural isolation are having a hand in it too.

Contrary to popular belief, gay men and straight women are not the best and most natural friendship combo. I once thought that they might be, but found this to be untrue. In the first place, a girly girl and a guy are going to have disagreements on entertainment and recreation. Also, I have found the straight women sometimes get confused (and gay men too I suppose) and these couplings get complicated by jealousy. Will and Grace notwithstanding, my experience is that gay man and a straight man make very good friends.

My best friend in high school and college, and my two best roommates of all time were straight guys. First off, contrary to your obsession with visual stimulation, gay men aren't universally turned on by anything with a penis. Yes, Ryan was handsome, and fun, and well bred and all that stuff, but he was also something of a pig and if I had any interest in him it had morphed into the friend zone by the time we became roommates. Craig was a redneck from Texas and all three of us got along. I would go to the gym or swimming with Ryan, and Greg and I would go to Laguna Seca and to Mexican restaurants. I have babysat both of their girlfriends countless times when a date had to be postponed due to work. Their girlfriends were safe with me, I was the harem keeper.

Now what I can't help you with is the music clash. A lot of black guys and straight guys listen to rap, and some of the white boys hang on to metal or country. Gay men are hardwired to like techno and house music.

Odysseus
10-05-2011, 11:05 PM
PS- You guys can have the last word if you want. Unless my my mood changes, I'm tired of this conversation.

It isn't reasonable to expect me to discuss this at this point, now that the referee has declared for your side and threatens action if discussion of other disproportionately affected populations continues. Sorry. Besides, it doesn't matter.

Are you still here? I thought that you'd quit, twice.



What is with you and bathrooms? I have been gay all my life, and not once have I been asked out for a date in a bathroom. I have never been propositioned or groped in the gym locker room. I have been harassed in the locker room, but I took care of that by asking the young man in question exactly why he needed to know what he wanted to know, and if he had the money to pay for it if I agreed to it.
Snarky, but not very germane. The desperation continues to show in your attempts to rebut with poor attempts at humor what you cannot refute with facts. It's not bathrooms, it's privacy. Privacy used to occur in a barracks, to some degree, in the latrines and billets. Now, there will be less of it.

So are you saying that the Commandant made false statements and affidavit merely to keep his job? That's quite an accusation against his integrity. I'm more inclined to believe that his first response in 2010 was emotional and his final position was after investigation and consideration. The article goes on to say that he spoke with some 12,000 marines in the process.
You're inclined to believe quite a bit, but you don't know the culture of the armed forces. The Commandant expressed his opinion honestly in 2010. Now that the policy has changed, his options are to publicly support it or resign. He didn't resign.

Sounds like you have some serious problems with the heterosexuals. Perhaps that is because you consider it natural and irresistible rather than an animalistic instinct to procreate or merely to get some. Fortunately, I have higher standards and greater expectations for gay personnel.
We do have problems. Lots of them. And you refuse to see that. Instead you propose some idealized blather about how gay men, the single most promiscuous demographic in the world, will suddenly check their libidos at the door when they report for basic training. You blather about higher standards and greater expectations for gay personnel (despite the fact that when you were young enough to be one of them and try to change things by putting yourself on the line, you found better things to do than serve your country), but what are these higher standards and expectations based on? Does the bathhouse culture really transform itself into the basic training culture? What experience do you have with the armed forces that make you so confident that the boys from ACT-UP will suddenly tone it down? That guys who are so obsessed with their sexuality that they cannot join any group without trumpeting it will suddenly decide that they'd rather serve their country than their egos? Puh-lease....


But seriously, I don't think it's just the Family Research Council rotting your brain. I think Will and Grace and cultural isolation are having a hand in it too.
I didn't watch Will and Grace. Frankly, I found all of the characters too annoying to put up with. And I'm hardly culturally isolated. I lived in NYC until my mid-thirties (and in Chelsea in the late-80s -early 90s), and Venice, CA for six years. I've had much more contact with gay culture than you have had with military culture. In fact, I'd bet even money that the closest that you've ever been to a service member was watching A Few Good Men.


>snipped for irrelevance<

Their girlfriends were safe with me, I was the harem keeper.
So, you were their eunuch? That explains so much.


Now what I can't help you with is the music clash. A lot of black guys and straight guys listen to rap, and some of the white boys hang on to metal or country. Gay men are hardwired to like techno and house music.
WTF are you talking about? Seriously. This is so out of left field that I can't believe that you're not typing under the influence of something. Either that, or you really cannot read anything that doesn't conform to your prejudices. Either way, this is just sad.

Let's go back to the bottom line, shall we? I've asked this question over and over, and never gotten an answer from you, so until you answer it, you really have nothing to add to this discussion. The question is this: In order to accommodate gay troops, followed by transsexual troops God knows what else, we will have to impose more behavioral controls, kick out anyone who cannot adapt to the new paradigm and otherwise jump through all sorts of hoops in order to make this work. This will take time and money, which will mean that we have that much less of either to spend on training for war. In short, there are serious costs associated with this, but I don't see any benefits. So, here's my question, once again:

How does the repeal of DADT make us more combat effective? What do we, the armed forces, gain from the new policy?

This ought to be good for some serious laughs.

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 12:48 AM
(despite the fact that when you were young enough to be one of them and try to change things by putting yourself on the line, you found better things to do than serve your country),

I have told you repeatedly that I wasn't eligible to serve. Now are you too stupid to understand that or are you simply a jackass?

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 01:06 AM
In fact, I'd bet even money that the closest that you've ever been to a service member was watching A Few Good Men.

Now I know that you are blind in addition to everything else. I have repeatedly told you that I grew up in Washington DC, that my father was a naval officer and later a civilian Navy executive as was my mother. I'd give you their activities, but it's none of your business. My sister's first husband was an Army colonel and her second husband was a naval officer before his civilian career. My niece was in the Army, as are her two sons. My cousin Connie is a retired marine and so is her husband, she also has two children in the Marines. My uncle was a helicopter pilot in the Army and then the Air Force. My great uncle, who BTW was gay, served in the Army in WWII. Would you like the ones from the Civil War and the Revolution? How many of your ancestors served in the Civil War or the American Revolution?

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 01:09 AM
you really have nothing to add to this discussion.

Oh pardon me, let me go get some bullshit from the FRC or some other whacko website to add to the discussion so I can add the same kind of value you do.

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 01:25 AM
This ought to be good for some serious laughs.

Laugh at this.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it was “inappropriate” for Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the commander of U.S. Army, Pacific, to have publicly aired his feelings about the president’s desire to overturn the current don’t ask don’t tell policy.

And Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a rare, strongly worded admonishment.

“As a three-star leader in command, by virtue of that position alone, he has great influence,” Mullen said, adding that when the secretary announced the Pentagon’s review, the Army issued written guidelines about it. “If there’s policy direction that someone in uniform disagrees with … the answer is not advocacy, it is in fact to vote with your feet.”

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 01:50 AM
The question is this: In order to accommodate gay troops, followed by transsexual troops God knows what else, .

Two of your three variable aren't actually in the equation. You have wrecked your own argument, as you have consistently done.



.......... we will have to impose more behavioral controls, kick out anyone who cannot adapt to the new paradigm .


ANyone who can't adapt to "Johnny gets to be in the group now and if you do something stupid or violent to him you will be severely punished." really needs to go home. Period. Don't let the door hit you in the ass. No one is irreplaceable.



This will take time and money, which will mean that we have that much less of either to spend on training for war.

So first it was about morals. Then it was about prejudiced guys who may or may not commit crimes against gay people. The it was about std's even though the policy is clearly inherited from centuries ago. Now it's about time and money. Let me know when you run out of excuses for your Stockholm Syndrome.

Odysseus
10-06-2011, 09:54 AM
I have told you repeatedly that I wasn't eligible to serve. Now are you too stupid to understand that or are you simply a jackass?
Lot's of gays weren't eligible to serve, but did. You keep telling me this. You just weren't one of them.

Now I know that you are blind in addition to everything else. I have repeatedly told you that I grew up in Washington DC, that my father was a naval officer and later a civilian Navy executive as was my mother. I'd give you their activities, but it's none of your business. My sister's first husband was an Army colonel and her second husband was a naval officer before his civilian career. My niece was in the Army, as are her two sons. My cousin Connie is a retired marine and so is her husband, she also has two children in the Marines. My uncle was a helicopter pilot in the Army and then the Air Force. My great uncle, who BTW was gay, served in the Army in WWII. Would you like the ones from the Civil War and the Revolution? How many of your ancestors served in the Civil War or the American Revolution?
Only one. My great great grandfather came over in time for the Civil War, but went back to Russia to get the family and it took another generation to get the family over. As for the rest, it's not that I'm blind, it's just that I'd forgotten it, if I ever saw it in the first place. Believe it or not, the details of your childhood and family are not foremost on my mind. On the plus side, this makes much more sense now. You're clearly working through your daddy issues at the expense of the armed forces. Now, while I appreciate your efforts to get well, why don't you just pay a therapist and let the rest of us get back to defending the country?

Oh pardon me, let me go get some bullshit from the FRC or some other whacko website to add to the discussion so I can add the same kind of value you do.
I don't recall ever seeing the Center for Disease Control referred to as a whacko website. You keep ignoring the fact that they report the same data, and more. If you don't have an answer to it, fine, but at least admit it and stop ignoring what is clearly a viable source.

Laugh at this.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it was “inappropriate” for Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the commander of U.S. Army, Pacific, to have publicly aired his feelings about the president’s desire to overturn the current don’t ask don’t tell policy.

And Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a rare, strongly worded admonishment.

“As a three-star leader in command, by virtue of that position alone, he has great influence,” Mullen said, adding that when the secretary announced the Pentagon’s review, the Army issued written guidelines about it. “If there’s policy direction that someone in uniform disagrees with … the answer is not advocacy, it is in fact to vote with your feet.”
Ironically, you have hit on one of the major motivations of the Democrats who imposed this policy. The military has long resisted the culture of liberalism that has permeated the rest of the government, and it has been a sore point for the left. Now, with thsi policy, which accomplishes nothing, but creates controversy, the services will be forced to purge leaders who don't toe the administration's line. It will be Tailhook all over again, except worse.


Two of your three variable aren't actually in the equation. You have wrecked your own argument, as you have consistently done.
It's not an equation. It's a simple question. Where is this precision when you couldn't see the CDC stats?


ANyone who can't adapt to "Johnny gets to be in the group now and if you do something stupid or violent to him you will be severely punished." really needs to go home. Period. Don't let the door hit you in the ass. No one is irreplaceable.
Including gay troops. That's not a gain, it's just a substitution. We'll lose Soldiers whose only fault is that they don't want to be forced into close quarters with Soldiers who are attracted to their own sex, which is only a character flaw in your warped worldview. Again, you cannot provide an answer.


So first it was about morals. Then it was about prejudiced guys who may or may not commit crimes against gay people. The it was about std's even though the policy is clearly inherited from centuries ago. Now it's about time and money. Let me know when you run out of excuses for your Stockholm Syndrome.

Wow. Talk about a straw man argument. From the very begnning of this, it was about readiness. In every single thread on this subject, I have started from the point that the changes will hurt the force and provide no benefits. Go back and look. From that point, I have danced with you through all of the objections, which are based, not on the prejudice of straight troops or a propensity towards violence by them (I have never argued that they would act out against gays, but that they would simply leave the military) as you have ducked and weaved through every issue without ever answering this basic question. Then, after repeatedly ignoring it, you pretend that this is the first time that I have raised it. The fact that you cannot addres this argument doesn't mean that I haven't been repeatedly making it.

I have stated my objections too many times for you not to know them, so obviously, this is simple dishonesty on your part. They are not moral arguments, except in the sense that wasting time and resources and eliminating good Soldiers from the ranks in order to accommodate a political agenda is obviously immoral, but practical arguments, based on decades of experience with similar issues involving women. There is no religious objection, no personal animus or prejudice, just facts and assumptions based on facts. This is how we do mission analysis in the Army. You are given an mission. You start with the known facts, you then fill in the unknowns by making logical assumptions that are extrapolations of the facts, and then you go through the process of figuring out the execution of the mission. Since you cannot address my actual objections without deliberately making up stuff, I will summarize them again for the benefit of those who don't realize that you are delusional.

DADT repeal will not enhance readiness in any way, and will, in fact, prove detrimental to it.
It will force troops into intimate contact wth Soldiers whose sexual orientation makes such contact problematical.


This discomfort is not based on prejudice, but is the result of legitmate concerns about sexual behavior in places in which sex was previously forbidden and the ban was enforced through gender segregation, which will no longer be possible with persons of multiple orientations sharing the same facilities.
The loss of these personnel will not be made up by the gain in gay troops.

The repeal will also force the military to incur additional expenses in order to deal with the higher incidences of physical and mental health issues that gays bring to the force. These have been repeatedly cited and are documented by the CDC.
The experience with integrating women into the force demonstrates that sexual conduct between troops undermines unit cohesion, morale and effectiveness and shows that the addition of gay troops will increase training distractors that we have already seen and impose new ones, to include:

additional training requirements in order to impose a gay-friendly attitude on the force
increased rates of sexual misconduct resulting in UCMJ actions
politically sensitive disciplinary problems which wil put leaders in difficult positions in terms of enforcing good order and discipline and expose them to abuses of the reporting system.
The precedent of creating a "right" to serve in the armed forces will open the door to other groups which have previously been deemed as not fit for service, to include:

transgenders
physically or mentally handicapped
persons with chronic health issues
persons whose prior conduct bars them from enlistment


Now that you have this summary, you can confine yourself to addressing my actual objections, rather than the ones that the voices in your head tell you to address.

txradioguy
10-06-2011, 10:29 AM
So are you saying that the Commandant made false statements and affidavit merely to keep his job? That's quite an accusation against his integrity. I'm more inclined to believe that his first response in 2010 was emotional and his final position was after investigation and consideration. The article goes on to say that he spoke with some 12,000 marines in the process.

No. But the message does get passed along that if you want to keep your rank...retirement etc...you need to shut the hell up and "play ball".

What you have no clue about...and is quite common in the military is that those that don't agree with the fucked up thigns that happen to us are in very subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways to shut up if we know what's good for us.

And that goes for openly disagreeing with DADT or making sure we applaude when President Clinton visits us back in 1994 in Kuwait or else we get an automatic Article 15.

The first response was his honest personal reaction.

The second set of comments from GEN. Amos was the PC/"play ball or else" comments.

I get it...so does Ody...it's par for the course in the military. There are a lot of things that we have to bite our tongues on...swallow very hard our personal feelings on...smile and drive on.

That someone like you who has only a passaing aquaintance with the military doesn't understand that or know how things work is not surprising.

AmPat
10-06-2011, 10:37 AM
The troops includes gay troops. You and Ody have made it clear that the military has tolerated or encouraged an attitude and atmosphere of hostility towards gay Americans in uniform. It's unfortunate that that is the case, but if you were allowed to continue, then we would simply have to deal with this down the road. There is and was no time like the present. The attitudes and behaviors hostile or dangerous to gay Americans in uniform have actually been unacceptable for some time, you are simply running a little behind. Welcome to 2011, I'm sure you will handle it with dignity.

This right here proves you are a steaming pile of lying B.S. Prove your statement or apologize right now you liar. I told you I was a commander. I had to TEACH the new policy IN PERSON. This could not be delegated down to a subordinate.
Now prove where I or Ody "made it clear that the military has tolerated or encouraged an attitude and atmosphere of hostility towards gay Americans in uniform.":mad:

Tipsycatlover
10-06-2011, 11:11 AM
I have yet to see anything, even a smidgen about how military effectiveness would be increased with additional pandering to gays and transgendered.

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 11:43 AM
N . There are a lot of things that we have to bite our tongues on...swallow very hard our personal feelings on...smile and drive on.

That someone like you who has only a passaing aquaintance with the military doesn't understand that or know how things work is not surprising.

So instead of telling me how ignorant I am on the subject, why don't you tell me what those other things were/are rather than denying them while asserting this.

djones520
10-06-2011, 11:48 AM
So instead of telling me how ignorant I am on the subject, why don't you tell me what those other things were/are rather than denying them while asserting this.

Obama? :D

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 11:50 AM
Only one. My great great grandfather came over in time for the Civil War, but went back to Russia to get the family and it took another generation to get the family over.

I see.

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 11:57 AM
This right here proves you are a steaming pile of lying B.S. Prove your statement or apologize right now you liar. I told you I was a commander. I had to TEACH the new policy IN PERSON. This could not be delegated down to a subordinate.
Now prove where I or Ody "made it clear that the military has tolerated or encouraged an attitude and atmosphere of hostility towards gay Americans in uniform.":mad:

I wasn't referring to the new policy, and if you will check I have more than once said that I fully expect that you would/will implement that with the utmost professionalism.

I was referring to the personal acceptance and tacit approval of hostility towards gay people and the potential for violence against them. You may well do your job of disciplining such behavior where you see it, but if you think it's to be expected will it not come to pass?

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 12:21 PM
There has never been that atmosphere as far as I've seen in my 10 years.

That's good to hear.


There has always been gay jokes, and probably still will be for sometime. Hell, a friend of mine in the Navy would joke that "you can't outgay a sailor" and he'd "stick the tip in, just to prove he's gayer then you". He is married and quite heterosexual, just to quell any speculation. Good natured ribbing is far from true hostility though. The Air Force and Navy are often differant beasts from the Army though, so who knows how it is with them.

When you live in a society that is indifferent to such differences, even ones with painful histories, then everyone can relax and enjoy a joke. My roomies Ryan and Greg wouldn't have hesitated to make gay jokes. We flirted and teased from time to time as well. Contrary to Ody's joke, I was not their Eunich or their inferior, in fact it was my house and I made the rules.

As I told Ody, a gay man and a straight men can be fast friends. They can even be a little romantic (in the friend way not a sex way) without there even being a notion of crossing into sex. Male best friends often have what are called romantic friendships. These are nothing more than the classic tight bond that is generally only shared by men. I think that some straight guys are afraid that openly gay people being included in the mix might take away that romantic-friendship, or make it suspect. I don't see that happening any more than it already does. There is always some jackass who calls people queer if they are close, and it's usually a misfit or toxic person who repels would be friends.

I've heard that friends are family that you choose. My experience is that friends are family- you can't get rid of them once they are yours. My best friends are people I don't even bother getting mad at, because it's a waste of time. I accept them.

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 12:31 PM
Now that you have this summary, you can confine yourself to addressing my actual objections, rather than the ones that the voices in your head tell you to address.

I thought I addressed your objections. But here you go:

Unless DADT was repealed, in the event of a future draft there would be nothing to prevent young men from evading military service by claiming to be homosexual. In the past, the military could threaten people with the homosexual label, a dishonorable discharge for being homosexual, or being excluded from service for being homosexual. That hasn't been the case for a while, and short of an Islamic takeover, that genii is not going back in the bottle in the closet.

Odysseus
10-06-2011, 01:17 PM
No. But the message does get passed along that if you want to keep your rank...retirement etc...you need to shut the hell up and "play ball".

What you have no clue about...and is quite common in the military is that those that don't agree with the fucked up thigns that happen to us are in very subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways to shut up if we know what's good for us.

And that goes for openly disagreeing with DADT or making sure we applaude when President Clinton visits us back in 1994 in Kuwait or else we get an automatic Article 15.

The first response was his honest personal reaction.

The second set of comments from GEN. Amos was the PC/"play ball or else" comments.

I get it...so does Ody...it's par for the course in the military. There are a lot of things that we have to bite our tongues on...swallow very hard our personal feelings on...smile and drive on.

That someone like you who has only a passaing aquaintance with the military doesn't understand that or know how things work is not surprising.
Apparently, Nova's military family doesn't think enough of him to include him in their honest discussions about policy.

This right here proves you are a steaming pile of lying B.S. Prove your statement or apologize right now you liar. I told you I was a commander. I had to TEACH the new policy IN PERSON. This could not be delegated down to a subordinate.
Now prove where I or Ody "made it clear that the military has tolerated or encouraged an attitude and atmosphere of hostility towards gay Americans in uniform.":mad:
I missed that comment of Nova's, and I'm glad that I did. The guy is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

So instead of telling me how ignorant I am on the subject, why don't you tell me what those other things were/are rather than denying them while asserting this.
We do try. You refuse to listen. That's the problem with willful ignorance. You don't know how much you don't know, but you don't let it keep you from mouthing off. To put it another way, you are seldom right, but never in doubt.

I see.
What do you see? My family came over from Russia in 1905. My grandfather volunteered for WWI but was discharged when the armistice was signed, my father fought in WWII and I've been in uniform for the last 25 years. What's your point? That your family's military pedigree justifies your lack of commitment to national defense?


I thought I addressed your objections. But here you go:

Unless DADT was repealed, in the event of a future draft there would be nothing to prevent young men from evading military service by claiming to be homosexual. In the past, the military could threaten people with the homosexual label, a dishonorable discharge for being homosexual, or being excluded from service for being homosexual. That hasn't been the case for a while, and short of an Islamic takeover, that genii is not going back in the bottle in the closet.

Okay, let me see if I understand this: Iin order to justify imposing this on an all-volunteer force, which is not only the current policy, but the policy for the forseeable future, you are bringing up a hypothetical draft? Seriously? That's your justification for all of the pain that we're about to go through? ROFLOL!!!!
:rotfl:
:rotfl:
:rotfl:

That's the funniest thing that I've heard today, and that includes the inside of the Snapple cap that said that it was illegal to graffit a cow in Texas. And now, to the dissection phase of your argument:

First, thanks to the various activist groups, the civilian stigma of homosexuality has been reduced to the point of nonexistence. There is no downside for being labeled as gay outside of the armed forces, and multiple upsides in places like academia and civilian government employment. You're a protected, pampered class. Anyone who says "Boo" to you is a homophobe and God help anyone who fails to properly genuflect before the altar of diversity. Anyone who publicly disagrees with you can count on the kind of activist thuggery that the Prop 8 supporters had to deal with when their churches and places of business were attacked. Respectfully disagreeing with the gay marriage front cost Carrie Prejean her shot at Miss USA and months of abuse from the homophile media. In other words, the threat of the label itself is meaningless. And a dishonorable discharge doesn't apply to persons who are not inducted, and since this would be a bar to induction under a draft, they would simply be cut loose during the initial screening. The only thing that the military can do with someone who claims to be gay to avoid a draft is not draft him, which is why it was such an attractive dodge during the Vietnam era.

Second, and more important, there is no draft now, and unless things get so desperate that we are willing to deal with the kind of mass idiocy on campuses that result when you try to order spoiled, ill-educated, leftist-indoctrinated college kids to do something that they don't want to do, there will not be a draft. That's why the only calls for a draft in the last few years came from Democrats who wanted to use it to ratchet up antiwar sentiment. The fact is that nobody in their right mind is proposing a draft or counting on one. The only way that there will be a draft is if we find ourselves in another WWII-situation, where most of the active force has been decimated in the first year and we have to expand and replace an army and navy ASAP. And if things do get that desperate, then you won't have to worry about DADT or anything like it. We'll be arming toddlers and octegenarians at that point, so those intensely patriotic and motivated gays that you keep fantasizing about will finally get to take up arms for their country (not that you, yourself, ever would).

So, that's it? That's all you've got? Geez, but that's pathetic.

Zathras
10-06-2011, 01:32 PM
Unless DADT was repealed, in the event of a future draft there would be nothing to prevent young men from evading military service by claiming to be homosexual.

And? Here's a news flash for you Nova....if someone is willing to lie about being gay to avoid military service then they aren't the people I want serving in the military. I want people with integrity and a willingness to serve, not some dishonorable fucktard who thinks only of himself, which is exactly what you get with the example you give.

And to Ody and the others....keep up the good work shredding Nova's weak assed arguments. It makes for great entertainment.

txradioguy
10-06-2011, 02:15 PM
Lie? The only time homosexuals had to lie was before DADT was installed.

Not according to the activists. All these gay soldiers you hear talk about having to "lie" about who they are.


After that there was no need to lie. You just couldn't be open about it.

And yet they still claim they did.


So that blows your whole integrity boat out of the water.

No. Because I've seen gay men and women "pretend" to be straight and get "married" to get out of living in the barracks and collect BAH.

djones520
10-06-2011, 02:38 PM
Not according to the activists. All these gay soldiers you hear talk about having to "lie" about who they are.



And yet they still claim they did.



No. Because I've seen gay men and women "pretend" to be straight and get "married" to get out of living in the barracks and collect BAH.

I've seen plenty of straight men do the same. Hell, I once had a woman propose to me so she could go to Japan with me. Your point?

Lying to get extra money, is a totally differant thing from lying to serve. There was no need to lie in order to serve.

If some felt they needed to "lie" to get people off their back about being gay, then whose fault is that? The man who wants to serve, or the ones who are forcing it on him? I will always forgive a man who will risk that to continue to serve.

lacarnut
10-06-2011, 03:01 PM
I've seen plenty of straight men do the same. Hell, I once had a woman propose to me so she could go to Japan with me. Your point?

Lying to get extra money, is a totally differant thing from lying to serve. There was no need to lie in order to serve.

If some felt they needed to "lie" to get people off their back about being gay, then whose fault is that? The man who wants to serve, or the ones who are forcing it on him? I will always forgive a man who will risk that to continue to serve.

Either way, lying in those cases makes perverts a POS in my opinion which totally escaped you.

Odysseus
10-06-2011, 03:39 PM
Not according to the activists. All these gay soldiers you hear talk about having to "lie" about who they are.

And yet they still claim they did.

No. Because I've seen gay men and women "pretend" to be straight and get "married" to get out of living in the barracks and collect BAH.
I keep telling Nova that gays can marry, exactly the way that straights can, one man and one woman. Gay men can marry lesbians without any legal impediments.

I've seen plenty of straight men do the same. Hell, I once had a woman propose to me so she could go to Japan with me. Your point?

Lying to get extra money, is a totally differant thing from lying to serve. There was no need to lie in order to serve.

If some felt they needed to "lie" to get people off their back about being gay, then whose fault is that? The man who wants to serve, or the ones who are forcing it on him? I will always forgive a man who will risk that to continue to serve.

I had a problem with DADT when it was first introduced. The honor code that was instilled in me was that I would not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do. I was extremely unhappy about a policy that directed Soldiers to lie to their chain of command, and that directed leaders to turn a blind eye to it as a matter of course. If I can't trust my troops, and they can't trust me, then we have a problem.

txradioguy
10-06-2011, 03:48 PM
I've seen plenty of straight men do the same. Hell, I once had a woman propose to me so she could go to Japan with me. Your point?

You said they had "no reason to lie"...and I have proven that they did.


Lying to get extra money, is a totally differant thing from lying to serve. There was no need to lie in order to serve.

That's crap and you know it. There is no such thing as varying degrees of a "lie" that makes it ok to lie about one thing and not another.


If some felt they needed to "lie" to get people off their back about being gay, then whose fault is that? The man who wants to serve, or the ones who are forcing it on him? I will always forgive a man who will risk that to continue to serve.

Then you need to revisit what being an NCO is all about if you can justify a lie just because the reason a soldier is doing it is for a cause you happen to agree with.

lacarnut
10-06-2011, 04:02 PM
You said they had "no reason to lie"...and I have proven that they did.



That's crap and you know it. There is no such thing as varying degrees of a "lie" that makes it ok to lie about one thing and not another.



Then you need to revisit what being an NCO is all about if you can justify a lie just because the reason a soldier is doing it is for a cause you happen to agree with.

Plus 1. Those in the military should have the highest ethical and moral standards. Liberal senators sure made that point with Tailhook. I guess when it comes to queers lying, it is no big deal.,

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 04:49 PM
I want people with integrity and a willingness to serve, not some dishonorable fucktard who thinks only of himself, which is exactly what you get with the example you give. .

That' nice. I want a pygmy pony.

Definition of CONSCRIPTION

: compulsory enrollment of persons especially for military service : draft

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 05:07 PM
Sorry, but gratuitous accusations of racism aren't civil.

I didn't think it was gratuitous and I still don't. It was inappropriate to level it at you, since I have no basis for thinking that you specifically have such feelings because I don't have you on record for it, so for that I apologize. I don't apologize for being suspicious on that score.

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 05:16 PM
Not according to the activists. All these gay soldiers you hear talk about having to "lie" about who they are. .

Just about every gay male has experienced "the questions". Seemingly innocent passing interest kinds of questions which are actually feelers to see if you are gay. There are some predatory type anti-gay people out there who act like they are trying to make friends when they are actually gathering ammo.

Just about every gay man can spot that guy when he approaches. "So Nova, are you married?" "OH, got a girlfriend?" It isn't what you say next he's after, but the length of the pause before you speak. This man is a predator. He wants to know what he can use against you because he intends to. He needs someone to put down, someone to feel superior to. He's a snake, and in another context you would tell him to fuck off.

lacarnut
10-06-2011, 05:16 PM
That' nice. I want a pygmy pony.

Definition of CONSCRIPTION

: compulsory enrollment of persons especially for military service : draft

Let's hear why you did not go in the service....phys, medic. or other.

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 05:17 PM
There is no such thing as varying degrees of a "lie" that makes it ok to lie about one thing and not another.

So lying because you are gay is the same as lying about your drug use, your alcohol use, and how many times you've smoked pot?

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 05:23 PM
Let's hear why you did not go in the service....phys, medic. or other.

If the length and nature of someone's military service is not appropriate for this discussion, per the mod, then neither is that which made me ineligible.

But since you have been so nice, between the ages of 16 and 23 I had a physical disorder which caused malnutrition and electrolyte imbalances. It was surgically corrected when I was 23, but damaged my liver and kidneys in the process.

I also have the world's flattest feet if that's really an issue.

Now that I have answered your question, will you answer one of mine?

lacarnut
10-06-2011, 05:35 PM
Just about every gay male has experienced "the questions". Seemingly innocent passing interest kinds of questions which are actually feelers to see if you are gay. There are some predatory type anti-gay people out there who act like they are trying to make friends when they are actually gathering ammo.

Just about every gay man can spot that guy when he approaches. "So Nova, are you married?" "OH, got a girlfriend?" It isn't what you say next he's after, but the length of the pause before you speak. This man is a predator. He wants to know what he can use against you because he intends to. He needs someone to put down, someone to feel superior to. He's a snake, and in another context you would tell him to fuck off.

You are full of shit. For example.. Rock Hudson. Another example, I suspected my BIL of being gay and never asked him. He lived in my house for several months. I kicked the punk out after he had written 3 checks on my account causing overdrafts. I wanted to kick his ass but my ex pleaded with me not to. Years later his brother found out he was queer at30 plus years of age.

You are so low on the economic ladder, your opinions do not make a hill of beans to the affluent. They are not interesteted in perverts in the military or gay maariage.

Odysseus
10-06-2011, 05:39 PM
That' nice. I want a pygmy pony.

Here you go:

:deadhorse:

Definition of CONSCRIPTION

: compulsory enrollment of persons especially for military service : draft
Definition of IRRELEVANT:
ir·rel·e·vant   /ɪˈrɛləvənt/ Show Spelled[ih-rel-uh-vuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1. not relevant; not applicable or pertinent: His lectures often stray to interesting but irrelevant subjects.
2. Law . (of evidence) having no probative value upon any issue in the case.


I didn't think it was gratuitous and I still don't. It was inappropriate to level it at you, since I have no basis for thinking that you specifically have such feelings because I don't have you on record for it, so for that I apologize. I don't apologize for being suspicious on that score.
I will say that nobody can do a half-assed, quasi-apology like you do. I therefore accept it in the spirit in which it was offered, with suspicion.

Just about every gay male has experienced "the questions". Seemingly innocent passing interest kinds of questions which are actually feelers to see if you are gay. There are some predatory type anti-gay people out there who act like they are trying to make friends when they are actually gathering ammo.

Just about every gay man can spot that guy when he approaches. "So Nova, are you married?" "OH, got a girlfriend?" It isn't what you say next he's after, but the length of the pause before you speak. This man is a predator. He wants to know what he can use against you because he intends to. He needs someone to put down, someone to feel superior to. He's a snake, and in another context you would tell him to fuck off.

Or, he has a sister who needs a date (and whose seeing eye dog isn't too picky), or he is genuinely interested in your life. When I ask that question to one of my troops, I'm generally looking to make sure that they are enrolled in all of the family programs and that they are settling in okay. Some people ask because they care about, and concerned for, the welfare of the people that they talk to. Either you've never met anyone like that, or you have issues which prevent you from seeing decency and genuine interest in anything but a predatory manner. I'd sign you up for Paranoid's Anonymous, but the meetings are never in the same place twice, and nobody will tell you where they are.

Zathras
10-06-2011, 07:17 PM
That' nice. I want a pygmy pony.

Definition of CONSCRIPTION

: compulsory enrollment of persons especially for military service : draft

And if they lie and say they're gay to avoid the draft, then that makes them a gutless coward and someone I don't wan't serving in the military in the first place.

Simple as that but I'll bet it flies right over your pointy little head.

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 08:44 PM
And if they lie and say they're gay to avoid the draft, then that makes them a gutless coward ......

And if they tell the truth and are conscripted (involuntary service) then what is their bravery and patriotism quotient in your book?

Some people here think that a gay man was supposed to lie about his sexual orientation and enlist anyway, and continue lying for the term of his enlistment. How do you feel about that?

AmPat
10-06-2011, 08:47 PM
I wasn't referring to the new policy, and if you will check I have more than once said that I fully expect that you would/will implement that with the utmost professionalism.

I was referring to the personal acceptance and tacit approval of hostility towards gay people and the potential for violence against them. You may well do your job of disciplining such behavior where you see it, but if you think it's to be expected will it not come to pass?

No. I expect that whatever presents itself, I deal with it. Do you have any suggestion for a magic bullet that immediately ensures no ill thoughts or actions will ever occur towards gay Soldiers? How am I supposed to be responsible for that? :rolleyes:

CueSi
10-06-2011, 08:51 PM
Or, he has a sister who needs a date (and whose seeing eye dog isn't too picky), or he is genuinely interested in your life. When I ask that question to one of my troops, I'm generally looking to make sure that they are enrolled in all of the family programs and that they are settling in okay. Some people ask because they care about, and concerned for, the welfare of the people that they talk to. Either you've never met anyone like that, or you have issues which prevent you from seeing decency and genuine interest in anything but a predatory manner. I'd sign you up for Paranoid's Anonymous, but the meetings are never in the same place twice, and nobody will tell you where they are.

Ody, you may never have asked those questions for untoward reasons, but others have. Women and men have done it to me as well. I tend to clam up not out of paranoia, but because I honestly don't know or trust another person well enough to let someone too close. Wouldn't most people not give up personal information to someone who may be asking for it just out of the blue?

I mean, damn. . . why should someone submit to personal questions "out of concern"? 'Don't tread on me' covers this. :p

~QC

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 08:58 PM
I will say that nobody can do a half-assed, quasi-apology like you do. I therefore accept it in the spirit in which it was offered, with suspicion.

(smilie for mildly amused) I actually meant that I was and am suspicious that it's a common sentiment, not that I was suspicious of you. You I suspect of arguing for the sake of argument.

Novaheart
10-06-2011, 09:01 PM
No. I expect that whatever presents itself, I deal with it. Do you have any suggestion for a magic bullet that immediately ensures no ill thoughts or actions will ever occur towards gay Soldiers? How am I supposed to be responsible for that? :rolleyes:

You can't be responsible for the thoughts of others, but I assume that you can and will set a good example. What I can't imagine is how you would come off as sincere, if you harbor animosity towards one or more minorities within the military.

Zathras
10-07-2011, 12:20 AM
And if they tell the truth and are conscripted (involuntary service) then what is their bravery and patriotism quotient in your book?

Many times higher than that of the gutless coward willing to lie to avoid service.


Some people here think that a gay man was supposed to lie about his sexual orientation and enlist anyway, and continue lying for the term of his enlistment. How do you feel about that?

If nobody knows that they're a freak then they don't have anything to worry about do they? However, if the information comes out about them being a freak then give them a dishonorable discharge and boot them out ASAP.

Simple really.

hai
10-07-2011, 01:18 AM
Many times higher than that of the gutless coward willing to lie to avoid service.



If nobody knows that they're a freak then they don't have anything to worry about do they? However, if the information comes out about them being a freak then give them a dishonorable discharge and boot them out ASAP.

Simple really.

Um,many gay people are Lawyers,doctors,police,and other occupations.

The APA in the 70's said there is nothing wrong with being gay.

Zathras
10-07-2011, 04:24 AM
Um,many gay people are Lawyers,doctors,police,and other occupations.

The APA in the 70's said there is nothing wrong with being gay.

Well goody for them. They can be gay in the public sector. They have no right to serve in the military and be gay at the same time. Military Service is not a right but a privilege, no matter how you, Nova or any other freak activist want to claim it is.

And who is the APA and why should I care about their, and for that matter your, deviant view of life?

txradioguy
10-07-2011, 06:22 AM
So lying because you are gay is the same as lying about your drug use, your alcohol use, and how many times you've smoked pot?

Yup.

txradioguy
10-07-2011, 06:28 AM
And if they tell the truth and are conscripted (involuntary service) then what is their bravery and patriotism quotient in your book?

What the fuck are you talking about? This is pure desperation on your part to bring up something that isn't going to happen to try and bolster your lame point.

You do realize there hasn't been a draft since I was 3 years old right? You do realize that because of the professional all volunteer force we have now the likelihood of another draft being imposed is about as remote as you NOT using some straw man far fetched argument when you're getting your ass handed to you.


Some people here think that a gay man was supposed to lie about his sexual orientation and enlist anyway, and continue lying for the term of his enlistment. How do you feel about that?

I think that they knew what they were doing going in and knowing the consequences of their deceit shouldn't have been surprised with what happened to them.

Let me say this again...since you seem to not comprehend it yet...serving in the military is NOT a right. You or any other member of the protected class do NOT have some right real or imagined to serve in the military.

And that stands as fact pre and post DADT repeal.