End of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

No, you’re assuming you made a point.

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
While I think ending this policy is good. I don�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t think it�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s an answer. While gays should be able to be who they are and fight for their country, so should people uncomfortable with situations this will create.

If per chance I wouldn�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t want to shower with a gay man in the room or bunk with one, I should still be able to serve my country too, right?

Additionally, if homosexuality is now an acceptable topic for people serving in the military it�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s got to be acceptable from all sides. If they are allowing people to come out in support of being homosexual, you must also allow people to express their beliefs on the subject even if they disagree with it.

Like I said, ending the policy is good, banning gays is wrong. But some things still need to be addressed. I don�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t know what the answer is.
[/quote]

Well to be honest soldiers were already showering with gays soldiers, just not openly gay soldiers. A soldier being openly gay doesn’t mean that he’ll automatically try to have an intimate relationship with a heterosexual soldier or harass a heterosexual soldier either. If someone is bothered by the thought of interacting with a gay soldier then they’re under no obligations to join the military or remain in the military.
[/quote]

Never said that they did. I Just wouldn’t be comfortable with it. It’s just who I am. Shouldn’t I be allowed to both be myself and serve?[/quote]

Sure, people can say they dislike the thought of serving with a homosexual, that dislike is patently irrelevant as to whether or not that soldier should be able to be openly gay while serving in the military though.[/quote]

First of all, I’d like to say I understand what Doubleduce is saying. People are all for tolerance unless its an opinion of intolerance…you could say they’re intolerant to anything but tolerance. Why is my point of view met with so much hate?

Second, its VERY relevant. If gays are such a minor inconvenience, why not respect the wishes of the majority? Even in the studies where those opposed to the repeal made up a lesser percentage than those for it, are we gonna ignore the rest? Because it was either “I don’t care” or “hell no”, so it’s not like you’d be upsetting anyone either way, only ONE of these options will piss people off. Here’s a thought: how many soldiers and sailors will we lose in favor of the gay dudes we gain?

[/quote]

In regards to your first paragraph; LOL. I don’t know, probably because you advocate discrimination.

How many soldiers did we lose because of integration? Come to think of it, the majority of soldiers most likely didn’t support desegregation either. Did that mean citizens of this country should have been denied rights they’re and were entitled to?

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
No, they won’t be reprimanded. Lesbo ho’s all over the place were fuckin on the boat, and each time anyone tried to raise a flag, it got dismissed with a counseling chit (nothing). The gay issue is too controversial for anybody in charge to wanna deal with, so the lowly enlisted people are left to manage the consequences. As it was gays were already flaunting the fact that they pissed all over the UCMJ, I can only imagine what kind of “celebrations” will go on after DADT is gone. Parades? Probably. Gay people love parades.[/quote]

I think heterosexuals enjoyed pissing on it too with the rampant sexual harassment that exists in the military.

[/quote]

I’m tired of the gay and race comparisons. Without getting into the whole argument of whether being gay is a choice or not, I don’t see it as the same thing at all. Citizens aren’t being denied rights, gay people people still serve. Kinda hard to hide the fact you’re black, easy to hide the fact you’re gay. One’s a behavior, the other…you get the idea.

Lol what sexual harassment? Were you in the military? Of course it happens, but rampant? No. I’m assuming you mean harassment of females perpetrated by males. This just isn’t true, for several reasons. For one, most military females are disgusting. For two, even a whiff of anything close to harassment can end a career. Where did you come by this piece of info that harassment is rampant in the military?[/quote]

They can be serve unless they’re openly gay, then they’re kicked out of the military. Are openly heterosexual members of the military also going to be kicked out?

This sexual harassment: BBC NEWS | Americas | Women at war face sexual violence “They were not exceptions. According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving, 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.”[/quote]

Comparing openly homosexual members of the military to heterosexuals is fucking retarded. One is normal, one is not. One is the vast majority, one is not. I’m having trouble taking you seriously now.

Define harassment. In five years I saw not one case. I can google biased studies too. Even if these numbers are anywhere near the real truth, i contend that its a huge reason gays AND women should be disallowed from serving.

82

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

No, you’re assuming you made a point.

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
While I think ending this policy is good. I don�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t think it�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s an answer. While gays should be able to be who they are and fight for their country, so should people uncomfortable with situations this will create.

If per chance I wouldn�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t want to shower with a gay man in the room or bunk with one, I should still be able to serve my country too, right?

Additionally, if homosexuality is now an acceptable topic for people serving in the military it�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s got to be acceptable from all sides. If they are allowing people to come out in support of being homosexual, you must also allow people to express their beliefs on the subject even if they disagree with it.

Like I said, ending the policy is good, banning gays is wrong. But some things still need to be addressed. I don�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t know what the answer is.
[/quote]

Well to be honest soldiers were already showering with gays soldiers, just not openly gay soldiers. A soldier being openly gay doesn’t mean that he’ll automatically try to have an intimate relationship with a heterosexual soldier or harass a heterosexual soldier either. If someone is bothered by the thought of interacting with a gay soldier then they’re under no obligations to join the military or remain in the military.
[/quote]

Never said that they did. I Just wouldn’t be comfortable with it. It’s just who I am. Shouldn’t I be allowed to both be myself and serve?[/quote]

Sure, people can say they dislike the thought of serving with a homosexual, that dislike is patently irrelevant as to whether or not that soldier should be able to be openly gay while serving in the military though.[/quote]

First of all, I’d like to say I understand what Doubleduce is saying. People are all for tolerance unless its an opinion of intolerance…you could say they’re intolerant to anything but tolerance. Why is my point of view met with so much hate?

Second, its VERY relevant. If gays are such a minor inconvenience, why not respect the wishes of the majority? Even in the studies where those opposed to the repeal made up a lesser percentage than those for it, are we gonna ignore the rest? Because it was either “I don’t care” or “hell no”, so it’s not like you’d be upsetting anyone either way, only ONE of these options will piss people off. Here’s a thought: how many soldiers and sailors will we lose in favor of the gay dudes we gain?

[/quote]

In regards to your first paragraph; LOL. I don’t know, probably because you advocate discrimination.

How many soldiers did we lose because of integration? Come to think of it, the majority of soldiers most likely didn’t support desegregation either. Did that mean citizens of this country should have been denied rights they’re and were entitled to?

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
No, they won’t be reprimanded. Lesbo ho’s all over the place were fuckin on the boat, and each time anyone tried to raise a flag, it got dismissed with a counseling chit (nothing). The gay issue is too controversial for anybody in charge to wanna deal with, so the lowly enlisted people are left to manage the consequences. As it was gays were already flaunting the fact that they pissed all over the UCMJ, I can only imagine what kind of “celebrations” will go on after DADT is gone. Parades? Probably. Gay people love parades.[/quote]

I think heterosexuals enjoyed pissing on it too with the rampant sexual harassment that exists in the military.

[/quote]

I’m tired of the gay and race comparisons. Without getting into the whole argument of whether being gay is a choice or not, I don’t see it as the same thing at all. Citizens aren’t being denied rights, gay people people still serve. Kinda hard to hide the fact you’re black, easy to hide the fact you’re gay. One’s a behavior, the other…you get the idea.

Lol what sexual harassment? Were you in the military? Of course it happens, but rampant? No. I’m assuming you mean harassment of females perpetrated by males. This just isn’t true, for several reasons. For one, most military females are disgusting. For two, even a whiff of anything close to harassment can end a career. Where did you come by this piece of info that harassment is rampant in the military?[/quote]

They can be serve unless they’re openly gay, then they’re kicked out of the military. Are openly heterosexual members of the military also going to be kicked out?

This sexual harassment: BBC NEWS | Americas | Women at war face sexual violence “They were not exceptions. According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving, 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.”[/quote]

Comparing openly homosexual members of the military to heterosexuals is fucking retarded. One is normal, one is not. One is the vast majority, one is not. I’m having trouble taking you seriously now.

Define harassment. In five years I saw not one case. I can google biased studies too. Even if these numbers are anywhere near the real truth, i contend that its a huge reason gays AND women should be disallowed from serving.
[/quote]

What position are you in to determine what’s normal and what isn’t? A vast majority of people supporting something is irrelevant.

I’m sure the Department of Veteran Affairs is incredibly biased and your personal experience takes precedent over it. Why should woman and gays be disallowed from the serving? That’s just ridiculous.

83

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Yes, traumatized. He didn’t know how to react. Where do u draw the line on being weirded out? Its just “flattering” to be hit on…just “flattering” to be asked if u want a blowjob while ur cock is out…cuz I mean as long as YOU’RE not gay its ok, right? Gonna laugh at trauma when you’re alone in your rack and u get raped? I guess rape is a “bold and aggressive” move. I’m just saying, this is one more distraction the military doesn’t need…its already goin to shit anyway.[/quote]

So we are up now from comments about his dick to being raped in his sleep?
[/quote]

“Gay soldier winks at straight soldier” = “Gay soldier rapes straight solder and Army does nothing about it”

Good thing I didnt call that one.

84

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

No, fool. Not letting stupid bigots like you dictate what jobs gay people can have or where they can go without being harassed is not “intolerance of your views”. You have every right to think whatever you want about gay people, the nanosecond you cross the line into affecting gay people because you(r fucking stupid enough to) hold a bias against them, we have every right, and a moral obligation, to stop you.

85

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

No, you’re assuming you made a point.

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
While I think ending this policy is good. I don�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t think it�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s an answer. While gays should be able to be who they are and fight for their country, so should people uncomfortable with situations this will create.

If per chance I wouldn�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t want to shower with a gay man in the room or bunk with one, I should still be able to serve my country too, right?

Additionally, if homosexuality is now an acceptable topic for people serving in the military it�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s got to be acceptable from all sides. If they are allowing people to come out in support of being homosexual, you must also allow people to express their beliefs on the subject even if they disagree with it.

Like I said, ending the policy is good, banning gays is wrong. But some things still need to be addressed. I don�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t know what the answer is.
[/quote]

Well to be honest soldiers were already showering with gays soldiers, just not openly gay soldiers. A soldier being openly gay doesn’t mean that he’ll automatically try to have an intimate relationship with a heterosexual soldier or harass a heterosexual soldier either. If someone is bothered by the thought of interacting with a gay soldier then they’re under no obligations to join the military or remain in the military.
[/quote]

Never said that they did. I Just wouldn’t be comfortable with it. It’s just who I am. Shouldn’t I be allowed to both be myself and serve?[/quote]

Sure, people can say they dislike the thought of serving with a homosexual, that dislike is patently irrelevant as to whether or not that soldier should be able to be openly gay while serving in the military though.[/quote]

First of all, I’d like to say I understand what Doubleduce is saying. People are all for tolerance unless its an opinion of intolerance…you could say they’re intolerant to anything but tolerance. Why is my point of view met with so much hate?

Second, its VERY relevant. If gays are such a minor inconvenience, why not respect the wishes of the majority? Even in the studies where those opposed to the repeal made up a lesser percentage than those for it, are we gonna ignore the rest? Because it was either “I don’t care” or “hell no”, so it’s not like you’d be upsetting anyone either way, only ONE of these options will piss people off. Here’s a thought: how many soldiers and sailors will we lose in favor of the gay dudes we gain?

[/quote]

In regards to your first paragraph; LOL. I don’t know, probably because you advocate discrimination.

How many soldiers did we lose because of integration? Come to think of it, the majority of soldiers most likely didn’t support desegregation either. Did that mean citizens of this country should have been denied rights they’re and were entitled to?

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
No, they won’t be reprimanded. Lesbo ho’s all over the place were fuckin on the boat, and each time anyone tried to raise a flag, it got dismissed with a counseling chit (nothing). The gay issue is too controversial for anybody in charge to wanna deal with, so the lowly enlisted people are left to manage the consequences. As it was gays were already flaunting the fact that they pissed all over the UCMJ, I can only imagine what kind of “celebrations” will go on after DADT is gone. Parades? Probably. Gay people love parades.[/quote]

I think heterosexuals enjoyed pissing on it too with the rampant sexual harassment that exists in the military.

[/quote]

I’m tired of the gay and race comparisons. Without getting into the whole argument of whether being gay is a choice or not, I don’t see it as the same thing at all. Citizens aren’t being denied rights, gay people people still serve. Kinda hard to hide the fact you’re black, easy to hide the fact you’re gay. One’s a behavior, the other…you get the idea.

Lol what sexual harassment? Were you in the military? Of course it happens, but rampant? No. I’m assuming you mean harassment of females perpetrated by males. This just isn’t true, for several reasons. For one, most military females are disgusting. For two, even a whiff of anything close to harassment can end a career. Where did you come by this piece of info that harassment is rampant in the military?[/quote]

They can be serve unless they’re openly gay, then they’re kicked out of the military. Are openly heterosexual members of the military also going to be kicked out?

This sexual harassment: BBC NEWS | Americas | Women at war face sexual violence “They were not exceptions. According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving, 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.”[/quote]

Comparing openly homosexual members of the military to heterosexuals is fucking retarded. One is normal, one is not. One is the vast majority, one is not. I’m having trouble taking you seriously now.

Define harassment. In five years I saw not one case. I can google biased studies too. Even if these numbers are anywhere near the real truth, i contend that its a huge reason gays AND women should be disallowed from serving.
[/quote]

What position are you in to determine what’s normal and what isn’t? A vast majority of people supporting something is irrelevant.

I’m sure the Department of Veteran Affairs is incredibly biased and your personal experience takes precedent over it. Why should woman and gays be disallowed from the serving? That’s just ridiculous.[/quote]

You CAN"T be serious. I refuse to believe it. You think being heterosexual isn’t normal? Dude…u fuckin with me?

And since when doesn’t a vast majority of what people support matter? Isn’t that how VOTING ON SHIT works???

The department of veterans affairs IS biased, actually. Everyone has interests to serve. Rather than focusing on veteran unemployment theyre geting involved in political issues all the time. Their purpose is to support vets, not lobby.

And whether or not you disagree with me about women serving, dismissing it entirely is stupid. There are many, many reasons why women don’t belong in the military. And the question of gays seving is what this whole thread is about, so since it spawned a debate, I’d hardly call that ridiculous. In conclusion, you’re an idiot.

86

Why would any army block gays from joining.

The more people you have the more you can sacrifice in endless war.! Great job U.S. for realizing you were blocking a population of innocent people from joining and dying for oil.

I mean terrorism

87

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

No, fool. Not letting stupid bigots like you dictate what jobs gay people can have or where they can go without being harassed is not “intolerance of your views”. You have every right to think whatever you want about gay people, the nanosecond you cross the line into affecting gay people because you(r fucking stupid enough to) hold a bias against them, we have every right, and a moral obligation, to stop you.

[/quote]

Stupid bigots, eh? This attitude of tolerance whatever the cost is dangerous. Should we let sexual deviants hold childcare positions? I would say I have a moral obligation to stop views like yours before they turn even uglier. The second you let your views affect ME, I have a right to stop you too. But no one gives a damn about what the straight people in the military who are also affected say, its just easier to label them bigots and cry discrimination. I sincerely wish life were that easy, and I could blame all my troubles on discrimination. Then I’d try out for the bulls and if i got cut I’d have an easy legal case against those bigoted bastards. Fool.

88

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Yes, traumatized. He didn’t know how to react. Where do u draw the line on being weirded out? Its just “flattering” to be hit on…just “flattering” to be asked if u want a blowjob while ur cock is out…cuz I mean as long as YOU’RE not gay its ok, right? Gonna laugh at trauma when you’re alone in your rack and u get raped? I guess rape is a “bold and aggressive” move. I’m just saying, this is one more distraction the military doesn’t need…its already goin to shit anyway.[/quote]

So we are up now from comments about his dick to being raped in his sleep?
[/quote]

“Gay soldier winks at straight soldier” = “Gay soldier rapes straight solder and Army does nothing about it”

Good thing I didnt call that one.[/quote]

Not a wink. A gay dude in the personal space of a straight dude with his cock in his hand aggressively pursuing oral sex. Big difference. The point you purposely ignored is that it shouldn’t have to get to anal rape before this type of shit stops going unnoticed.

89

[quote]antonio_zeus wrote:
Why would any army block gays from joining.

The more people you have the more you can sacrifice in endless war.! Great job U.S. for realizing you were blocking a population of innocent people from joining and dying for oil.

I mean terrorism[/quote]

Yeah I know right, we should send kids into combat as well. I mean if that helps the U.S. get this huge influx of oil and I can fill my car for a super cheap $4 a gallon I mean “hell yeah, am I right!”

Man I know Canada has troops in the middle east too, I bet you guys are enjoying this cheap influx of oil too? right?? God bless those suckers willing to die so I can get my gas real cheap!

(I’m being sarcastic in case you can’t tell)

90

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

You CAN"T be serious. I refuse to believe it. You think being heterosexual isn’t normal? Dude…u fuckin with me?

[/quote]

Ah, a favorite tactic of the bigot: using the word “normal” as a pejorative. Of course being heterosexual is normal but (now read this closely and a few times) so is being gay.

What? Oh noez, how can both be normal if theys opposites? Theys more straigh peoples so straights is normal and gays is abnormal! …right?

Wrong, as usual. Its entirely normal for any population of humans (and several other species, as documented) to have gay members. So, even though, gays are in the minority, they are not abnormal.

Do you refer to right handed people as “normal”? Or blonde/brown haired people as “normal”? Nope (even though they are in the clear majority), because you dont have a bias against left handed people or red haired people.

But you do it in the case of gays and heterofolk, because you have a clear bias against gays. (Nope, starting off with “ya’ll just call people homophobes all the time to silence them!” doesnt immunize you, if anything, it incriminates you)

91

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

No, fool. Not letting stupid bigots like you dictate what jobs gay people can have or where they can go without being harassed is not “intolerance of your views”. You have every right to think whatever you want about gay people, the nanosecond you cross the line into affecting gay people because you(r fucking stupid enough to) hold a bias against them, we have every right, and a moral obligation, to stop you.

[/quote]

Stupid bigots, eh? This attitude of tolerance whatever the cost is dangerous. Should we let sexual deviants hold childcare positions? I would say I have a moral obligation to stop views like yours before they turn even uglier. The second you let your views affect ME, I have a right to stop you too. But no one gives a damn about what the straight people in the military who are also affected say, its just easier to label them bigots and cry discrimination. I sincerely wish life were that easy, and I could blame all my troubles on discrimination. Then I’d try out for the bulls and if i got cut I’d have an easy legal case against those bigoted bastards. Fool.[/quote]

hhahahahahahaaaaa. Oh. I’ve missed you, Mick28.

92

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

No, fool. Not letting stupid bigots like you dictate what jobs gay people can have or where they can go without being harassed is not “intolerance of your views”. You have every right to think whatever you want about gay people, the nanosecond you cross the line into affecting gay people because you(r fucking stupid enough to) hold a bias against them, we have every right, and a moral obligation, to stop you.

[/quote]

Stupid bigots, eh? This attitude of tolerance whatever the cost is dangerous. Should we let sexual deviants hold childcare positions? I would say I have a moral obligation to stop views like yours before they turn even uglier. The second you let your views affect ME, I have a right to stop you too. But no one gives a damn about what the straight people in the military who are also affected say, its just easier to label them bigots and cry discrimination. I sincerely wish life were that easy, and I could blame all my troubles on discrimination. Then I’d try out for the bulls and if i got cut I’d have an easy legal case against those bigoted bastards. Fool.[/quote]

hhahahahahahaaaaa. Oh. I’ve missed you, Mick28.[/quote]

Second time Ive been called someone else. Nope, just Jimmy6 here. But who are these people? Mick28 seems smart.

93

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

No, you’re assuming you made a point.

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
While I think ending this policy is good. I don�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t think it�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s an answer. While gays should be able to be who they are and fight for their country, so should people uncomfortable with situations this will create.

If per chance I wouldn�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t want to shower with a gay man in the room or bunk with one, I should still be able to serve my country too, right?

Additionally, if homosexuality is now an acceptable topic for people serving in the military it�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??s got to be acceptable from all sides. If they are allowing people to come out in support of being homosexual, you must also allow people to express their beliefs on the subject even if they disagree with it.

Like I said, ending the policy is good, banning gays is wrong. But some things still need to be addressed. I don�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t know what the answer is.
[/quote]

Well to be honest soldiers were already showering with gays soldiers, just not openly gay soldiers. A soldier being openly gay doesn’t mean that he’ll automatically try to have an intimate relationship with a heterosexual soldier or harass a heterosexual soldier either. If someone is bothered by the thought of interacting with a gay soldier then they’re under no obligations to join the military or remain in the military.
[/quote]

Never said that they did. I Just wouldn’t be comfortable with it. It’s just who I am. Shouldn’t I be allowed to both be myself and serve?[/quote]

Sure, people can say they dislike the thought of serving with a homosexual, that dislike is patently irrelevant as to whether or not that soldier should be able to be openly gay while serving in the military though.[/quote]

First of all, I’d like to say I understand what Doubleduce is saying. People are all for tolerance unless its an opinion of intolerance…you could say they’re intolerant to anything but tolerance. Why is my point of view met with so much hate?

Second, its VERY relevant. If gays are such a minor inconvenience, why not respect the wishes of the majority? Even in the studies where those opposed to the repeal made up a lesser percentage than those for it, are we gonna ignore the rest? Because it was either “I don’t care” or “hell no”, so it’s not like you’d be upsetting anyone either way, only ONE of these options will piss people off. Here’s a thought: how many soldiers and sailors will we lose in favor of the gay dudes we gain?

[/quote]

In regards to your first paragraph; LOL. I don’t know, probably because you advocate discrimination.

How many soldiers did we lose because of integration? Come to think of it, the majority of soldiers most likely didn’t support desegregation either. Did that mean citizens of this country should have been denied rights they’re and were entitled to?

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
No, they won’t be reprimanded. Lesbo ho’s all over the place were fuckin on the boat, and each time anyone tried to raise a flag, it got dismissed with a counseling chit (nothing). The gay issue is too controversial for anybody in charge to wanna deal with, so the lowly enlisted people are left to manage the consequences. As it was gays were already flaunting the fact that they pissed all over the UCMJ, I can only imagine what kind of “celebrations” will go on after DADT is gone. Parades? Probably. Gay people love parades.[/quote]

I think heterosexuals enjoyed pissing on it too with the rampant sexual harassment that exists in the military.

[/quote]

I’m tired of the gay and race comparisons. Without getting into the whole argument of whether being gay is a choice or not, I don’t see it as the same thing at all. Citizens aren’t being denied rights, gay people people still serve. Kinda hard to hide the fact you’re black, easy to hide the fact you’re gay. One’s a behavior, the other…you get the idea.

Lol what sexual harassment? Were you in the military? Of course it happens, but rampant? No. I’m assuming you mean harassment of females perpetrated by males. This just isn’t true, for several reasons. For one, most military females are disgusting. For two, even a whiff of anything close to harassment can end a career. Where did you come by this piece of info that harassment is rampant in the military?[/quote]

They can be serve unless they’re openly gay, then they’re kicked out of the military. Are openly heterosexual members of the military also going to be kicked out?

This sexual harassment: BBC NEWS | Americas | Women at war face sexual violence “They were not exceptions. According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving, 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.”[/quote]

Comparing openly homosexual members of the military to heterosexuals is fucking retarded. One is normal, one is not. One is the vast majority, one is not. I’m having trouble taking you seriously now.

Define harassment. In five years I saw not one case. I can google biased studies too. Even if these numbers are anywhere near the real truth, i contend that its a huge reason gays AND women should be disallowed from serving.
[/quote]

What position are you in to determine what’s normal and what isn’t? A vast majority of people supporting something is irrelevant.

I’m sure the Department of Veteran Affairs is incredibly biased and your personal experience takes precedent over it. Why should woman and gays be disallowed from the serving? That’s just ridiculous.[/quote]

You CAN"T be serious. I refuse to believe it. You think being heterosexual isn’t normal? Dude…u fuckin with me?

And since when doesn’t a vast majority of what people support matter? Isn’t that how VOTING ON SHIT works???

The department of veterans affairs IS biased, actually. Everyone has interests to serve. Rather than focusing on veteran unemployment theyre geting involved in political issues all the time. Their purpose is to support vets, not lobby.

And whether or not you disagree with me about women serving, dismissing it entirely is stupid. There are many, many reasons why women don’t belong in the military. And the question of gays seving is what this whole thread is about, so since it spawned a debate, I’d hardly call that ridiculous. In conclusion, you’re an idiot.

You didn’t comprehend my statement. I didn’t say being a heterosexual isn’t normal, I said you’re in no position to say homosexuality isn’t normal. Both could be perfectly normal.

The vast majority of people supporting something doesn’t mean they can infringe on the rights of a minority group.

Show me some cases of the bias if you don’t mind.

Any citizen wishing to serve in the armed forces belongs in the military, if they meet the standards that’s.

Alright, how is a gay man anymore ridiculous than a heterosexual man serving? Their sexuality?

94

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

You CAN"T be serious. I refuse to believe it. You think being heterosexual isn’t normal? Dude…u fuckin with me?

[/quote]

Ah, a favorite tactic of the bigot: using the word “normal” as a pejorative. Of course being heterosexual is normal but (now read this closely and a few times) so is being gay.

What? Oh noez, how can both be normal if theys opposites? Theys more straigh peoples so straights is normal and gays is abnormal! …right?

Wrong, as usual. Its entirely normal for any population of humans (and several other species, as documented) to have gay members. So, even though, gays are in the minority, they are not abnormal.

Do you refer to right handed people as “normal”? Or blonde/brown haired people as “normal”? Nope (even though they are in the clear majority), because you dont have a bias against left handed people or red haired people.

But you do it in the case of gays and heterofolk, because you have a clear bias against gays. (Nope, starting off with “ya’ll just call people homophobes all the time to silence them!” doesnt immunize you, if anything, it incriminates you)[/quote]

From Webster, synonyms for abnormal; aberrant, unusual, uncommon, freak, odd, peculiar, uncustomary. Gay people fit the bill; so do left handed people. What’s normal is for any population of humans to have abnormalities. By definition, gays are abnormal.

Just out of curiosity, what DOES constitute abnormal to you? Is EVERYONE normal? Because something has been known to happen, it thereby becomes normal? Ball lightning occurs, but its NOT NORMAL. Nice try, but you can’t re define words in order to make a point. Just cuz you don’t wanna offend anyone doesn’t mean you can expand the umbrella of what falls under normal.

95

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

Not really, because your intolerance requires you to take actions which cannot be tolerated.

If you are “intolerant” without taking action you actually are tolerant.

96

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

No, you’re assuming you made a point.

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
While I think ending this policy is good. I dont think its an answer. While gays should be able to be who they are and fight for their country, so should people uncomfortable with situations this will create.

If per chance I wouldnt want to shower with a gay man in the room or bunk with one, I should still be able to serve my country too, right?

Additionally, if homosexuality is now an acceptable topic for people serving in the military it got to be acceptable from all sides. If they are allowing people to come out in support of being homosexual, you must also allow people to express their beliefs on the subject even if they disagree with it.

Like I said, ending the policy is good, banning gays is wrong. But some things still need to be addressed. I don?t know what the answer is.
[/quote]

Well to be honest soldiers were already showering with gays soldiers, just not openly gay soldiers. A soldier being openly gay doesn’t mean that he’ll automatically try to have an intimate relationship with a heterosexual soldier or harass a heterosexual soldier either. If someone is bothered by the thought of interacting with a gay soldier then they’re under no obligations to join the military or remain in the military.
[/quote]

Never said that they did. I Just wouldn’t be comfortable with it. It’s just who I am. Shouldn’t I be allowed to both be myself and serve?[/quote]

Sure, people can say they dislike the thought of serving with a homosexual, that dislike is patently irrelevant as to whether or not that soldier should be able to be openly gay while serving in the military though.[/quote]

First of all, I’d like to say I understand what Doubleduce is saying. People are all for tolerance unless its an opinion of intolerance…you could say they’re intolerant to anything but tolerance. Why is my point of view met with so much hate?

Second, its VERY relevant. If gays are such a minor inconvenience, why not respect the wishes of the majority? Even in the studies where those opposed to the repeal made up a lesser percentage than those for it, are we gonna ignore the rest? Because it was either “I don’t care” or “hell no”, so it’s not like you’d be upsetting anyone either way, only ONE of these options will piss people off. Here’s a thought: how many soldiers and sailors will we lose in favor of the gay dudes we gain?

[/quote]

In regards to your first paragraph; LOL. I don’t know, probably because you advocate discrimination.

How many soldiers did we lose because of integration? Come to think of it, the majority of soldiers most likely didn’t support desegregation either. Did that mean citizens of this country should have been denied rights they’re and were entitled to?

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
No, they won’t be reprimanded. Lesbo ho’s all over the place were fuckin on the boat, and each time anyone tried to raise a flag, it got dismissed with a counseling chit (nothing). The gay issue is too controversial for anybody in charge to wanna deal with, so the lowly enlisted people are left to manage the consequences. As it was gays were already flaunting the fact that they pissed all over the UCMJ, I can only imagine what kind of “celebrations” will go on after DADT is gone. Parades? Probably. Gay people love parades.[/quote]

I think heterosexuals enjoyed pissing on it too with the rampant sexual harassment that exists in the military.

[/quote]

I’m tired of the gay and race comparisons. Without getting into the whole argument of whether being gay is a choice or not, I don’t see it as the same thing at all. Citizens aren’t being denied rights, gay people people still serve. Kinda hard to hide the fact you’re black, easy to hide the fact you’re gay. One’s a behavior, the other…you get the idea.

Lol what sexual harassment? Were you in the military? Of course it happens, but rampant? No. I’m assuming you mean harassment of females perpetrated by males. This just isn’t true, for several reasons. For one, most military females are disgusting. For two, even a whiff of anything close to harassment can end a career. Where did you come by this piece of info that harassment is rampant in the military?[/quote]

They can be serve unless they’re openly gay, then they’re kicked out of the military. Are openly heterosexual members of the military also going to be kicked out?

This sexual harassment: BBC NEWS | Americas | Women at war face sexual violence “They were not exceptions. According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving, 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.”[/quote]

Comparing openly homosexual members of the military to heterosexuals is fucking retarded. One is normal, one is not. One is the vast majority, one is not. I’m having trouble taking you seriously now.

Define harassment. In five years I saw not one case. I can google biased studies too. Even if these numbers are anywhere near the real truth, i contend that its a huge reason gays AND women should be disallowed from serving.
[/quote]

What position are you in to determine what’s normal and what isn’t? A vast majority of people supporting something is irrelevant.

I’m sure the Department of Veteran Affairs is incredibly biased and your personal experience takes precedent over it. Why should woman and gays be disallowed from the serving? That’s just ridiculous.[/quote]

You CAN"T be serious. I refuse to believe it. You think being heterosexual isn’t normal? Dude…u fuckin with me?

And since when doesn’t a vast majority of what people support matter? Isn’t that how VOTING ON SHIT works???

The department of veterans affairs IS biased, actually. Everyone has interests to serve. Rather than focusing on veteran unemployment theyre geting involved in political issues all the time. Their purpose is to support vets, not lobby.

And whether or not you disagree with me about women serving, dismissing it entirely is stupid. There are many, many reasons why women don’t belong in the military. And the question of gays seving is what this whole thread is about, so since it spawned a debate, I’d hardly call that ridiculous. In conclusion, you’re an idiot.

You didn’t comprehend my statement. I didn’t say being a heterosexual isn’t normal, I said you’re in no position to say homosexuality isn’t normal. Both could be perfectly normal.

No. They’re mutually exclusive. One’s normal, one’s not.

The vast majority of people supporting something doesn’t mean they can infringe on the rights of a minority group.

Maybe, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Show me some cases of the bias if you don’t mind.

When I get around to it.

Any citizen wishing to serve in the armed forces belongs in the military, if they meet the standards that’s.

Yes, and the standards should include being male and straight.

Alright, how is a gay man anymore ridiculous than a heterosexual man serving? Their sexuality?

Yes. Being surrounded by men whom you’re attracted to doesn’t do anything for your focus.

[/quote]

97

Shit i tried to do that quote thing where u address each point but it didn’t work. So what I said is in gray^. Just to clarify.

98

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

Not really, because your intolerance requires you to take actions which cannot be tolerated.

If you are “intolerant” without taking action you actually are tolerant.
[/quote]

So…if you take action by voting for the repeal, does that make you intolerant of straight men who don’t want to serve with homosexuals?

99

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

Not really, because your intolerance requires you to take actions which cannot be tolerated.

If you are “intolerant” without taking action you actually are tolerant.
[/quote]

So…if you take action by voting for the repeal, does that make you intolerant of straight men who don’t want to serve with homosexuals?[/quote]

Good question.

I assume if they would be physically prevnted from working with them you could see it that way.

The overarching reason for tolerance is however that accept the right of other people to be who they are even if you do not agree with it so there is an element of not not tolerating intolerance yes.

Since that necessarily means being intolerant against acts of violence I have no real problem with that.

It is a fact that for better or worse the armed forces are paid for with public funds and everyone is forced to contribute so the government has no right to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation any more than they can exclude gays from public roads.

100

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Jimmy6 wrote:
Oh, and you missed my point about tolerance. If you’re intolerant to intolerance, you’re just as intolerant as me, making you a hypocrite.[/quote]

Not really, because your intolerance requires you to take actions which cannot be tolerated.

If you are “intolerant” without taking action you actually are tolerant.
[/quote]

So…if you take action by voting for the repeal, does that make you intolerant of straight men who don’t want to serve with homosexuals?[/quote]

Good question.

I assume if they would be physically prevnted from working with them you could see it that way.

The overarching reason for tolerance is however that accept the right of other people to be who they are even if you do not agree with it so there is an element of not not tolerating intolerance yes.

Since that necessarily means being intolerant against acts of violence I have no real problem with that.

It is a fact that for better or worse the armed forces are paid for with public funds and everyone is forced to contribute so the government has no right to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation any more than they can exclude gays from public roads.

[/quote]

I don’t know, Orion. I’m not comfortable driving next to gays.