PDA

View Full Version : Should openly gay soldiers be allowed to serve their country?


Pages : [1] 2

BigRedChief
12-19-2007, 06:22 AM
I watched the 60 minutes piece on gays in the military and the don't ask, don't tell military policy. It seems that some commanders are letting openly gay soldiers serve under their command.

60 minutes showed the video that the gay soldier turned into the Army as evidence. It shows pictures of them embracing like lovers, of the soldier kissing his boyfriend and snuggling in his neck and then the U.S. Army finds no evidence of homosexuality? It's so hypocritical. Why? Because he's doing a damn good job and his unit needs him.

Doesn't most polls of the American public show that gays should be allowed to server in the military?
Wall Street Journal poll:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117035477766895153-tt5sKNkAY6_opz6nqIbr9rTV3Q0_20080202.html?mod=blogs
Polls of the military, the grunts in the trenches say its okay for them to serve.
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

All of the reasons that were used in the piece as justification for Gays not being able to serve as openly gay are just plain ass BS. Same ones that were used to justify not having blacks and whites serve together.

It will be too hard socially. They are different people. It won't work in the foxhole. Soldiers won't work together as a unit because they won't respect some of their fellow soldiers. They are just too different from the rest of us. BS.

I believe that you are gay or not. It's something you are born with in you. You can experiment bi-sexually and have a one time thing or fling sure but life long gay, live out your life with another man is something you are born with, not a lifestyle choice.

I've never been in a foxhole. I've never had a close gay friend. So I don't have any first hand experience with this but I think its time for the U.S. military to allow openly gays to serve their country.

You can watch the piece here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

patteeu
12-19-2007, 06:47 AM
I voted "yes", but it's with a pretty big caveat as to how "openly" is acceptable.

I don't think any soldier ought to be making out in a foxhole with his lover whether that lover is the same sex or not. I have no problem with rules regarding the time and place where expressions of affection are acceptable, and that goes for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. I also have no problem with rules against lovers being in the same unit or being in each others chain of command.

I think gay and straight people can get along well enough to fight side-by-side even if both know the other's sexual preference. Let's not have husband-wife or husband-husband fighting duos though.

BigRedChief
12-19-2007, 07:46 AM
I voted "yes", but it's with a pretty big caveat as to how "openly" is acceptable.

I don't think any soldier ought to be making out in a foxhole with his lover whether that lover is the same sex or not. I have no problem with rules regarding the time and place where expressions of affection are acceptable, and that goes for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. I also have no problem with rules against lovers being in the same unit or being in each others chain of command.

I think gay and straight people can get along well enough to fight side-by-side even if both know the other's sexual preference. Let's not have husband-wife or husband-husband fighting duos though.
Agree, no foxhole smooching and no side by side fighting.

Sully
12-19-2007, 07:59 AM
I voted "yes", but it's with a pretty big caveat as to how "openly" is acceptable.

I don't think any soldier ought to be making out in a foxhole with his lover whether that lover is the same sex or not. I have no problem with rules regarding the time and place where expressions of affection are acceptable, and that goes for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. I also have no problem with rules against lovers being in the same unit or being in each others chain of command.

I think gay and straight people can get along well enough to fight side-by-side even if both know the other's sexual preference. Let's not have husband-wife or husband-husband fighting duos though.

Perfect.


Hey, BRC, if you think about it, your third option doesn't make sense in the context of the question! ;)

Iowanian
12-19-2007, 08:05 AM
Sure.

In the Pink Brigade.

I just can't think that the average soldier is comfortable with doing that. It gets cold, using the buddy system and you're zipping together sleeping bags to share....showers etc....

I'm sure many many gheys are fine contributors to our nations' military but I think allowing "out" gheys is likely to cause problems with the average troop.

BigRedChief
12-19-2007, 08:23 AM
Sure.

In the Pink Brigade.

I just can't think that the average soldier is comfortable with doing that. It gets cold, using the buddy system and you're zipping together sleeping bags to share....showers etc....

I'm sure many many gheys are fine contributors to our nations' military but I think allowing "out" gheys is likely to cause problems with the average troop.
Yes, there are already rules against harassment and "coming on" to other soldiers isn't there?

Also another BS argument not mentioned in the article is that gays are soft. Will wilt in combat.

Like the guy in the 60 mintues piece? The dude goes into the line of fire not to fight but to save his fallen army unit soldiers who are hurt and in danger of losing their lives in battle. He's risking his life to save their life. Who wouldn't want to serve in a foxhole with such a great calibur of person?

Bowser
12-19-2007, 09:12 AM
I voted "yes", but it's with a pretty big caveat as to how "openly" is acceptable.

I don't think any soldier ought to be making out in a foxhole with his lover whether that lover is the same sex or not. I have no problem with rules regarding the time and place where expressions of affection are acceptable, and that goes for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. I also have no problem with rules against lovers being in the same unit or being in each others chain of command.

I think gay and straight people can get along well enough to fight side-by-side even if both know the other's sexual preference. Let's not have husband-wife or husband-husband fighting duos though.

Spot on.

Chief Henry
12-19-2007, 09:19 AM
Thats one way for them to get free health care.

Bowser
12-19-2007, 09:31 AM
So is it Tom that's the homophobe, or someone else?

Taco John
12-19-2007, 09:34 AM
If it's good enough for Corporal Klinger...

jAZ
12-19-2007, 09:39 AM
I voted "yes", but it's with a pretty big caveat as to how "openly" is acceptable.

I don't think any soldier ought to be making out in a foxhole with his lover whether that lover is the same sex or not. I have no problem with rules regarding the time and place where expressions of affection are acceptable, and that goes for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. I also have no problem with rules against lovers being in the same unit or being in each others chain of command.

I think gay and straight people can get along well enough to fight side-by-side even if both know the other's sexual preference. Let's not have husband-wife or husband-husband fighting duos though.
I'm not sure that's all the big of a caveat. Meaning, I think that's right in line with most progressive thinking on the subject. I doubt many gay service folks would disagree (as long as it is enforced on both sides of the "preference" aisle.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 09:41 AM
It shouldn't even be a question.

jAZ
12-19-2007, 09:59 AM
So is it Tom that's the homophobe, or someone else?
I think Iowanian is the no.... though once you get past the "pink brigade" comment, his reason is somewhat considered.

Amnorix
12-19-2007, 10:30 AM
I voted "yes", but it's with a pretty big caveat as to how "openly" is acceptable.

I don't think any soldier ought to be making out in a foxhole with his lover whether that lover is the same sex or not. I have no problem with rules regarding the time and place where expressions of affection are acceptable, and that goes for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. I also have no problem with rules against lovers being in the same unit or being in each others chain of command.

I think gay and straight people can get along well enough to fight side-by-side even if both know the other's sexual preference. Let's not have husband-wife or husband-husband fighting duos though.

Ditto. IIRC, there are strict rules regarding heterosexual fraternizing. Those should, obviously, also be in place for homosexual fraternization. Other htan that, the rules should be the same.

BigRedChief
12-19-2007, 10:52 AM
Do we have any openly gay posters here on the Planet?


NTTIAWWT

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 10:53 AM
Do we have any openly gay posters here on the Planet?


NTTIAWWT

DenverChief.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 10:55 AM
Do we have any openly gay posters here on the Planet?


NTTIAWWT

DenverChief for sure. And I think probably Ultra Peanut, but I'm a little bit confused about her situation.

Oh... and Mr. Kotter. :p

BigRedChief
12-19-2007, 10:58 AM
DenverChief.
The cop?

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 11:01 AM
The cop?

Yup.

chagrin
12-19-2007, 11:11 AM
Yes or No - I say yes. I am not a soldier and probably can't assume to know what they prefer, doesn't bother me a bit though.

JohnnyV13
12-19-2007, 11:12 AM
In antiquity, the Spartan's used to ENCOURAGE gay sex between their soldiers. THe idea was that if troops were sexually connected with one another, they would be less likely to break formation and run, critical in phalanx warfare.

The spartans, btw, were the toughest sholdiers in antiquity. THe spartans invented many aspects of unit organization and discipline still used by armies today.

That is why, when I was in HS, I "educated" an opposing football team's wr about the real meaning of "the spartan way".

I guess that really wasn't that socially progressive, but it certainly was amusing at the time. I really got into that guy's mind's. He nailed me a couple of times for penalties, and I laughed at him.

BigRedChief
12-19-2007, 11:35 AM
In antiquity, the Spartan's used to ENCOURAGE gay sex between their soldiers. THe idea was that if troops were sexually connected with one another, they would be less likely to break formation and run, critical in phalanx warfare.

The spartans, btw, were the toughest sholdiers in antiquity. THe spartans invented many aspects of unit organization and discipline still used by armies today.
Yeah they kind of left the bi-sexuality out of the 300 movie.:hmmm:

patteeu
12-19-2007, 11:36 AM
That is why, when I was in HS, I "educated" an opposing football team's wr about the real meaning of "the spartan way".

If you want to serve, I think the military should allow you to do so anyway.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 11:59 AM
Yeah they kind of left the bi-sexuality out of the 300 movie.:hmmm:

PC Hollywood. They pull that shit too often.

<a href="http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=15879073"></a><br><embed src="http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf" flashvars="m=15879073&v=2&type=video" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="430" height="346"></embed><br><a href="http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.addToProfileConfirm&videoid=15879073&title=</a><a href="http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.home"></a>

chagrin
12-19-2007, 12:03 PM
"Hey Specialist Sadowski - you got a great ass"

Amnorix
12-19-2007, 12:22 PM
Yup.

Thought he was a former cop, not a current cop.

Radar Chief
12-19-2007, 12:31 PM
Sure.

In the Pink Brigade.

I just can't think that the average soldier is comfortable with doing that. It gets cold, using the buddy system and you're zipping together sleeping bags to share....showers etc....

I'm sure many many gheys are fine contributors to our nations' military but I think allowing "out" gheys is likely to cause problems with the average troop.

Most combat vets I’ve spoken to couldn't give a chit less if someone smokes teh pole as long as they can shoot and don’t get everyone around them killed.
Whose fugg’n who is pretty low on the priority list when you're taking hostile fire.

Radar Chief
12-19-2007, 12:34 PM
Thought he was a former cop, not a current cop.

I think he’s still a cop.

Radar Chief
12-19-2007, 12:36 PM
this openly gay probably wont do. (M.A.S.H)

http://www.semsagt.net/myndir/021107.jpg
http://www.bestcareanywhere.net/klinger2.jpg

Didn’t Klinger have a wife and kids in Toledo, OH?
Tranny does not = gay.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 12:40 PM
Thought he was a former cop, not a current cop.

I haven't got a clue what he's doing right now. He used to post threads when he was down at the pokey though.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 01:02 PM
The bigger question is why on earth would someone want to serve in the military and be openly gay? They are just asking for trouble.

Another question. Why do openly gay homos feel the need to cuddle and kiss in public? Adult heteros don't even do that.

I think openly gay homos in the military would be a huge distraction. They would draw too much attention to themselves.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 01:06 PM
I'd be interested in knowing how many of the 'yes' voters have served.

Radar Chief
12-19-2007, 01:06 PM
I'd be interested in knowing how many of the 'yes' voters have served.

Here's one.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 01:07 PM
I think he’s still a cop.


Only on Saturday dress up nights.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 01:07 PM
The bigger question is why on earth would someone want to serve in the military and be openly gay? They are just asking for trouble.

They're asking for trouble, as you put it, because of the mindset people have. How about changing that mindset? Maybe if some of those homophobic soldiers has to get to actually know a gay soldier, maybe his perception changes.

Another question. Why do openly gay homos feel the need to cuddle and kiss in public? Adult heteros don't even do that.

Get out much?

I think openly gay homos in the military would be a huge distraction. They would draw too much attention to themselves.

By the questions you're posing I can only assume you haven't encountered many gay people to begin with. You're just spewing out stereotypes.

BigRedChief
12-19-2007, 01:15 PM
I think openly gay homos in the military would be a huge distraction. They would draw too much attention to themselves.
Same argument that was said about blacks being integrated into white only units. What's different in 2008?

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 02:10 PM
They're asking for trouble, as you put it, because of the mindset people have. How about changing that mindset? Maybe if some of those homophobic soldiers has to get to actually know a gay soldier, maybe his perception changes.



Get out much?



By the questions you're posing I can only assume you haven't encountered many gay people to begin with. You're just spewing out stereotypes.


Have you served in the military? Do you realize how many different backgrounds of people there are in the military? I suppose you can continue going through life believing that your liberal mindset and values (or lack there of) will change the world. Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to live in reality and deal with the problems presented to us.

Alphas prey on the weak. Why would anyone put themselves in that position to start with unless they are just looking for attention?

pikesome
12-19-2007, 02:15 PM
I voted "yes", but it's with a pretty big caveat as to how "openly" is acceptable.

I don't think any soldier ought to be making out in a foxhole with his lover whether that lover is the same sex or not. I have no problem with rules regarding the time and place where expressions of affection are acceptable, and that goes for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. I also have no problem with rules against lovers being in the same unit or being in each others chain of command.

I think gay and straight people can get along well enough to fight side-by-side even if both know the other's sexual preference. Let's not have husband-wife or husband-husband fighting duos though.

I agree but I'd like to add one other caveat by way of a story. When I got to my ship in the Navy one of the guys in my office was Catholic and made every opportunity to discuss it, even when others weren't interested. It was annoying and caused people to avoid discussions with him on anything because that always came up. There's alot of things people do that really doesn't affect other people unless they refuse to let it be and keep at others over it.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 02:17 PM
Same argument that was said about blacks being integrated into white only units. What's different in 2008?

Walk into a mess hall sometime and tell me how many whites and blacks are eating together. I hate to break it to some of you but people self segregate themselves. Which is fine when you aren't left alone. What do you think is going to happen when openly gay Joe no longer has buddies and finds himself constantly in fear for his safety?

It's like standing up to the Romans and claiming to be the one Christian that can kill tigers.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is reality.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 02:23 PM
Have you served in the military?

Nope. And that doesn't make my opinion on someone's right as an American to serve their country any less viable.

Do you realize how many different backgrounds of people there are in the military?

Yes. And if they can all be tolerant of each other, they should have to do the same for someone who is gay.

I suppose you can continue going through life believing that your liberal mindset and values (or lack there of) will change the world.

We all have different values. You may see my 'tolerance' of gay people as a lack of values. I see your intolerance as the mark of a man who has no problem with holding prejudices against people different than him. It's your kind of mindset that holds a society back. That's why it's funny to hear you complain about the Middle East and how intolerant and archaic their culture is. You have the same line of thinking as they do when it comes to challenging the 'norm'. You are what you claim to hate.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 02:27 PM
Walk into a mess hall sometime and tell me how many whites and blacks are eating together.

You tell me.

Which is fine when you aren't left alone. What do you think is going to happen when openly gay Joe no longer has buddies and finds himself constantly in fear for his safety?

So you would've been against the integration of blacks for this same reason?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is reality.

Reality changes. This is what you don't seem to grasp. The same things you're saying about the integration of gays were said about the integration of blacks.

pikesome
12-19-2007, 02:36 PM
Walk into a mess hall sometime and tell me how many whites and blacks are eating together.


I'm not sure I'd buy this, at least not universally. My office on the ship was about 50% black and while there was some of that, the white DKs spent more time with the the other white ones and vice versa, it was far more integrated than anything I've seen in the real world. I didn't really have much choice in learning the finer points of Superfly just like the black guys couldn't really do anything about Happy Gilmore. I did get a valuable education in spades and dominoes, I got along. You got along because that was who was there.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 02:37 PM
If you want to get a grasp of what reality is in the military I suggest joining. You have no idea what the climate is like without finding out yourself. You can not change the mindset of people that come from so many different back grounds. Yes blacks were integrated into the 'white military' and it probably wasn't easy and I'm sure some lost there lives for it. But for the sake of blacks I'm sure the martyrdom of some was worth it. I guess more than anything I'm sick of liberals trying to change things they have no intentions of ever doing themselves.

I'm no longer in the military so I could care less one way or another. If a couple of gays want to risk there lives so they can hold hands in the mess hall that's their business. But when openly gay homos start getting beat down and killed you liberals can thank yourselves for encouraging them to fight the fight.

penchief
12-19-2007, 02:39 PM
Your poll should only provide two options, imo. The third option (the current policy) contradicts the reasoning for such a poll.

What good is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy if we are debating the merits of allowing "openly" gay soldiers to serve their country?

Doesn't being openly gay kind of defeat the purpose of "don't ask, don't tell?"

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 02:40 PM
If you want to get a grasp of what reality is in the military I suggest joining. You have no idea what the climate is like without finding out yourself. You can not change the mindset of people that come from so many different back grounds. Yes blacks were integrated into the 'white military' and it probably wasn't easy and I'm sure some lost there lives for it. But for the sake of blacks I'm sure the martyrdom of some was worth it. I guess more than anything I'm sick of liberals trying to change things they have no intentions of ever doing themselves.

I'm no longer in the military so I could care less one way or another. If a couple of gays want to risk there lives so they can hold hands in the mess hall that's their business. But when openly gay homos start getting beat down and killed you liberals can thank yourselves for encouraging them to fight the fight.

Yes, I'm sure your position has everything to do with you not wanting to see gays get hurt. ROFL

Chiefnj2
12-19-2007, 02:41 PM
But when openly gay homos start getting beat down and killed you liberals can thank yourselves for encouraging them to fight the fight.
Wow.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 02:42 PM
I'm not sure I'd buy this, at least not universally. My office on the ship was about 50% black and while there was some of that, the white DKs spent more time with the the other white ones and vice versa, it was far more integrated than anything I've seen in the real world. I didn't really have much choice in learning the finer points of Superfly just like the black guys couldn't really do anything about Happy Gilmore. I did get a valuable education in spades and dominoes, I got along. You got along because that was who was there.

Our battalion was sent to take a 'questionnaire' on racial and sexual harassment. Basically they wanted to know if white males were abusing everyone else. One of the first questions was about self segregation and when everyone read it they all looked around the room. Every table was self segregated. We all kind of chuckled about it. I'll never forget it and it's something to this notice all the time. Sure we played spades and dominoes together. But people do tend to hang with there own.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 02:43 PM
Wow.


Wow, what? It's not a threat it's a prediction.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 02:44 PM
Yes, I'm sure your position has everything to do with you not wanting to see gays get hurt. ROFL

F u c k you. I'm not a gay basher, KKK member, or member of any hate group.

Nightfyre
12-19-2007, 02:48 PM
If you want to get a grasp of what reality is in the military I suggest joining. You have no idea what the climate is like without finding out yourself. You can not change the mindset of people that come from so many different back grounds. Yes blacks were integrated into the 'white military' and it probably wasn't easy and I'm sure some lost there lives for it. But for the sake of blacks I'm sure the martyrdom of some was worth it. I guess more than anything I'm sick of liberals trying to change things they have no intentions of ever doing themselves.

I'm no longer in the military so I could care less one way or another. If a couple of gays want to risk there lives so they can hold hands in the mess hall that's their business. But when openly gay homos start getting beat down and killed you liberals can thank yourselves for encouraging them to fight the fight.
ROFL and you accuse others of having lost touch with reality?? ROFL

pikesome
12-19-2007, 02:49 PM
Our battalion was sent to take a 'questionnaire' on racial and sexual harassment. Basically they wanted to know if white males were abusing everyone else. One of the first questions was about self segregation and when everyone read it they all looked around the room. Every table was self segregated. We all kind of chuckled about it. I'll never forget it and it's something to this notice all the time. Sure we played spades and dominoes together. But people do tend to hang with there own.

Maybe the Navy's a bit different. The 15 or so guys I worked with and I lived in area the size of a small bedroom. I've never been closer to anyone other than the girls I've slept with over the years. We mostly segregated ourselves based on our working assignments more than skin color. There where exceptions, not everyone was like that but I guess when you spend that much time so close (physically) to someone you have no choice but to get along. And it was 1000% better than what I see in the real world everyday.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 02:52 PM
Maybe the Navy's a bit different. The 15 or so guys I worked with and I lived in area the size of a small bedroom. I've never been closer to anyone other than the girls I've slept with over the years. We mostly segregated ourselves based on our working assignments more than skin color. There where exceptions, not everyone was like that but I guess when you spend that much time so close (physically) to someone you have no choice but to get along. And it was 1000% better than what I see in the real world everyday.

I never noticed any bad feeling between blacks and whites. I've had black room mates, black squad leaders, and so forth. It was just my observations that in a social environment that soldiers tended to stick together.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 02:56 PM
F u c k you. I'm not a gay basher, KKK member, or member of any hate group.

1. You are a gay basher.

2. I wasn't calling you out for being a gay basher. I was calling you out for being full of shit. Something in your life has made you afraid of gay people. For your sake I hope there was an actual incident and you weren't just raised that way.

trndobrd
12-19-2007, 02:57 PM
If you want to get a grasp of what reality is in the military I suggest joining. You have no idea what the climate is like without finding out yourself. You can not change the mindset of people that come from so many different back grounds. Yes blacks were integrated into the 'white military' and it probably wasn't easy and I'm sure some lost there lives for it. But for the sake of blacks I'm sure the martyrdom of some was worth it. I guess more than anything I'm sick of liberals trying to change things they have no intentions of ever doing themselves.

I'm no longer in the military so I could care less one way or another. If a couple of gays want to risk there lives so they can hold hands in the mess hall that's their business. But when openly gay homos start getting beat down and killed you liberals can thank yourselves for encouraging them to fight the fight.



Has holding hands in the mess hall been a problem with homosexuals? With heterosexuals?

Pitt Gorilla
12-19-2007, 03:02 PM
I have a former (openly gay) student who just served in Iraq. I haven't asked him about it (and probably won't), but he's still in the military and seems to like it.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 03:09 PM
1. You are a gay basher.

2. I wasn't calling you out for being a gay basher. I was calling you out for being full of shit. Something in your life has made you afraid of gay people. For your sake I hope there was an actual incident and you weren't just raised that way.

F u c k off. I'm done talking with you.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 03:16 PM
I've changed my mind. That's right. The left has made me see the light and the errors of my ways. I'm sure a couple of homosexuals prancing around the dinning facility will be no big deal. I'm sure they'll be accepted just fine.

At least the Jody cadences can work both ways.

Radar Chief
12-19-2007, 03:18 PM
Has holding hands in the mess hall been a problem with homosexuals? With heterosexuals?

PDA (Public Display of Affection). There are rules for it because it has been an issue in the past.
I agree with Pat though, same should PDA rules work both ways.

trndobrd
12-19-2007, 03:19 PM
I've changed my mind. That's right. The left has made me see the light and the errors of my ways. I'm sure a couple of homosexuals prancing around the dinning facility will be no big deal. I'm sure they'll be accepted just fine.

At least the Jody cadences can work both ways.


In your military experience have you seen anyone prancing around the dining facility?

Nightfyre
12-19-2007, 03:19 PM
I have a former (openly gay) student who just served in Iraq. I haven't asked him about it (and probably won't), but he's still in the military and seems to like it.
The mindset of the 18-22 year old generation is a lot more open than that of the previous generations. If anyone has a problem with gays in the military, its probably the older, higher ranking folks who don't even have to deal with gays yet on a daily basis (due to the current system.)

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 03:25 PM
I've changed my mind. That's right. The left has made me see the light and the errors of my ways. I'm sure a couple of homosexuals prancing around the dinning facility will be no big deal. I'm sure they'll be accepted just fine.

I don't know what's sadder. Your awful use of sarcasm or the fact you probably really do think gay people prance.

Pitt Gorilla
12-19-2007, 03:25 PM
The mindset of the 18-22 year old generation is a lot more open than that of the previous generations. If anyone has a problem with gays in the military, its probably the older, higher ranking folks who don't even have to deal with gays yet on a daily basis (due to the current system.)He's a bit older than that, but your point still applies.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 03:27 PM
The mindset of the 18-22 year old generation is a lot more open than that of the previous generations. If anyone has a problem with gays in the military, its probably the older, higher ranking folks who don't even have to deal with gays yet on a daily basis (due to the current system.)

It's definitely the older generation, completely unaware of how the World has passed them right by.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 03:28 PM
1. You are a gay basher.

2. I wasn't calling you out for being a gay basher. I was calling you out for being full of shit. Something in your life has made you afraid of gay people. For your sake I hope there was an actual incident and you weren't just raised that way.

Come on. He hasn't said anything that suggests he's a gay basher. He doesn't think open gays in the military would work out well. That's his opinion. It doesn't mean he hates gays or bashes them.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 03:30 PM
In your military experience have you seen anyone prancing around the dining facility?


No and they didn't hold hands either.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 03:32 PM
Come on. He hasn't said anything that suggests he's a gay basher. He doesn't think open gays in the military would work out well. That's his opinion. It doesn't mean he hates gays or bashes them.


Thank you. The first thing 'they' do when 'they' don't have argument is to call the other person a hater of some sorts.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 03:33 PM
I don't know what's sadder. Your awful use of sarcasm or the fact you probably really do think gay people prance.

So you don't prance around. My bad.

irishjayhawk
12-19-2007, 03:35 PM
Come on. He hasn't said anything that suggests he's a gay basher. He doesn't think open gays in the military would work out well. That's his opinion. It doesn't mean he hates gays or bashes them.

Not to get in the middle here, but I can't see how you can say this with a straight face.

I guess tolerance is in the eye of the beholder.

Nightfyre
12-19-2007, 03:35 PM
So you don't prance around. My bad.
You're only digging yourself in a hole. Now you "cleverly" accuse Holmezz of being gay in a derogatory fashion, which shows spite towards gays. Genious. Prove his point.

irishjayhawk
12-19-2007, 03:36 PM
So you don't prance around. My bad.

Wow. The "'you're gay" defense. You just lost. Big time.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 03:37 PM
Come on. He hasn't said anything that suggests he's a gay basher. He doesn't think open gays in the military would work out well. That's his opinion. It doesn't mean he hates gays or bashes them.

Jeez, open your eyes, Pat.

Why do openly gay homos feel the need to cuddle and kiss in public? Adult heteros don't even do that.

I think openly gay homos in the military would be a huge distraction. They would draw too much attention to themselves.

Alphas prey on the weak. Why would anyone put themselves in that position to start with unless they are just looking for attention?

If a couple of gays want to risk there lives so they can hold hands in the mess hall that's their business.

But when openly gay homos start getting beat down and killed you liberals can thank yourselves for encouraging them to fight the fight.

I'm sure a couple of homosexuals prancing around the dinning facility will be no big deal.

He's blatantly homophobic. And that's fine, that's his choice. But don't act like it's not the case.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 03:38 PM
So you don't prance around. My bad.

What are you, 5?

irishjayhawk
12-19-2007, 03:40 PM
Jeez, open your eyes, Pat.




He's blatantly homophobic. And that's fine, that's his choice. But don't act like it's not the case.


The "Alphas prey on the weak" was the one that caught my eye. Weak?

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 03:43 PM
The "Alphas prey on the weak" was the one that caught my eye. Weak?

That and the fact that he thinks gays would only want to serve their country for the attention.

Jilly
12-19-2007, 03:48 PM
Jeez, open your eyes, Pat.













He's blatantly homophobic. And that's fine, that's his choice. But don't act like it's not the case.

maybe it's his choice, but it's not fine...granted he's just a stupid poster on an internet board, but imo it's not fine for him to be insulting and demeaning

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 03:50 PM
You liberals can stand together and trash and bash on me all day long and it makes not one bit of difference. Call me names, call me a hater all you want. But when the first openly gay soldier gets beat to death by a real homophobic gay basher you better look at your selves in the mirror and ask if it's worth it.

It's my opinion that open gays in the military is a bad idea. That's it. There is nothing more to it. If you don't like my opinion, fine, I really don't care. This isn't about winning a debate or an argument. It's about lives being affected by choices made by those who have nothing invested in the outcome.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 03:51 PM
maybe it's his choice, but it's not fine...granted he's just a stupid poster on an internet board, but imo it's not fine for him to be insulting and demeaning


Really? What did you just do? Hypocrite.

Nightfyre
12-19-2007, 03:52 PM
You liberals can stand together and trash and bash on me all day long and it makes not one bit of difference. Call me names, call me a hater all you want. But when the first openly gay soldier gets beat to death by a real homophobic gay basher you better look at your selves in the mirror and ask if it's worth it.

It's my opinion that open gays in the military is a bad idea. That's it. There is nothing more to it. If you don't like my opinion, fine, I really don't care. This isn't about winning a debate or an argument. It's about lives being affected by choices made by those who have nothing invested in the outcome.
I'm not liberal. Further, a real homophobe who attacks a fellow soldier might find he bit off a bit more than he could chew. As you said, soldiers stick together.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 03:52 PM
That and the fact that he thinks gays would only want to serve their country for the attention.

That's not what I said. I was asking why would gays want to serve openly. My guess is the attention.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 03:53 PM
maybe it's his choice, but it's not fine...granted he's just a stupid poster on an internet board, but imo it's not fine for him to be insulting and demeaning

I just meant fine from the standpoint that it's a free country. He's allowed to be homophobic. :p

patteeu
12-19-2007, 03:53 PM
Jeez, open your eyes, Pat.

He's blatantly homophobic. And that's fine, that's his choice. But don't act like it's not the case.

You called him a gay basher. Does anything you posted here make him a gay basher?

I don't know whether he's homophobic or not, but I do know he doesn't think it's a good idea for open gays to be in the military. That's not exactly KKK material right there.

irishjayhawk
12-19-2007, 03:54 PM
You liberals can stand together and trash and bash on me all day long and it makes not one bit of difference. Call me names, call me a hater all you want. But when the first openly gay soldier gets beat to death by a real homophobic gay basher you better look at your selves in the mirror and ask if it's worth it.

I think we have a different issue here. It's not gay hating. It's murder. And it would be dealt with regardless of who was killed and what their sexual preference was.


It's my opinion that open gays in the military is a bad idea. That's it. There is nothing more to it. If you don't like my opinion, fine, I really don't care. This isn't about winning a debate or an argument. It's about lives being affected by choices made by those who have nothing invested in the outcome.

:BS:


Further, stop with the liberal this, liberal that. Seriously, if there was ONE thing the country should stop doing it's the immediate jumping to labels of political parties!

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 03:55 PM
I'm not liberal. Further, a real homophobe who attacks a fellow soldier might find he bit off a bit more than he could chew. As you said, soldiers stick together.


Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm out of touch with the mind set soldiers possess today.

Jilly
12-19-2007, 03:55 PM
Really? What did you just do? Hypocrite.

you're right, but I was just using stupid as not an insult to your intelligence, but rather a reference to the commonality of internet board posting...if that makes sense.. LIKE... oh, it's just another one of those stupid red lights, etc etc. Really, I insulted all of us in a way. Sorry folks.

irishjayhawk
12-19-2007, 03:56 PM
You called him a gay basher. Does anything you posted here make him a gay basher?

Sure seems like to more than one person....


I don't know whether he's homophobic or not, but I do know he doesn't think it's a good idea for open gays to be in the military. That's not exactly KKK material right there.

Yes, we got that. However the sly remarks here and there tell a different story. "Weak" "prancing" etc. All stereotypes and all "supporting" his claim.

JBucc
12-19-2007, 03:57 PM
Someone's gotta keep the barracks clean.

Jilly
12-19-2007, 03:57 PM
That's not what I said. I was asking why would gays want to serve openly. My guess is the attention.

not to demean your intelligence, but what makes you think that gay men or women aren't like any other person who elects to serve their country?

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 03:59 PM
You called him a gay basher. Does anything you posted here make him a gay basher?

Pat, I've been able to respect you a lot more lately. I can't help but think you're intentionally being naive here though.

Jilly
12-19-2007, 03:59 PM
I just meant fine from the standpoint that it's a free country. He's allowed to be homophobic. :p

sorry... I'm just tired of us thinking it's okay for people to be hateful and rude all the time to other human beings.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 04:00 PM
I think we have a different issue here. It's not gay hating. It's murder. And it would be dealt with regardless of who was killed and what their sexual preference was.



:BS:


Further, stop with the liberal this, liberal that. Seriously, if there was ONE thing the country should stop doing it's the immediate jumping to labels of political parties!


Of course it's murder. It doesn't make the person any more dead. My point is why would someone put themselves in that position to start with? Why is it so important to have your sexual orientation known to all that you'd risk your life for it?

Nightfyre
12-19-2007, 04:01 PM
Of course it's murder. It doesn't make the person any more dead. My point is why would someone put themselves in that position to start with? Why is it so important to have your sexual orientation known to all that you'd risk your life for it?
The real question is: Why is it so important for you to hide your sexual orientation at the risk of your life?

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 04:03 PM
Pat, I've been able to respect you a lot more lately. I can't help but think you're intentionally being naive here though.


Do you even know what a gay basher is? It's not someone who tells fag jokes at the bar. A gay basher is someone who attacks someone that is gay.

Jilly
12-19-2007, 04:04 PM
Do you even know what a gay basher is? It's not someone who tells Rump Ranger jokes at the bar. A gay basher is someone who attacks someone that is gay.

yes, it is someone who refers to gay people as "rump rangers"

irishjayhawk
12-19-2007, 04:05 PM
Of course it's murder. It doesn't make the person any more dead. My point is why would someone put themselves in that position to start with? Why is it so important to have your sexual orientation known to all that you'd risk your life for it?

You're right. But you fail to see my point.

My point is that murder in the military is a problem REGARDLESS of who gets killed and what their orientation is.

So you're asking why should they be openly gay and risk murder yet you aren't really addressing the problem: THAT THERE IS MURDER IN THE FIRST PLACE!

And Nightfyre is got it right.

Duck Dog
12-19-2007, 04:05 PM
I'm out for the night. You all will have to 'bash' me while I'm not looking.

irishjayhawk
12-19-2007, 04:06 PM
Do you even know what a gay basher is? It's not someone who tells Rump Ranger jokes at the bar. A gay basher is someone who attacks someone that is gay.

And calls them weak. And says they prance. And is offended at a kiss. And half the other stuff you've said.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 04:06 PM
yes, it is someone who refers to gay people as "rump rangers"

Pretty sure 'rump ranger' is just the filter for 'f@ggot'. Or at least it used to be.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 04:10 PM
you're right, but I was just using stupid as not an insult to your intelligence, but rather a reference to the commonality of internet board posting...if that makes sense.. LIKE... oh, it's just another one of those stupid red lights, etc etc. Really, I insulted all of us in a way. Sorry folks.

On behalf of the internet, I forgive you. :)

Jilly
12-19-2007, 04:12 PM
On behalf of the internet, I forgive you. :)

:wayne: You have used your power wisely, oh Patty O. (I don't know how you pronounce your name, but that is how I pronounce it when I see you have posted!)

patteeu
12-19-2007, 04:16 PM
Yes, we got that. However the sly remarks here and there tell a different story. "Weak" "prancing" etc. All stereotypes and all "supporting" his claim.

Maybe he doesn't know any gays or the only gays he knows are very effeminate. :shrug:

I've met quite a few gays in my life. Some are as tough and masculine as you'd expect a soldier to be and some prance around and intentionally talk with a lisp. Seriously. Most would be hard to pick out of a lineup of heteros, but some play up the gay stereotype. Unless Duck Dog starts talking about how he thinks they are sub-humans or how he wants to act out violently against them, I think we should take him at his word when he says he doesn't hate.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 04:21 PM
Pat, I've been able to respect you a lot more lately. I can't help but think you're intentionally being naive here though.

You're coming around on Dick Cheney aren't you. ;)

I'm not being naive, I'm just pointing out that the reaction to Duck Dog's posts has been over the top. I'm sure that some gays might find reason to be offended by the things DD has said, but I'm not at all sure that DD means to offend. And I'm also confident that some well-adjusted gays would be tolerant of DD's choice of words (e.g. prancing) until he gave them a real reason to think he was a hater.

I don't remember DD harrassing DenverChief for example. If DD was a hater, I'd imagine that he'd be more up front about his hatred from the security of his anonymous internet perch.

patteeu
12-19-2007, 04:24 PM
:wayne: You have used your power wisely, oh Patty O. (I don't know how you pronounce your name, but that is how I pronounce it when I see you have posted!)

I met Braincase at the tailgate this weekend and surprised him when I told him I don't know how to pronounce it either. He uses the same pronunciation that you do.

KCN
12-19-2007, 04:37 PM
Haven't posted here in 2 years but what the hell.

Have you served in the military? Do you realize how many different backgrounds of people there are in the military? I suppose you can continue going through life believing that your liberal mindset and values (or lack there of) will change the world. Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to live in reality and deal with the problems presented to us.

Alphas prey on the weak. Why would anyone put themselves in that position to start with unless they are just looking for attention?

Dude - your opinion that gays should not be allowed in the military because they will be subject to harassment is not what's getting you in trouble here. It's a perfectly valid argument. It's an argument I don't agree with at all, but I can respect it.

However, by making assumptions that gays in the military will be kissing each other and prancing around is totally asinine and yes homophobic. This is the same mindset of a person who locks the car door when they see a black person approaching. Except you're taking it a step further, to the equivalent of banning blacks from the military because they'd be committing crimes.

You may have a total grasp on the reality of the military, but you are completely lost when it comes to the reality of homosexuals. It is outrageously offensive to me for you to assume gays in the military will be weak, effeminate and displaying affection publicly. To say that homosexuals in the military are looking for attention is an enormous insult to the honor of gays wanting to serve their country just like the rest of our servicemen. Open up your eyes to the world and you will see that some gays are just as masculine and devoted to their country as you will ever be.

Why should one have to make his sexuality known in the first place? Simple. It's humiliating to have to pretend to like women, making up stories about girls you've banged and possibly even concealing a meaningful relationship while everyone else talks about their wife and kids. Being forced to hide your true identity is demeaning and greatly hurts morale.

As for the effeminate gays that DO "prance around" and kiss each other publicly....do you honestly think they would be caught dead within 50 miles of a recruiting station?? LOL!!! Please! There are many other ways to make a point besides putting yourself through absolute hell in an environment you have no place being in.

irishjayhawk
12-19-2007, 04:55 PM
Maybe he doesn't know any gays or the only gays he knows are very effeminate. :shrug:

I've met quite a few gays in my life. Some are as tough and masculine as you'd expect a soldier to be and some prance around and intentionally talk with a lisp. Seriously. Most would be hard to pick out of a lineup of heteros, but some play up the gay stereotype. Unless Duck Dog starts talking about how he thinks they are sub-humans or how he wants to act out violently against them, I think we should take him at his word when he says he doesn't hate.

Again, I guess tolerance is in the eye of the beholder.

I'd say generalizing saying that "alpha males prey on the WEAK" and the weak referring to gays, would be as close to "sub-human" without actually saying it.

Oh, well, it doesn't matter much.

a1na2
12-19-2007, 05:20 PM
I think with the acceptance of gays openly serving in the military they need to save money on the showers and make them all co-ed.

Gays are attracted to men. Lesbians are attracted to women. They get to shower with the people of the sex that they are attracted to. All straight men and women need to have the same opportunity.

I brought this very issue up in a "sensitivity" review while on active duty. I was told that the gay lifestyle wasn't like that. I guess the belief that gay men are attracted to men is just a fallacy.

The orientation of homosexuals in the military shouldn't be an issue, but their health should be. STD's are tracked in the military, at the very least the HIV is tested for annually.

My take on whether they should be allowed to openly serve is probably arguable by most, but I would rather that the don't ask don't tell policy be eliminated. I also would not object if they were rejected from service. I would also not object if alcoholics and drug users were rejected from service.

HolmeZz
12-19-2007, 05:27 PM
Because being gay is the equivalent of being an alcoholic or abusing drugs.

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 06:09 AM
I've still not heard a single person answer this question.

How is this different from when Blacks were integrated into white only units?

All of the same exact arguments against openly gay people serving their country is the same reasons for not letting blacks serve with white units.

What is the difference?

Otter
12-20-2007, 06:24 AM
I was under the impression being openly gay would get your ass kicked in pretty much any branch of the military.

Well except the navy maybe.

a1na2
12-20-2007, 06:30 AM
I've still not heard a single person answer this question.

How is this different from when Blacks were integrated into white only units?

All of the same exact arguments against openly gay people serving their country is the same reasons for not letting blacks serve with white units.

What is the difference?

Orientation is the difference.

The situation that you are talking of is totally different as no blacks were sneaking into the military white units undercover, so to speak.

The issues are different, maybe similar to some but not all.

Accepting other people regardless of race has been an issue of mankind for quite a long time. If you subscribe to the history value of the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due to the perversions of the time. If you don't subscribe to the Bible you might consider that most people might consider homosexuality contrary to nature. Sex isn't actually anything more than a means for reproduction. I'm sure that many feel it is all about entertainment and pleasure.

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 06:55 AM
not to demean your intelligence, but what makes you think that gay men or women aren't like any other person who elects to serve their country?

Gays have been in the military for a while, I knew several when I served and that was before Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” cop out.
And I don’t think DD is talking about the average every day gay that leads a typical life just like any other hetero. That’s why he keeps refereeing to “openly gay”. I think what he’s referring to is the marvelously, flamboyantly, that you find it disgusting is exactly why I act this way, gay.
Lets not pretend they don’t exist.

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 06:59 AM
I met Braincase at the tailgate this weekend and surprised him when I told him I don't know how to pronounce it either. He uses the same pronunciation that you do.

I pronounce it like “Chateau” but with a “p” instead of the “ch”.
I took a semester of French in high school. :redface:

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 07:05 AM
Orientation is the difference.

The situation that you are talking of is totally different as no blacks were sneaking into the military white units undercover, so to speak.

The issues are different, maybe similar to some but not all.

Accepting other people regardless of race has been an issue of mankind for quite a long time. If you subscribe to the history value of the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed due to the perversions of the time. If you don't subscribe to the Bible you might consider that most people might consider homosexuality contrary to nature. Sex isn't actually anything more than a means for reproduction. I'm sure that many feel it is all about entertainment and pleasure.
If it's so totally different why are the same excuses being offered?

Well I don't believe that homosexuals are going to burn in hell because they are pardners with someone of the same sex.

I can't imagine having sex with a man. Yes, that would be very much contrary to my nature(as you put it). Sounds very repugnant and a major turn off to me sexually. But that being said.............

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my, your or the governments business.

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 07:07 AM
I met Braincase at the tailgate this weekend and surprised him when I told him I don't know how to pronounce it either. He uses the same pronunciation that you do.
I tried to get it out of him too at the tailgate. Decided to go with "Patio" like that house has a nice backyard patio.

Iowanian
12-20-2007, 07:16 AM
the Spartan's used to ENCOURAGE gay sex
That is why, when I was in HS, I "educated" an opposing football team's wr about the real meaning of "the spartan way".
.


So you BuFu'd him...

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 07:23 AM
Because being gay is the equivalent of being an alcoholic or abusing drugs.

In candid moments, outside of earshot of the APA and other political correctness Gestapo types.....many psychologists will say, "that is exactly right."

:)

Of course, they are all just despicable homophobes.....

Iowanian
12-20-2007, 07:29 AM
Its interesting that the question is posed about a situation in the military, and when a member who has served his time has an inside opinion, he's treated like an uninformed idiot.

You might not like Duck's opinion, but I'd think his view from his foxhole might have some validity.

I know several younger generation soldiers, and to think that most of the young people in our military are "totally cool" with living, showering and sleeping with openly gay people, is naive.

I think MORE young people are tolerant than before, but I doubt that MOST Soldier/Marine types are going to fit in that category.

gays Do have the right to be in the United States Military. I think the current policy is fairly effective.

Chiefnj2
12-20-2007, 07:32 AM
Its interesting that the question is posed about a situation in the military, and when a member who has served his time has an inside opinion, he's treated like an uninformed idiot.

You might not like Duck's opinion, but I'd think his view from his foxhole might have some validity.

I know several younger generation soldiers, and to think that most of the young people in our military are "totally cool" with living, showering and sleeping with openly gay people, is naive.

I think MORE young people are tolerant than before, but I doubt that MOST Soldier/Marine types are going to fit in that category.

I don't think people have a problem with the overall opinion as much as the manner in which it is presented - "gay homos" "weak" "looking for attention", etc.

Iowanian
12-20-2007, 07:33 AM
Its interesting that the politically leaning people who decry free speech the most, acceptance of other views and opinions are so judgemental of those with which they do not agree.

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 07:42 AM
....

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my, your or the governments business.

So, why isn't "don't ask, don't tell" good enough? And why don't we just S.T.F.U. about it..... :shrug:

I mean, seriously; adultery, is also against UCMJ...but I'm certain many in uniform commit adultery. It doesn't become an issue unless it becomes "public" knowledge.


Under Article 134 of the UCMJ, adultery is an offense if:

(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

It is the 3d element that makes it hard to charge adultery. You have to prove that it was either prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. This may not apply in all adultery cases.

Here are examples of cases that meet the 3d element:

(a) The accused's marital status, military rank, grade, or position;

(b) The co-actor's marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces;

(c) The military status of the accused's spouse or the spouse of co-actor, or their relationship to the armed forces;

(d) The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces;

(e) The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct;

(f) Whether the conduct persisted despite counseling or orders to desist; the flagrancy of the conduct, such as whether any notoriety ensued; and whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other violations of the UCMJ;

(g) The negative impact of the conduct on the units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and efficiency;

(h) Whether the accused or co-actor was legally separated; and

(i) Whether the adulterous misconduct involves an ongoing or recent relationship or is remote in time.

I know this law sounds "absurd," but a lot of people have been punished for this. There have been some high-ranking officers who have gotten in trouble for adultery because of their rank and the notoriety of their offense.

The first female B-52 Bomber (1LT Flynn, i think) was charged with adultery and was facing a court-martial.

The military has huge problems with adultery because of the close proximity women and men work/live/deploy together. Because of the honor and integrity associated with military service, adultery is not taken lightly.

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 07:57 AM
And not only that, but then proceed on a demagoguing rampage of the guy they are disagreeing with.

You are surprised by this? :spock:

Don't you know, there is no room for any disagreement on this issue? If you don't agree with the "tolerance" movement--you are just, purely and simply, a bigot. Period. Right?

I mean, afterall.....anyone who's isn't enlightened toward complete acceptance of what many folks (cultures, religions, and societies.....as well) STILL consider to be moral deviency.....well then, they are, obviously, all hate-mongering redneck bigots.

(How could they not be? Because....afterall....they've clung to their ancient bigotry....despite the decades long marketing and propaganda campaign to force, which has won over most "reasonable" and "conscientious" people. )

KC Kings
12-20-2007, 08:06 AM
If you want to get a grasp of what reality is in the military I suggest joining. You have no idea what the climate is like without finding out yourself. You can not change the mindset of people that come from so many different back grounds. Yes blacks were integrated into the 'white military' and it probably wasn't easy and I'm sure some lost there lives for it. But for the sake of blacks I'm sure the martyrdom of some was worth it. I guess more than anything I'm sick of liberals trying to change things they have no intentions of ever doing themselves.

I'm no longer in the military so I could care less one way or another. If a couple of gays want to risk there lives so they can hold hands in the mess hall that's their business. But when openly gay homos start getting beat down and killed you liberals can thank yourselves for encouraging them to fight the fight.

This is one of the most ignorant post I have ever read. "Openly Gay" does not mean holding hands on the mess deck or having anal orgies on the barracks lounge. It simply means that you openly admit to being gay. Gay guys can't hold hands on the mess decks any more than straight male and female service members can.

Maybe it has been a while since you served, or maybe you don't know any gay people, but take everything you see on TV shows, gay pride parades, and South Park, and throw it out the window. I served with plenty of gay guys, and while I have excelent gaydar, most of them you would have no way of knowing unless they told you. They definately weren't the "flaming" variety made famous on TV.

If I have the choice between serving with gays or with women, I will chose gays for many reasons. What ever force you are serving with your number one priority is not sex. In my 7 years in the Navy I can't count the number of working parties, line-handling, and other tasks where the females assigned to our detail were unable to perform the task at hand, yet get paid the same as their male counter parts. When you are manually moving 70lb boxes of frozen meat down 7 decks to freezer storage, would you rather be working with good looking females who can't lift the box, or a gay guy that can pull his own weight?

pikesome
12-20-2007, 08:10 AM
I know this law sounds "absurd," but a lot of people have been punished for this. There have been some high-ranking officers who have gotten in trouble for adultery because of their rank and the notoriety of their offense.
One thing civilians miss is that the military isn't governed by the same rules as the "Real World". Look at the UCMJ and you'll find that many of the Constitutional rights people expect do not apply to the uniformed military. And for good reason, the situation is different, the pressures and difficulties require differences.


The military has huge problems with adultery because of the close proximity women and men work/live/deploy together. Because of the honor and integrity associated with military service, adultery is not taken lightly.
It's also about the complications relationships can bring to a job which is life and death, every day. Even when we weren't on a combat footing my ship, an aircraft carrier, was expected to lose 3-4 people during an 18 month cycle due to operations. On average. Add love triangles and other such and the situation gets more dangerous.

On a different note, soldiers and sailors have been prosecuted under "adultery" for non-standard sexual practices in the past. While I was in there was a senior-ish officer who was getting a BJ from his wife in the living room of their on-base housing. The curtains were open and someone reported being able to see them so MPs went out and witnessed them. He was court martialed and booted.

Pennywise
12-20-2007, 08:11 AM
I served with plenty of gay guys...

In my 7 years in the Navy

ROFL

KC Kings
12-20-2007, 08:16 AM
not to demean your intelligence, but what makes you think that gay men or women aren't like any other person who elects to serve their country?



Going with Duck Dogs rationale that gay people have no sense of duty and would have no reason to join the military, I would be suprised if even half of the current military force joined only because they felt it was their duty to serve.

Free training, real experience in the work field, GI Bill, signing bonus, student loan pay-off, steady income, retirement at 38 years old, etc... and all of the other incentives that come with joining the military would be the same for straight or gay.

pikesome
12-20-2007, 08:17 AM
If I have the choice between serving with gays or with women, I will chose gays for many reasons. What ever force you are serving with your number one priority is not sex. In my 7 years in the Navy I can't count the number of working parties, line-handling, and other tasks where the females assigned to our detail were unable to perform the task at hand, yet get paid the same as their male counter parts. When you are manually moving 70lb boxes of frozen meat down 7 decks to freezer storage, would you rather be working with good looking females who can't lift the box, or a gay guy that can pull his own weight?

And that gay guy isn't, probably, sleeping with a superior. I have a very strong memory of on woman, a Radioman, who slept with her immediate supervisor the entire time she was there. When she got promoted or moved to a different area she moved to her new boss. She also had nothing but glowing evals and was promoted early not once but twice. And got out of cranking on the mess decks too. Never participated in a working party, never humped boxes or did sweepers. She might have been good at her job but the ease with which she "sold" her pussy was legendary. And the real sad part was that, rather than put a stop to it, most of the Chain tried to move her to their work center.

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 08:23 AM
So, why isn't "don't ask, don't tell" good enough? And why don't we just S.T.F.U. about it..... :shrug:

I mean, seriously; adultery, is also against UCMJ...but I'm certain many in uniform commit adultery. It doesn't become an issue unless it becomes "public" knowledge.

It's just hypocritical BS. The Marines would like to think that their members are of a higher standard than the rest of the USA. Our members would never fool around on their wives etc.

I think the younger military members will accept openly gay members once they prove they are as "tough" as they are suppose to be and not some flaming cliche.

Look at the example in the story. His commander and the soldiers know he's gay but they want him to serve with them. He.s earned their respect.

KC Kings
12-20-2007, 08:23 AM
ROFL

I guess I fail to see the humor in putting those 2 together. I think the Village People kind of let the secret slip out 30 years ago, but maybe not.


If you have served you know the slang that is used in the military in place of the common names like mop/swab, lunch/chow, bed/rack, etc... You don't use the word carry, you use the word hump. So if you were part of a working party that moved anchor chains, you would refer to that as humping chains. Now if you took my example prefering to gay men over women while humping meat, that I could see as being rofl.

Jilly
12-20-2007, 08:28 AM
Gays have been in the military for a while, I knew several when I served and that was before Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” cop out.
And I don’t think DD is talking about the average every day gay that leads a typical life just like any other hetero. That’s why he keeps refereeing to “openly gay”. I think what he’s referring to is the marvelously, flamboyantly, that you find it disgusting is exactly why I act this way, gay.
Lets not pretend they don’t exist.

echoing what someone else said, do we really believe those are the type of people that will flock to the nearest recruiting station? And seriously, just like some white male chauvenist pig has the freedom to do what he might in this country, so does a flamboyant homosexual or any other person you might not like or agree with. Maybe if we'd just START ACCEPTING people as they are. instead of calling attentiont to people because we are SO blinded by our prejudices, we wouldn't have to worry about this to begin with.

Pennywise
12-20-2007, 08:29 AM
I guess I fail to see the humor in putting those 2 together. I think the Village People kind of let the secret slip out 30 years ago, but maybe not.


If you have served you know the slang that is used in the military in place of the common names like mop/swab, lunch/chow, bed/rack, etc... You don't use the word carry, you use the word hump. So if you were part of a working party that moved anchor chains, you would refer to that as humping chains. Now if you took my example prefering to gay men over women while humping meat, that I could see as being rofl.

How many gay guys equals plenty?

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 08:34 AM
echoing what someone else said, do we really believe those are the type of people that will flock to the nearest recruiting station? And seriously, just like some white male chauvenist pig has the freedom to do what he might in this country, so does a flamboyant homosexual or any other person you might not like or agree with. Maybe if we'd just START ACCEPTING people as they are. instead of calling attentiont to people because we are SO blinded by our prejudices, we wouldn't have to worry about this to begin with.

Nice theory. Now try turning that into a practical military application.
We don’t disagree, Jilly. In what you quoted, I’m trying to point out to people jumping DD’s case that they’re more than likely misrepresenting what he posted.

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 08:35 AM
It's just hypocritical BS. The Marines would like to think that their members are of a higher standard than the rest of the USA. Our members would never fool around on their wives etc.

I think the younger military members will accept openly gay members once they prove they are as "tough" as they are suppose to be and not some flaming cliche.

Look at the example in the story. His commander and the soldiers know he's gay but they want him to serve with them. He.s earned their respect.

So, as a society.....out goal should be to eliminate all hypocrisy? :shrug:

I mean, should we set standards and rules and policies, but if they aren't being followed (adultery under UCMJ, for example)....we should just change the rules? So we aren't "hypocrites" about it? I suppose, we should legalize drugs under the same logic too???

So, the standard for societal norms and morals....ought to be the lowest common denominator?

:hmmm:

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 08:37 AM
One thing civilians miss is that the military isn't governed by the same rules as the "Real World". Look at the UCMJ and you'll find that many of the Constitutional rights people expect do not apply to the uniformed military. And for good reason, the situation is different, the pressures and difficulties require differences.



It's also about the complications relationships can bring to a job which is life and death, every day. Even when we weren't on a combat footing my ship, an aircraft carrier, was expected to lose 3-4 people during an 18 month cycle due to operations. On average. Add love triangles and other such and the situation gets more dangerous.

On a different note, soldiers and sailors have been prosecuted under "adultery" for non-standard sexual practices in the past. While I was in there was a senior-ish officer who was getting a BJ from his wife in the living room of their on-base housing. The curtains were open and someone reported being able to see them so MPs went out and witnessed them. He was court martialed and booted.That's different. They should have known the blinds were open. Maybe they meant to do that for some sexual thrills. Who knows?

I'm sure (even beind closed doors) getting a BJ is illegal somewhere in Missouri.

Jilly
12-20-2007, 08:43 AM
Nice theory. Now try turning that into a practical military application.
We don’t disagree, Jilly. In what you quoted, I’m trying to point out to people jumping DD’s case that they’re more than likely misrepresenting what he posted.

I'm sorry, but i tended to jump on his case because I'm just not comfortable with the use of language like rump ranger and the rest of the derogatory terms and references. Maybe if someone wants to enter into an intellectual discussion, it might be important to not come off sounding so biased and full of bitterness.

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 08:45 AM
So, as a society.....out goal should be to eliminate all hypocrisy? :shrug:

I mean, should we set standards and rules and policies, but if they aren't being followed (adultery under UCMJ, for example)....we should just change the rules? So we aren't "hypocrites" about it? I suppose, we should legalize drugs under the same logic too???

So, the standard for societal norms and morals....ought to be the lowest common denominator?

:hmmm:
No, I'm saying we shouldn't be judging people or legislating laws against immoral behaviour done between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom that only effects them. Such as adultry. Gay lovers going at it etc.

As I get older I've become less judgmental of other people. It's a bibical thing. He who is without sin cast the first stone kind of thing. Unless you walked a mile in their shoes etc.etc.

I'm far from perfect. I do many things that people would not approve of. I make the decisions for myself not society. I don't want society dictating morality especially in the bedroom between two consenting adults.

You can find their adulterous acts morally bankrupt, offensive to God etc. but thats between them and God.

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 08:48 AM
I'm sorry, but i tended to jump on his case because I'm just not comfortable with the use of language like rump ranger and the rest of the derogatory terms and references. Maybe if someone wants to enter into an intellectual discussion, it might be important to not come off sounding so biased and full of bitterness.

You should also notice the “bitterness” appeared after his case was being jumped.
As always, tolerance is a two way street.

pikesome
12-20-2007, 08:50 AM
That's different. They should have known the blinds were open. Maybe they meant to do that for some sexual thrills. Who knows?

I'm sure (even beind closed doors) getting a BJ is illegal somewhere in Missouri.

The same line of thought has been used, at least while I was in, to discharge people who did all sorts of things that were "odd". And not that I'm 100% against the idea but getting a BJ from your wife in your house doesn't seem like it ought to result in a CM.

Not that this is really too related to the OP but one of the other things people miss is that most of the UCMJ infractions can be punished by death. I know a DC who was napping on watch in the Persian Gulf and could have, very easily and legally, been executed for it even though we weren't, really, at war.

Jilly
12-20-2007, 08:52 AM
You should also notice the “bitterness” appeared after his case was being jumped.
As always, tolerance is a two way street.

I don't think so, it was fairly clear from the get go, but maybe I"m just really sensitive to the issue of sexuality.

Rain Man
12-20-2007, 08:53 AM
I guess my thinking is that the military has a philosophy of making people soldiers first, and everything else second. You're not black or white, you're a marine. You're not male or female, you're a sailor. Do they think there's some reason why the statement, "You're not gay or straight, you're a soldier" won't work? I would postulate that a typical hetero male has more in common with a typical gay male than a typical hetero female.

pikesome
12-20-2007, 08:54 AM
No, I'm saying we shouldn't be judging people or legislating laws against immoral behaviour done between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom that only effects them. Such as adultry. Gay lovers going at it etc.


Adultery, by definition, affects more than two consenting adults. If I'm the RIO in a Tomcat I'd be a bit worried if my pilot was banging the Airboss's wife. Or anyone of a number of other hands my life was in.

Brock
12-20-2007, 08:55 AM
As far as serving in the military goes, gay men > women.

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 08:55 AM
I don't think so, it was fairly clear from the get go, but maybe I"m just really sensitive to the issue of sexuality.

:shrug: You don’t have to take my word for it, go back and read for yourself.
And by “bitterness” I’m talking about the f-bomb and other terms listed in your last post.

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 08:58 AM
As far as serving in the military goes, when taking hostile fire gay men > most women.

FYP.

Brock
12-20-2007, 08:59 AM
FYP.

Not really.

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 09:02 AM
Adultery, by definition, affects more than two consenting adults. If I'm the RIO in a Tomcat I'd be a bit worried if my pilot was banging the Airboss's wife. Or anyone of a number of other hands my life was in.It's two adults making a mutual decision. Does it effect others? Sure.

But, you can say that about everything on the face of the earth. Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle. What if you don't have insurance or your not fully covered when you decided not to wear a helmet and crashed? Who pays? The government, the hospital but ultimately it's us that will pay for the individuals mistake. So if your going to be an idiot I'm going to legislate that you wear a helmet.

Society can't legislate morality. It must be done as individuals.

And for the sake of argument we decide to legislate morality. Who gets to decide who morally right? Mormon's? Jews? Pat Robertson? How will you decide? A poll? Talk about a slippery slope.:shake:

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 09:09 AM
Not really.

Ok.

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 09:11 AM
.... It's a bibical thing. He who is without sin cast the first stone kind of thing. Unless you walked a mile in their shoes etc.etc....

I understand, completely.

However, since you brought the Bible into the discussion....I'm constantly amazed at people who take that tidbit from the New Testament.....but, conviently or carelessly, brush aside Jesus' actual words in Luke 17:3 ....

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him."

Selective invocation of scripture happens on both sides of the isle, to be sure. Ultimate judgement is left to God; however, as Christians we are not called to simply look the other way when others sin.

Also, the second part of Jesus directive there is pretty clear....forgiveness comes after repentence.

:hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 09:13 AM
... I"m just really sensitive to the issue of sexuality.

Yep. As are a number of others.

...Do they think there's some reason why the statement, "You're not gay or straight, you're a soldier" won't work? I would postulate that a typical hetero male has more in common with a typical gay male than a typical hetero female.

"Don't ask, don't tell" should suffice then, right?

pikesome
12-20-2007, 09:18 AM
It's two adults making a mutual decision. Does it effect others? Sure.

But, you can say that about everything on the face of the earth. Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle. What if you don't have insurance or your not fully covered when you decided not to wear a helmet and crashed? Who pays? The government, the hospital but ultimately it's us that will pay for the individuals mistake. So if your going to be an idiot I'm going to legislate that you wear a helmet.

Society can't legislate morality. It must be done as individuals.

And for the sake of argument we decide to legislate morality. Who gets to decide who morally right? Mormon's? Jews? Pat Robertson? How will you decide? A poll? Talk about a slippery slope.:shake:

But it adultery isn't just two consenting adults. One of them has to be married (or it's not adultery) and at that point it becomes a honesty question. I did know one guy who's wife and he had an "open" marriage but that's got to be the exception not the rule. Striping away all the potential animosity that nailing someone's wife/husband might cause, it does break one of the military's closely held beliefs, personal honesty. It's the single worst offenses you can commit, lying. Particularly for officers.

Now if we're talking about Cmdr "My Wife Gave Me A BJ In Our House", I agree that's not quite right. At least not prosecuting it under "adultery".

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 09:22 AM
I understand, completely.

However, since you brought the Bible into the discussion....I'm constantly amazed at people who take that tidbit from the New Testament.....but, conviently or carelessly, brush aside Jesus' actual words in Luke 17:3 ....

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him."

Selective invocation of scripture happens on both sides of the isle, to be sure. Ultimate judgement is left to God; however, as Christians we are not called to simply look the other way when others sin.

Also, the second part of Jesus directive there is pretty clear....forgiveness comes after repentence.

:hmmm:
I wasn't invoking bibical passages to prove a point but to point out my own personal philosphy which was learned from my own experiences and several different resources.

My moral compass is different from yours and everyone else's compass. We each have our own moral view of life. We should live our lifes according to that compass not via legislation.

stevieray
12-20-2007, 09:23 AM
No, I'm saying we shouldn't be judging people or legislating laws against immoral behaviour done between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom that only effects them. Such as adultry. Gay lovers going at it etc.

As I get older I've become less judgmental of other people. It's a bibical thing. He who is without sin cast the first stone kind of thing. Unless you walked a mile in their shoes etc.etc.

I'm far from perfect. I do many things that people would not approve of. I make the decisions for myself not society. I don't want society dictating morality especially in the bedroom between two consenting adults.

You can find their adulterous acts morally bankrupt, offensive to God etc. but thats between them and God.

Why do you keep bringing up the privacy of the bedroom mantra?

Nobody stops homosexuals from engaging in sex in their homes.

Society already does dictate morality...it's not like we are going to get rid of the court and judges.

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 09:25 AM
....We should live our lifes according to that compass not via legislation.

So all so-called "victimless crime" or that which involves consenting adults, should be 'legalized'..... :hmmm:

Too bad you can't start a new country. A whole lot of sick and demented folks would love to live in your country.

;)

stevieray
12-20-2007, 09:26 AM
We should live our lifes according to that compass not via legislation.

where are homosexuals centering their efforts? via legislation...

Adept Havelock
12-20-2007, 09:26 AM
So, the standard for societal norms and morals....ought to be the lowest common denominator?

:hmmm:

Are you really implying simply being openly gay qualifies someone as "the lowest common denominator"?

If so...:shake:

where are homosexuals centering their efforts? via legislation...

Why shouldn't they? After all, it was those that are opposed that pushed the blue laws on us in the first place.

Other than the hate crime legislation which I take issue with, I don't see the gays trying to label anyone opposed as a "criminal".

Fire with fire...Goose and Gander...pick a metaphor. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 09:30 AM
FTR, for those who say "we shouldn't legislate morality"---we already do. Every day.

The only question is who's morality will we legislate? In a democracy, it's suppose to be a majority....as long as basic fundamental constitutionally protected rights are not being denied.

It's easy to see that many want to see the list of Constitutionally protected rights expanded to include their own personal predlictions, but as a democracy....we do still, so far, have the ability to say "no."

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 09:32 AM
Why do you keep bringing up the privacy of the bedroom mantra?

Nobody stops homosexuals from engaging in sex in their homes.

Society already does dictate morality...it's not like we are going to get rid of the court and judges.
The whole issue with openly gays in the military is because of what happens in the bedroom. They blow each other and have all kinds of gay sex behind those closed doors. No one cares that they share a living space. Have a joint checking account etc.

I realize that society already dictates morality. The majority of the people have a right to see their moral beliefs become the law of the land. The minority have a right to be protected from the majority forcing their will onto them. There is not a clear cut black and white dividing line. There is a huge grey area. I'd just rather not try to legislate that grey area.

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 09:34 AM
Are you really implying simply being openly gay qualifies someone as "the lowest common denominator"?

If so...:shake:

Why shouldn't they? After all, it was those that are opposed that pushed the blue laws on us in the first place.

Other than the hate crime legislation which I take issue with, I don't see the gays trying to label anyone opposed as a "criminal".

Fire with fire...Goose and Gander...pick a metaphor. :shrug:

No, no....I'm just taking his argument to it's logical extreme.

"Pushed blue laws on us".....surely you know, historically and anthropologically the current laws marginalizing homosexual behaviors have been entrenched for thousands of years, in most societies across the globe. So, in modernity, it IS the gay rights activists who are pushing an agenda....not vice-versa.

Demonpenz
12-20-2007, 09:34 AM
They could evaluate and use them in the best possible place. WHy not let them be a medic or something

Adept Havelock
12-20-2007, 09:36 AM
No, no....I'm just taking his argument to it's logical extreme.

"Pushed blue laws on us".....surely you know, historically and anthropologically the current laws marginalizing homosexual behaviors have been entrenched for thousands of years, in most societies across the globe. So, in modernity, it IS the gay rights activists who are pushing an agenda....not vice-versa.

I've always tried to keep this perspective on the role of Govt.:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

I submit it does no one an injury for an gay couple or person to live openly, or even <GASP!> perform mild PDA's of the same sort common in public from Heterosexuals. :shrug:

As some like to say..There's nothing in the constitution to protect you from being offended.

You can pretend passing blue laws isn't pushing an agenda, but you're only deluding yourself, IMO.

stevieray
12-20-2007, 09:37 AM
[QUOTE=Adept Havelock]



Why shouldn't they? QUOTE]

Who said they shouldn't? you missed my point...BRC was saying this shouldn't be legislated, when in fact that's exactly where it ends up...

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 09:38 AM
....The minority have a right to be protected from the majority forcing their will onto them...

That is not true.

The government cannot deprive individuals of Constitutionally protected rights. Homosexuality has not, yet, attained the status. Until is does, the minority in this case....does not, yet, legally have that right....no matter how many folks scream that they should.

I have the right to watch a winning NFL team too. But, alas, I'm a Chief's fan..... :cuss:

:deevee:


THAT is why gay rights activists are fighting in the courts; they understand that concept. Which is why those of us who disagree fight back.

Adept Havelock
12-20-2007, 09:39 AM
[QUOTE=Adept Havelock]



Why shouldn't they? QUOTE]

Who said they shouldn't? you missed my point...BRC was saying this shouldn't be legislated, when in fact that's exactly where it ends up...


Sorry stevieray. Mea Culpa, bro.

That is not true.

The government cannot deprive individuals of Constitutionally protected rights. Homosexuality has not, yet, attained the status. Until is does, the minority in this case....does not, yet, legally have that right....no matter how many folks scream that they should.

I have the right to watch a winning NFL team too. But, alas, I'm a Chief's fan..... :cuss:

:deevee:


THAT is why gay rights activists are fighting in the courts; they understand that concept. Which is why those of us who disagree fight back.

Among those rights is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I submit that finding and living in a fulfilling relationship can be considered covered under the latter.

As Homosexuality is not a criminal behavior (no matter how much that might stick in your craw ;) )... :shrug: :p

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 09:41 AM
They could evaluate and use them in the best possible place. WHy not let them be a medic or something


It could dramatically improve the quality of hairstylists at the PX/BX; and imagine the possibilities for improving interior decorating on military bases....

:hmmm:

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 09:43 AM
That is not true.

The government cannot deprive individuals of Constitutionally protected rights. Homosexuality has not, yet, attained the status. Until is does, the minority in this case....does not, yet, legally have that right....no matter how many folks scream that they should.

I have the right to watch a winning NFL team too. But, alas, I'm a Chief's fan..... :cuss:

:deevee:


THAT is why gay rights activists are fighting in the courts; they understand that concept. Which is why those of us who disagree fight back.
I'm not advocating court ordered homosexual rights. I'm advocating that the government stay out of moral judgements of its citizens.

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 09:44 AM
....I submit it does no one an injury for an gay couple or person to live openly, or even <GASP!> perform mild PDA's of the same sort common in public from Heterosexuals. :shrug:...

Jefferson is a good guy; just too much of an idealist, at times. That fact caused him great anguish throughout his life.

You are entitled to your opinion, certainly. While it may be slowly changing, it's still a minority opinion....which with 10 "Trix" cereal box tops, and $2 bucks....might get you a decent cup of coffee.

Cochise
12-20-2007, 09:45 AM
I don't really have an opinion on this. I don't see what's wrong with the current system.

If I were a police officer, I'd be expected to keep my sexuality caged while on duty, and not hit on women or let them out of tickets or whatnot. I don't see any reason why a soldier shouldn't be expected to do the same. I'm sure that gays can do that as well as straight people.

Perhaps we should leave it to some point in the chain of command to decide if their particular task or unit or whatever is going to permit it.

Brock
12-20-2007, 09:45 AM
It could dramatically improve the quality of hairstylists at the PX/BX; and imagine the possibilities for improving interior decorating on military bases....

:hmmm:

that's ****ing moronic, but what else is new....

Adept Havelock
12-20-2007, 09:47 AM
Jefferson is a good guy; just too much of an idealist, at times. That fact caused him great anguish throughout his life.

You are entitled to your opinion, certainly. While it may be slowly changing, it's still a minority opinion....which with 10 "Trix" cereal box tops, and $2 bucks....might get you a decent cup of coffee.



Well, considering how common the attitude of acceptance of gays in the 30-40 and under demo is...

I'm not at all worried about the opinion being a "Minority one", even if you'd like to believe it is.


:rockon: PBJ PBJ PBJ

HolmeZz
12-20-2007, 09:47 AM
Some of you just need to grow up and get over your fear of gheys. You're usually the same people who go on and on about the importance of the War on Terror and how our existence hangs in the balance. But it's not so important that we can afford to just get rid of arabic translators because they happen to be gay.

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 09:48 AM
I'm not advocating court ordered homosexual rights. I'm advocating that the government stay out of moral judgements of its citizens.

Then you have a problem; because current law permits distinctions made on the basis of sexual orientation. To REVERSE the current policies, you have to push, through legislation and activism, an agenda opposed by a majority of American citizens.....despite the best attempts of propagandists to twist and manage public opinions through cutesy marketing campaigns, political demoguery, and misleading public polling.

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 09:49 AM
that's ****ing moronic, but what else is new....

An intelligent post from you would be new.... ;)

It was a joke; asswipe. A funny one to many, apparently.... :)

Pennywise
12-20-2007, 09:51 AM
that's ****ing moronic, but what else is new....

Hang on, he may have a point.

A nice potpourri basket by the arms room might improve morale and esprit de corps.

Adept Havelock
12-20-2007, 09:51 AM
Then you have a problem; because current law permits distinctions made on the basis of sexual orientation. To REVERSE the current policies, you have to push, through legislation and activism, an agenda opposed by a majority of American citizens.....despite the best attempts of propagandists to twist and manage public opinions through cutesy marketing campaigns, political demoguery, and misleading public polling.


And the same arguments were used to defend discrimination by race.

Plenty of us think that discrimination because of "OMG teh ghey!!" is equally wrong, and we'll continue to fight that as well.

Considering the trend historically is towards greater social acceptance of differences, I'm quite comfortable with the odds of eventual success for my position. JMO.


In the context of the Jefferson quote, perhaps you can explain how someone living openly gay is anymore "personally injurous" to you than someone saying there is no God, or twenty of them? I'd really like to know.

Brock
12-20-2007, 09:52 AM
An intelligent post from you would be new.... ;)

It was a joke; asswipe. A funny one to many, apparently.... :)

Yeah, and I'm sure fried chicken and watermelon jokes are still funny to some people too. A douche like you working in public schools is a tragedy.

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 09:52 AM
Then you have a problem; because current law permits distinctions made on the basis of sexual orientation. To REVERSE the current policies, you have to push, through legislation and activism, an agenda opposed by a majority of American citizens.....despite the best attempts of propagandists to twist and manage public opinions through cutesy marketing campaigns, political demoguery, and misleading public polling.I agree with your point. We have already did so much morality legislation we would have to do more legislation just to get back to square one. Won't happen.

But we don't have to enact new morality legislation just because its been done in the past.

Cochise
12-20-2007, 09:53 AM
Some of you just need to grow up and get over your fear of gheys.

I'm sick of this "fear" tripe. Even if I have political opinions on how the government should interpret sexuality and its place in public policy that differ from those of liberals, it doesn't mean I'm afraid of them.

I don't give a rat's asz what they do. I'm certainly not afraid of them. You can put whatever you want wherever you want. I don't care.

It's the lamest political buzzword ever created. It'd be the same if Paultards were going around calling people "freedomphobic" or if liberals were calling people "educationphobic" or something else ghey like that.

Hey, I'm not going to sit here and lie to any of you. I find it to be distasteful. I don't personally feel like looking at overt displays of it. The thought to me is gross. Hey, sorry. That's how I feel. That doesn't make me some kind of shrinking fearful wuss, scared if I touch the wrong doorknowb I might catch teh ghey. It's just my opinion that it's gross.

If you're going to disclose something about yourself to society, you have to be willing to accept other peoples' opinions on it. You can't demand that everyone accept and endorse you no matter what their opinion is on whatever it is you're promoting.

Nobody walks around Arrowhead wearing a Broncos jersey, shouting about freedom of expression and demanding everyone say "I like the Chiefs, but the Broncos are awesome too!" When you put something out in public you are opening it up for whatever anyone wants to say about it. If you can't take it then you should be a little more discrete.

It doesn't mean they "fear' you. It means you're exercising your right to an opinion and I'm exercising mine. Do whatever you want, but if you are disappointed that I don't like the cak too, well, sorry.

What an ignorant word.

HolmeZz
12-20-2007, 10:02 AM
If you're going to disclose something about yourself to society, you have to be willing to accept other peoples' opinions on it. You can't demand that everyone accept and endorse you no matter what their opinion is on whatever it is you're promoting.


What are they asking for, other than the ability to just serve like you and I could?

I've made a personal choice not to drink in my life. That doesn't mean I think somebody who drinks has any less of a right to something than I do. You don't have to like everything you're tolerant of.

irishjayhawk
12-20-2007, 10:25 AM
Nice theory. Now try turning that into a practical military application.
We don’t disagree, Jilly. In what you quoted, I’m trying to point out to people jumping DD’s case that they’re more than likely misrepresenting what he posted.

No one misrepresented what he posted. He misrepresented what he posted.

Injecting stereotypes and pitiful word choices into an intellectual discussion caused an uproar.

You're telling me that he meant nothing by saying they are "weak", "attention seeking", "f@ggots/rump rangers", or that they'd be "prancing around".

I'm sorry, but this sounds slightly biased. And again, he didn't address the point that regardless on whether they INVITE the treatment onto themselves, the issue here is the MURDER he is saying will happen.

Would you agree MURDER, for any reason, WITHIN the military itself, would be cause for concern?


And then he's asking us to believe it's the gay person's fault.....

Cochise
12-20-2007, 10:29 AM
What are they asking for, other than the ability to just serve like you and I could?

I've made a personal choice not to drink in my life. That doesn't mean I think somebody who drinks has any less of a right to something than I do. You don't have to like everything you're tolerant of.

I didn't say anything about homosexuality itself. I lack the motivation to participate in such a debate. I was talking about the weasel wording being employed. Dislike for or bias against something if it existed does not imply fear.

It's elementary school playground debate tactics. "Oh yeah, I bet you won't jump off the top of the monkey bars!" "You're right, I wont because I think that's dumb." "Nuh uh! You won't because you're a fraidy cat!" :rolleyes:

irishjayhawk
12-20-2007, 10:31 AM
I didn't say anything about homosexuality itself. I lack the motivation to participate in such a debate. I was talking about the weasel wording being employed. Dislike for or bias against something if it existed does not imply fear.

It's elementary school playground debate tactics. "Oh yeah, I bet you won't jump off the top of the monkey bars!" "You're right, I wont because I think that's dumb." "Nuh uh! You won't because you're a fraidy cat!" :rolleyes:

You won't jump off the top of the monkey bars. Ah, that explains everything.....

HolmeZz
12-20-2007, 10:33 AM
I didn't say anything about homosexuality itself. I lack the motivation to participate in such a debate. I was talking about the weasel wording being employed. Dislike for or bias against something if it existed does not imply fear.

It's elementary school playground debate tactics. "Oh yeah, I bet you won't jump off the top of the monkey bars!" "You're right, I wont because I think that's dumb." "Nuh uh! You won't because you're a fraidy cat!" :rolleyes:

I wasn't even talking to you in my post. I don't know why you took such offense if it didn't apply to you.

Cochise
12-20-2007, 10:34 AM
I wasn't even talking to you in my post. I don't know why you took such offense if it didn't apply to you.

I didn't say you were talking about me, I said I think the word 'homophobia' is dishonest and stupid.

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 10:35 AM
You won't jump off the top of the monkey bars.
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/72869/2/istockphoto_72869_no_wimps_sign.jpg

irishjayhawk
12-20-2007, 10:36 AM
Then you have a problem; because current law permits distinctions made on the basis of sexual orientation. To REVERSE the current policies, you have to push, through legislation and activism, an agenda opposed by a majority of American citizens.....despite the best attempts of propagandists to twist and manage public opinions through cutesy marketing campaigns, political demoguery, and misleading public polling.

If we can learn one thing from history, it's that we don't learn from history.

I think that applies here. (And it's Bertrand Russell quote, but I don't think it's the exact words)

irishjayhawk
12-20-2007, 10:39 AM
I didn't say you were talking about me, I said I think the word 'homophobia' is dishonest and stupid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely you don't believe that word is dishonest and stupid but rather to jump to it so quickly.....Like your example of fear of the bars.

HolmeZz
12-20-2007, 10:42 AM
I didn't say you were talking about me. I said I think the word 'homophobia' is dishonest and stupid.

If the shoe fits.

stevieray
12-20-2007, 10:50 AM
I'm sick of this "fear" tripe. Even if I have political opinions on how the government should interpret sexuality and its place in public policy that differ from those of liberals, it doesn't mean I'm afraid of them.

I don't give a rat's asz what they do. I'm certainly not afraid of them. You can put whatever you want wherever you want. I don't care.

It's the lamest political buzzword ever created. It'd be the same if Paultards were going around calling people "freedomphobic" or if liberals were calling people "educationphobic" or something else ghey like that.

Hey, I'm not going to sit here and lie to any of you. I find it to be distasteful. I don't personally feel like looking at overt displays of it. The thought to me is gross. Hey, sorry. That's how I feel. That doesn't make me some kind of shrinking fearful wuss, scared if I touch the wrong doorknowb I might catch teh ghey. It's just my opinion that it's gross.

If you're going to disclose something about yourself to society, you have to be willing to accept other peoples' opinions on it. You can't demand that everyone accept and endorse you no matter what their opinion is on whatever it is you're promoting.

Nobody walks around Arrowhead wearing a Broncos jersey, shouting about freedom of expression and demanding everyone say "I like the Chiefs, but the Broncos are awesome too!" When you put something out in public you are opening it up for whatever anyone wants to say about it. If you can't take it then you should be a little more discrete.

It doesn't mean they "fear' you. It means you're exercising your right to an opinion and I'm exercising mine. Do whatever you want, but if you are disappointed that I don't like the cak too, well, sorry.

What an ignorant word.

Good post, it's akin to assuming that Holmezz is gay, because he endorses it.

HolmeZz
12-20-2007, 10:57 AM
Good post, it's akin to assuming that Holmezz is gay, because he endorses it.

Am I endorsing homosexuality or am I endorsing tolerance?

Cochise
12-20-2007, 11:00 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely you don't believe that word is dishonest and stupid but rather to jump to it so quickly.....Like your example of fear of the bars.

I didn't say that I was afraid of monkey bars. It's attributing what may well be a reasoned position, however disagreeable one may find it, to knee-jerk fear. To use the word is to dismiss addressing a point to instead belittle someone by saying they're just afraid. It's dumb.

Jilly
12-20-2007, 11:05 AM
:shrug: You don’t have to take my word for it, go back and read for yourself.
And by “bitterness” I’m talking about the f-bomb and other terms listed in your last post.

wow, i just went back and read my posts and realized that i never used the f word. And in all honesty, I'm not sure any of my posts were all that bitter....

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 11:05 AM
Am I endorsing homosexuality or am I endorsing tolerance?

Both.

Jilly
12-20-2007, 11:06 AM
Am I endorsing homosexuality or am I endorsing tolerance?

According to some, tolerance is a bad word around here, let alone acceptance.

irishjayhawk
12-20-2007, 11:09 AM
I didn't say that I was afraid of monkey bars. It's attributing what may well be a reasoned position, however disagreeable one may find it, to knee-jerk fear. To use the word is to dismiss addressing a point to instead belittle someone by saying they're just afraid. It's dumb.

Exactly. So you don't find homophobia a dishonest WORD, you find it USED dishonestly - as a knee jerk reaction.

I don't see how homophobia isn't justifiable and even true in some cases.

Mr. Kotter
12-20-2007, 11:09 AM
According to some, tolerance is a bad word around here, let alone acceptance.

Not bad. Just insidious, potentially.

Open-mindedness is a good thing; but one should be careful not to be so open-minded....that anything goes (or as the saying goes..."...so open-minded that your brain falls out")

Demonpenz
12-20-2007, 11:10 AM
It could dramatically improve the quality of hairstylists at the PX/BX; and imagine the possibilities for improving interior decorating on military bases....

:hmmm:


I was going to go there with my post but I don't know shit about anything.

Jilly
12-20-2007, 11:12 AM
The bigger question is why on earth would someone want to serve in the military and be openly gay? They are just asking for trouble.

Another question. Why do openly gay homos feel the need to cuddle and kiss in public? Adult heteros don't even do that.

I think openly gay homos in the military would be a huge distraction. They would draw too much attention to themselves.

Radar Chief,

This is his first post - there's nothing in here bitter or derogatory?

stevieray
12-20-2007, 11:20 AM
Am I endorsing homosexuality or am I endorsing tolerance?

typical....we aren't discussing what you endorse, but about making an unrealistic assumption about someone based on their opinion...

HolmeZz
12-20-2007, 11:22 AM
Both.

I haven't said anything about the act of homosexuality so how could I be endorsing it? All I said is those who are homosexuals have no less of a claim to rights than heterosexuals.

Cochise
12-20-2007, 11:22 AM
Exactly. So you don't find homophobia a dishonest WORD, you find it USED dishonestly - as a knee jerk reaction.


Defined? Used? Whatever. I'm not interested in debating semantics.

If someone genuinely had a mental condition that was a paranoid fear of homosexuals, then you could call them that. Someone having an opinion about homosexuality that does not totally mesh with your own does not make them mentally ill.

irishjayhawk
12-20-2007, 11:23 AM
typical....we aren't discussing what you endorse, but about making an unrealistic assumption about someone based on their opinion...


"unrealistic" is in the eye of the beholder. As is, "reasonable"

irishjayhawk
12-20-2007, 11:24 AM
Defined? Used? Whatever. I'm not interested in debating semantics.

It's not semantics...


If someone genuinely had a mental condition that was a paranoid fear of homosexuals, then you could call them that. Someone having an opinion about homosexuality that does not totally mesh with your own does not make them mentally ill.

Fair enough.

stevieray
12-20-2007, 11:26 AM
Whatever. I'm not interested in debating semantics.



semantics is in the eye of the beholder... :rolleyes:

a1na2
12-20-2007, 12:08 PM
If it's so totally different why are the same excuses being offered?

Well I don't believe that homosexuals are going to burn in hell because they are pardners with someone of the same sex.

I can't imagine having sex with a man. Yes, that would be very much contrary to my nature(as you put it). Sounds very repugnant and a major turn off to me sexually. But that being said.............

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my, your or the governments business.

When it has a direct impact you me you or the government it is our business.

a1na2
12-20-2007, 12:11 PM
So, why isn't "don't ask, don't tell" good enough? And why don't we just S.T.F.U. about it..... :shrug:

I mean, seriously; adultery, is also against UCMJ...but I'm certain many in uniform commit adultery. It doesn't become an issue unless it becomes "public" knowledge.


Under Article 134 of the UCMJ, adultery is an offense if:

(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

It is the 3d element that makes it hard to charge adultery. You have to prove that it was either prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. This may not apply in all adultery cases.

Here are examples of cases that meet the 3d element:

(a) The accused's marital status, military rank, grade, or position;

(b) The co-actor's marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces;

(c) The military status of the accused's spouse or the spouse of co-actor, or their relationship to the armed forces;

(d) The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces;

(e) The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct;

(f) Whether the conduct persisted despite counseling or orders to desist; the flagrancy of the conduct, such as whether any notoriety ensued; and whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other violations of the UCMJ;

(g) The negative impact of the conduct on the units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and efficiency;

(h) Whether the accused or co-actor was legally separated; and

(i) Whether the adulterous misconduct involves an ongoing or recent relationship or is remote in time.

I know this law sounds "absurd," but a lot of people have been punished for this. There have been some high-ranking officers who have gotten in trouble for adultery because of their rank and the notoriety of their offense.

The first female B-52 Bomber (1LT Flynn, i think) was charged with adultery and was facing a court-martial.

The military has huge problems with adultery because of the close proximity women and men work/live/deploy together. Because of the honor and integrity associated with military service, adultery is not taken lightly.

Article 134 is also known as the catch all. It is used whenever someone in authority doesn't like something you have done. It has the widest scope of any of the articles in the UCMJ.

irishjayhawk
12-20-2007, 12:12 PM
When it has a direct impact you me you or the government it is our business.

How does that have an impact? Can you give an example?

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 12:17 PM
When it has a direct impact you me you or the government it is our business.
And just how does 2 guys blowing each other in their bedroom effect your life?

WilliamTheIrish
12-20-2007, 12:26 PM
Haven't posted here in 2 years but what the hell.



Dude - your opinion that gays should not be allowed in the military because they will be subject to harassment is not what's getting you in trouble here. It's a perfectly valid argument. It's an argument I don't agree with at all, but I can respect it.

However, by making assumptions that gays in the military will be kissing each other and prancing around is totally asinine and yes homophobic. This is the same mindset of a person who locks the car door when they see a black person approaching. Except you're taking it a step further, to the equivalent of banning blacks from the military because they'd be committing crimes.

You may have a total grasp on the reality of the military, but you are completely lost when it comes to the reality of homosexuals. It is outrageously offensive to me for you to assume gays in the military will be weak, effeminate and displaying affection publicly. To say that homosexuals in the military are looking for attention is an enormous insult to the honor of gays wanting to serve their country just like the rest of our servicemen. Open up your eyes to the world and you will see that some gays are just as masculine and devoted to their country as you will ever be.

Why should one have to make his sexuality known in the first place? Simple. It's humiliating to have to pretend to like women, making up stories about girls you've banged and possibly even concealing a meaningful relationship while everyone else talks about their wife and kids. Being forced to hide your true identity is demeaning and greatly hurts morale.

As for the effeminate gays that DO "prance around" and kiss each other publicly....do you honestly think they would be caught dead within 50 miles of a recruiting station?? LOL!!! Please! There are many other ways to make a point besides putting yourself through absolute hell in an environment you have no place being in.

Lomg time, no see, KCN.

a1na2
12-20-2007, 12:26 PM
And just how does 2 guys blowing each other in their bedroom effect your life?

You assume that that is the only place that they are sexually active.

Have you ever been propositioned by a gay in a military setting? If you haven't then you can maintain your belief that what they do never has any impact on your life.

I had to deal with sailors that worked for me that had been approached by homosexuals. It was both male and female as well as transgender types.
Everyone wants to beliefe that their activities is never in sight but that is a wrong assumption.

Live the way you wish, believe they way you wish. I just hope that someday the truth of their activities not having an impact on you changes. I'd be interested to see how you respond.

mlyonsd
12-20-2007, 12:37 PM
Serious question......

If I'm a hetero and go to a public shower am I a homophobe if I know there is an openly gay person there and I feel uncomfortable knowing he is/might be checking me out?

Should I be forced to accept showering with people that quite possibly are checking you out for a specific reason?

vailpass
12-20-2007, 12:39 PM
You assume that that is the only place that they are sexually active.

Have you ever been propositioned by a gay in a military setting? If you haven't then you can maintain your belief that what they do never has any impact on your life.

I had to deal with sailors that worked for me that had been approached by homosexuals. It was both male and female as well as transgender types.
Everyone wants to beliefe that their activities is never in sight but that is a wrong assumption.

Live the way you wish, believe they way you wish. I just hope that someday the truth of their activities not having an impact on you changes. I'd be interested to see how you respond.

Hmmm....it got awfully quiet in here after this post.

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 12:41 PM
wow, i just went back and read my posts and realized that i never used the f word. And in all honesty, I'm not sure any of my posts were all that bitter....


Keep up, Jilly. We weren't discussing your “bitterness” or use of the “f-bomb”, we were discussing DD’s use of the “f-bomb” and supposed "bitterness".

I'm sorry, but i tended to jump on his case because I'm just not comfortable with the use of language like rump ranger and the rest of the derogatory terms and references. Maybe if someone wants to enter into an intellectual discussion, it might be important to not come off sounding so biased and full of bitterness.

Hog Farmer
12-20-2007, 12:42 PM
I think we should take all the homo soldiers and have them go kick Iran's ass. That way we could always brag about defeating a country using only an army of queers

DaKCMan AP
12-20-2007, 12:43 PM
yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dog's eye

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 12:45 PM
Radar Chief,

This is his first post - there's nothing in here bitter or derogatory?

That looks a lot more “confused” than “bitter” to me. He pretty much says so too. :shrug:
That you don’t care for his locker room language seems to be where this “bitterness” is coming from.

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 12:50 PM
According to some, tolerance is a bad word around here, let alone acceptance.

And “according to some” that “tolerance” only goes so far. Anyone expressing confusion as to a certain life style or questioning the prudence of forcefully integrating said lifestyle is a “gay bashing” “homophobe”.

banyon
12-20-2007, 12:55 PM
Hmmm....it got awfully quiet in here after this post.

My CPIggy tells me you are referring to a t*m c*sh post. It could be because 95% of the posters here have him on ignore, not that after all these years he finally has a point worth listening to.

Jilly
12-20-2007, 01:21 PM
And “according to some” that “tolerance” only goes so far. Anyone expressing confusion as to a certain life style or questioning the prudence of forcefully integrating said lifestyle is a “gay bashing” “homophobe”.

You're right. I'm intolerant of intolerance. And up until now, my posts have been fair and you won't convince me otherwise. How awful of me to come in and try and defend a group of people who are looked down upon for their sexuality. Horror of horrors!!! For those of you who happen to be straight, it's so easy for you to use the language you use and then pass it off when people call you to task for it... It's not you, you're not gay bashing homophobes just for nonchalantly using the terms rump ranger. No, you treat gay people fair and square, no bias there.

You know what? It's not you who are denied basic human rights, so you can easily put forth your language and your bias and when someone says something to you about it, pussy foot around it and try and place the blame into someone else's hands, because GOD FORBID you change your mind. Why should you anyways? After all, you're not the one being persecuted against. Let's go ahead and let everyone go around believing that what he really meant were the flamboyant gays, or code word for him and prob you, "openly" gay ones. I am SURE that the bad guy here is me for not being tolerant of his lack of respect.

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 01:46 PM
You're right. I'm intolerant of intolerance. And up until now, my posts have been fair and you won't convince me otherwise. How awful of me to come in and try and defend a group of people who are looked down upon for their sexuality. Horror of horrors!!! For those of you who happen to be straight, it's so easy for you to use the language you use and then pass it off when people call you to task for it... It's not you, you're not gay bashing homophobes just for nonchalantly using the terms rump ranger. No, you treat gay people fair and square, no bias there.

You know what? It's not you who are denied basic human rights, so you can easily put forth your language and your bias and when someone says something to you about it, pussy foot around it and try and place the blame into someone else's hands, because GOD FORBID you change your mind. Why should you anyways? After all, you're not the one being persecuted against. Let's go ahead and let everyone go around believing that what he really meant were the flamboyant gays, or code word for him and prob you, "openly" gay ones. I am SURE that the bad guy here is me for not being tolerant of his lack of respect.

But you’re not, like, trying to be offended or anything.
Since Ms. Jilly “the Tolorant” is so ready to throw around “you”, maybe you could point out exactly where I’ve “bashed gays” or referred to them using derogatory terms?
BTW, I don’t know that “flamboyant” is what he means by “openly”, I’m assuming from the rest of his posts. But it’s up to DD to clarify.

BIG_DADDY
12-20-2007, 01:49 PM
Of course gays should be able to serve. Who else is going to blow the Taliban in order to get information now that waterboarding has been outlawed? :shrug:

Cochise
12-20-2007, 01:53 PM
Serious question......

If I'm a hetero and go to a public shower am I a homophobe if I know there is an openly gay person there and I feel uncomfortable knowing he is/might be checking me out?

Should I be forced to accept showering with people that quite possibly are checking you out for a specific reason?

I don't think so. If a woman I wasn't attracted to was checking me out I'd probably be just as uncomfortable as if a man was.

Jilly
12-20-2007, 01:54 PM
But you’re not, like, trying to be offended or anything.
Since Ms. Jilly “the Tolorant” is so ready to throw around “you”, maybe you could point out exactly where I’ve “bashed gays” or referred to them using derogatory terms?
BTW, I don’t know that “flamboyant” is what he means by “openly”, I’m assuming from the rest of his posts. But it’s up to DD to clarify.

You're right, it is up to him to clarify, but you jumped in to defend his derogatory language. And since YOU jumped in to do that, I assumed YOU probably fell into his camp. But, like, don't worry, like, about me, because like, well, like, you know, like, I'm just stupid, like you know, so my bad.

Adept Havelock
12-20-2007, 01:58 PM
Serious question......

If I'm a hetero and go to a public shower am I a homophobe if I know there is an openly gay person there and I feel uncomfortable knowing he is/might be checking me out?

Should I be forced to accept showering with people that quite possibly are checking you out for a specific reason?


I really don't know if it makes you a homophobe or not. Depends on why it makes you uncomfortable, I suppose. :shrug:

Whenever I've been in a locker room, I've never really cared if somebody is checking me out or not. I know even if they are, they don't have a chance if they were to approach me. I'm hetero, and happy that way. If they are storing up homo-wank material for later, I don't know about it, so I don't care. Doesn't really injure me either way AFAICS.

Pennywise
12-20-2007, 01:59 PM
You're right, it is up to him to clarify, but you jumped in to defend his derogatory language. And since YOU jumped in to do that, I assumed YOU probably fell into his camp. But, like, don't worry, like, about me, because like, well, like, you know, like, I'm just stupid, like you know, so my bad.
Sounds like someone needs a champagne cooly at the Blue Oyster.

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 02:01 PM
You're right, it is up to him to clarify, but you jumped in to defend his derogatory language. And since YOU jumped in to do that, I assumed YOU probably fell into his camp. But, like, don't worry, like, about me, because like, well, like, you know, like, I'm just stupid, like you know, so my bad.

I’ve never even implied that you were “stupid”. Quit playing the victim.
And if you’d have followed the topic, you’d already know my position from my first post.

Most combat vets I’ve spoken to couldn't give a chit less if someone smokes teh pole as long as they can shoot and don’t get everyone around them killed.
Whose fugg’n who is pretty low on the priority list when you're taking hostile fire.

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 02:05 PM
Sounds like someone needs a champagne cooly at the Blue Oyster.

:LOL: Aw, Jilly's a nice girl. I assume this topic has her more worked up than usual, a lot more, because it’s a hot button issue.

Jilly
12-20-2007, 02:05 PM
I’ve never even implied that you were “stupid”. Quit playing the victim.
And if you’d have followed the topic, you’d already know my position from my first post.

really? I'm not playing the victim, but rather standing up for something I think could use a voice. But if you took it that way then, I'm sorry. I guess I misunderstood you're use of the words, "keep up, Jilly." And I guess I really got confused as to your position once you started defending DD. Seemed like you had jumped right into his camp, so I'm sorry I misunderstood.

Jilly
12-20-2007, 02:07 PM
:LOL: Aw, Jilly's a nice girl. I assume this topic has her more worked up than usual, a lot more, because it’s a hot button issue.

Thanks...it does have me worked up, you're right. I'm a passionate girl, what can I say? But I could use a drink, I don't care where it's from!!

Pennywise
12-20-2007, 02:11 PM
really? I'm not playing the victim, but rather standing up for something I think could use a voice. But if you took it that way then, I'm sorry. I guess I misunderstood you're use of the words, "keep up, Jilly." And I guess I really got confused as to your position once you started defending DD. Seemed like you had jumped right into his camp, so I'm sorry I misunderstood.
You can put me in their camp as well, although its bound to get uncomfortable when its time to pitch the tent.

I don't think DD should or have to explain or clarify a ****ing thing.

Sully
12-20-2007, 02:14 PM
Nobody walks around Arrowhead wearing a Broncos jersey, shouting about freedom of expression and demanding everyone say "I like the Chiefs, but the Broncos are awesome too!"

We certainly aren't telling them they can only come to games if they don't disclose that they are Broncos fans, either.

Sully
12-20-2007, 02:15 PM
If I were a police officer, I'd be expected to keep my sexuality caged while on duty

Would you be expected to completely hide it?
If you were married or had a girlfriend, would you be fired for being open about that fact.

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 02:16 PM
We certainly aren't telling them they can only come to games if they don't disclose that they are Broncos fans, either.

We aren't? :spock:

Sully
12-20-2007, 02:17 PM
We aren't? :spock:
Judging by the number of opposing fans that have been at the majority of the games this year, sitting in many season ticket holders' seats, it looks to me like we are inviting them!

ROFL

Radar Chief
12-20-2007, 02:19 PM
Judging by the number of opposing fans that have been at the majority of the games this year, sitting in many season ticket holders' seats, it looks to me like we are inviting them!

ROFL

You sure they’re not just Chiefs fans embarrassed to admit it? :hmmm:

BigRedChief
12-20-2007, 02:28 PM
You assume that that is the only place that they are sexually active.

Have you ever been propositioned by a gay in a military setting? If you haven't then you can maintain your belief that what they do never has any impact on your life.

I had to deal with sailors that worked for me that had been approached by homosexuals. It was both male and female as well as transgender types.
Everyone wants to beliefe that their activities is never in sight but that is a wrong assumption.

Live the way you wish, believe they way you wish. I just hope that someday the truth of their activities not having an impact on you changes. I'd be interested to see how you respond.No matter the consequences on some things there is no compromise. Free Speech for example. The day I can't stand up in public and say the President sucks is the line that can't be crossed.

This is not one of those lines.

You can get into an argument/state your opinion that the private actions of individuals effect the society. And guess what, I think you are right. Acts of individuals effect society.

Many examples could be given where individual liberties are either taken away or reduced to lessen a negative impact on our society. Drunk driving laws, drug usage laws, registering our cars, having to have a social security # to function in our society etc. etc.

But those examples don't overrule freedom to the extent that he pursuit of happiness is no longer an option.

I'm sorry but I don't see the society being harmed in such a great way that we have to take away the freedom to pursue happiness from these individuals. Even gays have a right to pursue happiness and serve their country as who they really are, to not be in a semi-closet.

I also believe that the Federal, local and state government has no business legislating an individuals morality.

Where does the line occur? Where does the greater good of the society stop and the individual rights start?

Sully
12-20-2007, 03:04 PM
You sure they’re not just Chiefs fans embarrassed to admit it? :hmmm:

I'm not sure...you're right.

:hmmm:

Mr. Laz
12-20-2007, 03:06 PM
you would think that the right would love it if all "teh gheys" joined the military.

what better way to get rid of all those "evil sinners" then to let Bush use up their lives like he was playing some sort of video game.

mlyonsd
12-20-2007, 05:34 PM
I don't think so. If a woman I wasn't attracted to was checking me out I'd probably be just as uncomfortable as if a man was.

Thanks. I feel better.

But what do you think about my second question? Should I be forced to take a public shower with an openly gay person?

mlyonsd
12-20-2007, 05:40 PM
I really don't know if it makes you a homophobe or not. Depends on why it makes you uncomfortable, I suppose. :shrug:

Whenever I've been in a locker room, I've never really cared if somebody is checking me out or not. I know even if they are, they don't have a chance if they were to approach me. I'm hetero, and happy that way. If they are storing up homo-wank material for later, I don't know about it, so I don't care. Doesn't really injure me either way AFAICS.

That's fine for you. But do I have a right to know the person lathering up next to me isn't going to cop a feel?

If your answer is no I'd say all public showers should be unisex because I don't see a difference.

My point of course is an openly gay military is fringing on the right of those that don't want any advances.

Maybe it depends on the definition of "openly gay". I just don't think it's a good idea to let kids (18) that have access to guns, grenades, tanks, have to worry about things like this.

Adept Havelock
12-20-2007, 05:45 PM
That's fine for you. But do I have a right to know the person lathering up next to me isn't going to cop a feel?

If your answer is no I'd say all public showers should be unisex because I don't see a difference.

My point of course is an openly gay military is fringing on the right of those that don't want any advances.

Maybe it depends on the definition of "openly gay". I just don't think it's a good idea to let kids (18) that have access to guns, grenades, tanks, have to worry about things like this.


Maybe it's just me, but there's a world of difference between being "Checked out", as you initially said, and being groped, as you've now moved the goalposts to.

The latter, if unwanted, is assault.

The former does nothing AFAICT.

stevieray
12-20-2007, 05:46 PM
you would think that the right would love it if all "teh gheys" joined the military.

what better way to get rid of all those "evil sinners" then to let Bush use up their lives like he was playing some sort of video game.

:rolleyes:


damn dude you are obssessed with categorizing everyones approach as left or right.

mlyonsd
12-20-2007, 05:50 PM
Maybe it's just me, but there's a world of difference between being "Checked out", as you initially said, and being groped, as you've now moved the goalposts to.

The latter, if unwanted, is assault.

The former does nothing AFAICT.

I agree I did move the goal posts. But I'm saying the former (worrying about it) can lead to bad consequences.

My point is I can see why "don't ask don't tell" is a better option than "openly gay".

I know gay people deserve the same right to serve their country. I'm just not sure where that right should be allowed to happen.

Adept Havelock
12-20-2007, 06:13 PM
You replied as I was giving a bit more detailed response, so I'll just combine it here.

That's fine for you. But do I have a right to know the person lathering up next to me isn't going to cop a feel?
Maybe it's just me, but IMO there's a world of difference between being "checked out", as you initially said, and being groped, as you've now moved the goalposts to.

If your answer is no I'd say all public showers should be unisex because I don't see a difference.
Doesn't bother me either way. To paraphrase a Japanese proverb, just because I see something doesn't mean I have to look at it. (orig. proverb "Nakedness is often seen, but seldom looked at.") I'm not uncomfortable either way. :shrug:

My point of course is an openly gay military is fringing on the right of those that don't want any advances.
The UCMJ protects them against unwanted advances, hetero- or homo- sexual AFAICT.

Maybe it depends on the definition of "openly gay".
Indeed. You seem to be implying it's someone who is unable to restrain their urges in a shower without playing grab-ass, or (taken to its logical extreme) acting like they were the bull queer from Shawshank Redemption.

To me, it's just someone who has no problem with other people knowing they prefer a same-sex relationship.

I just don't think it's a good idea to let kids (18) that have access to guns, grenades, tanks, have to worry about things like this.

:hmmm:
Most combat vets I’ve spoken to couldn't give a chit less if someone smokes teh pole as long as they can shoot and don’t get everyone around them killed.
Whose fugg’n who is pretty low on the priority list when you're taking hostile fire.

:shrug:

I agree I did move the goal posts. But I'm saying the former (worrying about it) can lead to bad consequences.

My point is I can see why "don't ask don't tell" is a better option than "openly gay".

IMO, because there's no reason someone should have to hide that behavior. The Constitution doesn't grant you the right not to be offended or made uncomfortable.


I know gay people deserve the same right to serve their country. I'm just not sure where that right should be allowed to happen.

As it's not a criminal behavior, and (AFAIK) unproven as a liability to the service, I'll go with the simple concept of equal protection under the Constitution. I believe that gives them the same rights as anyone else. As their behavior doesn't injure anyone else by the act of being openly gay (mere personal offense doesn't qualify under the law AFAIK), I see no legitimate role for government to condemn it.

Even if that makes me a "naive Jeffersonian" in Kotter's eyes. LMAO

go bowe
12-20-2007, 08:35 PM
F u c k you. I'm not a gay basher, KKK member, or member of any hate group.and just how long have you been a member of chiefs planet?

everybody knows that we hate the donkeys, the bolts and the faiders...

stevieray hates the refs...

everybody hates de-nise (well, almost everybody)...

see? you're a member of a hate group and you didn't even know it... :p :p :p

go bowe
12-20-2007, 09:01 PM
I agree I did move the goal posts. But I'm saying the former (worrying about it) can lead to bad consequences.

My point is I can see why "don't ask don't tell" is a better option than "openly gay".

I know gay people deserve the same right to serve their country. I'm just not sure where that right should be allowed to happen.similar well-intentioned concerns were invoked when the military was being integrated and again when the military began to accept women...

any role in a combat area (like iraq) means combat is likely...

for example, look at the ambush of the trucks that had missed a turn during the invasion of iraq...

the women there were fighting as combat soldiers (iirc) regardless of what their day job in the army might have been...

and weren't there some women helicopter pilots that died too?

and aren't there armies in some country or another that have integrated women with male soldiers?

and possibly a few that don't dishonorably discharge people for acknowledging their gayness?

if there aren't any, than there should be...

personally, i would not care at all about a fellow soldier's religion, race, or sexual orientation...

a good soldier is somebody you can rely on when the shit starts flying...

the rest of it doesn't mean squat, imo...

a1na2
12-20-2007, 09:03 PM
Hmmm....it got awfully quiet in here after this post.

I'm the best thread killer on the board.

Iowanian
12-20-2007, 09:19 PM
Don't spend a year on here using the "hey boys, I think I'd like to eat pink taco" and then pretend you're unbiased in a thread like this. You're not taking moral high ground, you're feeling personally attacked, Sandra Jillhart.

You're right. I'm intolerant of intolerance. And up until now, my posts have been fair and you won't convince me otherwise. How awful of me to come in and try and defend a group of people who are looked down upon for their sexuality. Horror of horrors!!! .

Count Zarth
12-20-2007, 11:36 PM
Only the butch ones.

Nightfyre
12-21-2007, 12:08 AM
You assume that that is the only place that they are sexually active.

Have you ever been propositioned by a gay in a military setting? If you haven't then you can maintain your belief that what they do never has any impact on your life.

I had to deal with sailors that worked for me that had been approached by homosexuals. It was both male and female as well as transgender types.
Everyone wants to beliefe that their activities is never in sight but that is a wrong assumption.

Live the way you wish, believe they way you wish. I just hope that someday the truth of their activities not having an impact on you changes. I'd be interested to see how you respond.
How did homosexuals impact their life anymore than say, a heterosexual impacted others' lives in a similar fashion? :shrug:

KCJohnny
12-21-2007, 12:41 AM
This is a stupid poll to post amomg you civilain liberal wussies.

Real combat troopers know that homosexuality has no place in a combat formation. If people who prefer anal sex want to join, they join the support troops, but not front line infantry. If you want to be a trigger-puller, you join the men-only infantry. The infantry requires real men to kill other men. Queers can hide out in the rear echelon and fake the funk. Real Soldiers know the deal.

Phobia
12-21-2007, 12:48 AM
This is a stupid poll to post amomg you civilain liberal wussies.

Real combat troopers know that homosexuality has no place in a combat formation. If people who prefer anal sex want to join, they join the support troops, but not front line infantry. If you want to be a trigger-puller, you join the men-only infantry. The infantry requires real men to kill other men. Queers can hide out in the rear echelon and fake the funk. Real Soldiers know the deal.
Thank you Johnny Phelps.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-21-2007, 12:48 AM
Everyone on here, including Duck Dog, has the right to their opinion. I, and others, also have the right to investigate the logic behind that opinion and what informs and/or created it.

When I see what he has posted, I see a staggering amount of ignorance. His opinions are basically entirely comprised of caricatures of gay men and bespeak of a complete absence of any form of experience in actually dealing with people of different orientations.

If that weren't the case, why would he offer up such ridiculous generalities as his "points", that are essentially straw men of gay behavior?

So with that having been said, it seems quite acceptable for someone to take him to task for an opinion bred of ignorance and intolerance. Claiming that "teh liberals" are the intellectual gestapo is a moronic and futile attempt at dodging the issue(s) at hand, especialy when the accused party can't articulate the reasoning behind their prejudice.

The funny thing about this thread is that it's the "Alpha Males", the gesticulating wildasses, who act the most afraid of that which they do not know.

--HJ

Eagerly awaiting a "commie f@ggot asseater" response.