PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Obama to seek repeal of Don't ask, Don't tell tonight


BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 05:27 PM
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Obama to call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, adviser says

By Laurie Ure, CNN Pentagon Producer

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

NEW: Obama to ask for repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' in State of the Union speech
Military policy prohibits openly gays and lesbians from serving
Former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has called for the policy's repeal
House Minority Leader John Boehner does not support ending the policy
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama will ask Congress Wednesday night to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving in, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod told CNN.
The request will be included in the president's State of the Union address, Axelrod said.

The issue has been a source of contention for heavy hitters on both sides of the issue, who are lining up for a fight.
In a message to Pentagon leadership, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it's time to repeal the law.

"As a nation built on the principal of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger more cohesive military," said Shalikashvili. His letter was sent out Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, who supports repealing the policy.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, flatly disagreed with the idea of ending it.

"When it comes to 'don't ask don't tell,' frankly, I think it's worked very well. And we just ought to leave it alone," he said to reporters Wednesday morning.

The policy prohibits openly gay men and women from serving in the U.S. armed forces (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Armed_Forces_Activities). The policy bans military recruiters or authorities from asking about an individual's sexual orientation, but also prohibits a service member from revealing that he or she is gay.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, who told reporters on Monday that the president would discuss the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in his speech, supports ending the practice, but wants to go about it carefully.

Levin said he did not have any details about what the president would say.

"If we do this in a way which isn't sensitive ... we could have exactly the opposite effect of what I hope will be the case -- which is to change the policy," he said Monday.
Levin said the committee plans to hold hearings on the issue in early February, although the hearing may be with outside experts -- delaying a hearing with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, that had originally been promised, CNN was told by a congressional source.

Obama campaigned on the promise that he would repeal the law in his first year of office. Speaking to the gay (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Gay_and_Lesbian_Relationships) rights group Human Rights Campaign, in October, Obama admitted that "our progress may be taking longer than we like," but he insisted his administration was still on track to overturn the policy.

"Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach," he said.

Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell deflected repeated questions about the policy at Wednesday's Pentagon briefing, directing reporters to take their questions to the White House.

"We continue to work on this problem," said Morrell. "But I'm not going to get into it with more specificity than that."
CNN's Ed Hornick contributed to this report.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--Article End--><!--Bibliography Goes Here-->
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#cccccc></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!--Bibliography End--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=font-cn></TD></TR><TR><TD class=font-cn>Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/27/obama.gays.military/index.html?hpt=T1



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 05:31 PM
Great. Another dumbass Democrat POTUS is going to watch his administration be massively distracted and undermined by a policy that is really just not worht the effort. As if there is a massive line of gays and lesbians that are forming up to join the armed forces IF ONLY they would change their policy. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, you give the Republicans all kinds of talking points, rile up their base, and piss off 99% of the military for very, VERY little benefit. It's just f'n stupid.

Direckshun
01-27-2010, 05:32 PM
About f*cking time.

God damn.

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 05:32 PM
Thanks, Barry.

Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate...even at your own detriment.

I love this administration. I couldn't do any more damage to the liberal agenda from the outside if I tried.

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 05:39 PM
Great. Another dumbass Democrat POTUS is going to watch his administration be massively distracted and undermined by a policy that is really just not worht the effort. As if there is a massive line of gays and lesbians that are forming up to join the armed forces IF ONLY they would change their policy. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, you give the Republicans all kinds of talking points, rile up their base, and piss off 99% of the military for very, VERY little benefit. It's just f'n stupid.all that may be true but its still the right thing to do.

like I've said before, I don't have nor have I ever had any gay friends or family. But, as far as I'm concerned what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my, the government or society's business.

Donger
01-27-2010, 05:40 PM
LMAO

What a f*cking joke.

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2010, 05:41 PM
all that may be true but its still the right thing to do.

like I've said before, I don't have nor have I ever had any gay friends or family. But, as far as I'm concerned what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my, the government or society's business.

Do guys in the military get their own bedrooms these days?

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 05:45 PM
Do guys in the military get their own bedrooms these days?I don't think 2 guys are going to be giving each other head in the shower. jeeezzz.

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 06:02 PM
I don't think 2 guys are going to be giving each other head in the shower. jeeezzz.

It will create problems.

At the risk of denegrating the average soldier, there is a very strong 'machismo' among your average enlisted men. While I don't think there would be sanctioned gay beatings every Thursday, I do believe it would create added tension. Additional tension/stressors in a military environment is to be avoided at all costs.

Ultimately when you join the military, you leave 'you' at the door. You are now more concerned with your country and your fellow soldier. If that means sacrificing a small part (or even a large part) of who you are in the name of harmony within the ranks, so be it.

The military isn't about you. It isn't about your rights, it isn't about your proclivities. To make your sexual orientation an issue is placing your need to express yourself over the harmony of the unit; that's not what our serviceman can/should be doing. In fact, doing so shows me a person that is not willing to make the necessary sacrifices to be an effective soldier.

If I can't ask you to set aside this one part of your being while in the service, can I really expect you to later risk your life for it?

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 06:09 PM
It will create problems.
Same thing was said about women and blacks serving alongside the white men. Would create tensions, make the military less efficient etc etc. That worked out okay. this will too. They are already serving. Let them do it out in the open.

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 06:10 PM
SecDef Gates and Admiral Mullen support this IIRC

On Wednesday morning, another effort was made to preemptively move Obama's hand. General John Shalikashvili, who helped implemente "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton presidency, released a statement calling for a full repeal.Studies have shown that three-quarters of service members say they are personally comfortable around gays and lesbians. Two-thirds say they already know or suspect gay people in their units. This raises important questions about the assertion that openly gay service would impair the military. In fact, it shows that gays and lesbians in the military have already been accepted by the average soldier.
Additionally, at least twenty-five foreign militaries now let gays serve openly, including our closest ally, Britain. Although we lead rather than follow these militaries, there is no evidence suggesting that our troops cannot effectively carry out the same policy change as those nations did.

In 2008, a bi-partisan panel of retired General and Flag officers carefully reviewed this matter for a year and concluded that repeal would not pose a risk to the military's high standards of morale, discipline, cohesion, recruitment, or retention.

Interestingly, an increasing number of active-duty officers who have reviewed "don't ask, don't tell" indicate that the policy, not the presence of gays, is detrimental to the armed forces' need for skilled personnel who are able to serve without compromising their integrity and, by extension, that of the armed forces as a whole.

As a nation built on the principle of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger more cohesive military. It is time to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow our military leaders to create policy that holds our service members to a single standard of conduct and discipline

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 06:12 PM
all that may be true but its still the right thing to do.

like I've said before, I don't have nor have I ever had any gay friends or family. But, as far as I'm concerned what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my, the government or society's business.

That's nice. Right thing to do for the 250 people that it affects, and the hordes behind them that want the RIGHT to join the military, but would never actually use that right.

It's nice to be idealistic, but I value being practical better. In 25 years, maybe 50, nobody will bat an eye over ending the policy. Instead it's likely to set off a massive brouhaha for an already-damaged adminsitration that is having trouble getting IMPORTANT initiatives through, despite overwhelming majorities in both houses.

Basically, the Democrats are trying to put out a brush fire, and now they're reaching for a can of gasoline. It is f'n stupid.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 06:12 PM
I don't think 2 guys are going to be giving each other head in the shower. jeeezzz.

Have you ever lived with a gay and seen their lifestyle? I have.
You better think twice about that.

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 06:14 PM
I'll caveat this with -- if you get the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff to sign off on a letter approving this recommendation, then I'm immediately on board with it. God knows a Republican would never do it as it would hurt them politically unless the military was SCREAMING for a change in policy.

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 06:15 PM
Have you ever lived with a gay and seen their lifestyle? I have.
You better think twice about that.

Yeah, uhh, I doubt hetero's are allowed to do their business in "public" in the military either, so whatever rules apply them them will also apply to G/L.

Mr. Kotter
01-27-2010, 06:24 PM
Great. Another dumbass Democrat POTUS is going to watch his administration be massively distracted and undermined by a policy that is really just not worht the effort. As if there is a massive line of gays and lesbians that are forming up to join the armed forces IF ONLY they would change their policy. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, you give the Republicans all kinds of talking points, rile up their base, and piss off 99% of the military for very, VERY little benefit. It's just f'n stupid.

Yep. The cost/benefit calculus in this, at this point in time at least, makes this a stupid decision. The political capital that he will be sacrificing could be quite costly, long term. Ask Bill Clinton how he felt about pursuing the whole gays in the military campaign....after he read the results of the 1994 election.

Taco John
01-27-2010, 06:31 PM
He's trying to rally his own base, and this is a good issue to do it on. This is the Democrats "abortion." Tickle this button, and the base will clap you on the back. It's like a political shot of coke.

dirk digler
01-27-2010, 06:39 PM
Yep. The cost/benefit calculus in this, at this point in time at least, makes this a stupid decision. The political capital that he will be sacrificing could be quite costly, long term. Ask Bill Clinton how he felt about pursuing the whole gays in the military campaign....after he read the results of the 1994 election.

As TJ stated he is throwing the left a bone but he did campaign on this issue. Also from what I read they are going to say it is a priority but not a top priority. Jobs jobs and jobs along with the economy are going to be his focus.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 06:39 PM
I hope he does it. I hope it destroys his administration. And I hope that eventually the military and the American people accept it and get over the initial turbulence.

It should be an interesting show. :popcorn:

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2010, 06:43 PM
As TJ stated he is throwing the left a bone but he did campaign on this issue. Also from what I read they are going to say it is a priority but not a top priority. Jobs jobs and jobs along with the economy are going to be his focus.

"What kinda 'jobs' you talkin' 'bout?" he said in his best Jerry Reed from Smokey and the Bandit voice.

Saul Good
01-27-2010, 06:53 PM
I hope he does it. I hope it destroys his administration. And I hope that eventually the military and the American people accept it and get over the initial turbulence.

It should be an interesting show. :popcorn:

This is exactly how I feel. It's my best case scenario. I think that gays should be allowed to serve, and I can't stand Obama. If he draws a bunch of flak for this, it's a win win.

Mr. Kotter
01-27-2010, 06:58 PM
As TJ stated he is throwing the left a bone but he did campaign on this issue. Also from what I read they are going to say it is a priority but not a top priority. Jobs jobs and jobs along with the economy are going to be his focus.

Maybe...but it alienates a whole lot of moderate/independent types.

You know just like the ones who cost the Dems their Senate seat in MA last week.... :shake:

patteeu
01-27-2010, 07:09 PM
This is exactly how I feel. It's my best case scenario. I think that gays should be allowed to serve, and I can't stand Obama. If he draws a bunch of flak for this, it's a win win.

You're pretty darned smart.

Amnorix
01-27-2010, 07:22 PM
You're pretty darned smart.

You're both a tad hypocritical about all this, I note. "I approve of his position but I hope taking it destroys him." Yeesh.

Norman Einstein
01-27-2010, 07:49 PM
Do guys in the military get their own bedrooms these days?

Yeah, with 21 other guys.

Norman Einstein
01-27-2010, 07:50 PM
I don't think 2 guys are going to be giving each other head in the shower. jeeezzz.

Is this the voice of experience or are you just speculating on the activites of the gay community?

DJ's left nut
01-27-2010, 07:50 PM
Same thing was said about women and blacks serving alongside the white men. Would create tensions, make the military less efficient etc etc. That worked out okay. this will too. They are already serving. Let them do it out in the open.

I would argue that women in the military remains a detriment; the number of sexual assault issues that arise confirm it. As do the 'marine matress' stories and any number of other things that come from it. IIRC, women still aren't allowed in combat roles for this very reason. You don't introduce sexual tension to the military if you can avoid it.

And racism isn't primal. Blacks being allowed in the military initially was an issue, but because it is a primarily societal thing rather than a primal urge (i.e. sex) it went by the wayside as people became more accepting. The issue of sex and/or homosexuality will not go away.

Finally, you can't exactly keep black and/or female to yourself. There's no getting around your gender or your race. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is something that is of concern only to you and what you do when you aren't a soldier. As such, if there is a chance it can create disharmony (and I really can't believe you don't think it would), you keep it under wraps.

Like I said - putting your orientation out there is putting yourself ahead of your task. If you're someone that cares enough about the job at hand to take all steps, including putting your own life on the line, to ensure that it's done, then you're someone that doesn't need to put your sexual orientation out in the world for all to see. You'll keep that to yourself because the job is more likely to get done that way.

You're a soldier first, you're 'you' second.

Norman Einstein
01-27-2010, 08:00 PM
Yeah, uhh, I doubt hetero's are allowed to do their business in "public" in the military either, so whatever rules apply them them will also apply to G/L.

You are straying off the story line here. The string goes back to rooming alone and gays having sex in the shower. Last time I talked to anyone in the Army they are bunked 2-3 to a room with a common shower when they are lower ranked. As they advance in rank the accomodations are changed to allow more privacy.

If you had 2 men in a room sharing a shower there is no reason to believe that if they were gay they would not engage in the shower. That is presuming they were a "couple" while living in the same room.

Changing the policy puts gays at risk moreso than they are now. With don't ask and don't tell they seem to be able to serve without any problem unless they "tell" someone and a basher gets them alone. Being openly gay and legal in the military will not make life better for them unless they make the military gay only. The gay bashers will not go away just because they are legally serving. Life will be tougher for them. Sure there will be penalities for harming or killing a gay, but that will just put the burden of concealing their activities, speaking of the bashers, so as to not get caught.

I personally don't care if they allow them or not, they are in all walks of life and if you don't believe that you are hiding from reality.

BigRedChief
01-27-2010, 10:24 PM
I hope he does it. I hope it destroys his administration. And I hope that eventually the military and the American people accept it and get over the initial turbulence.

It should be an interesting show. :popcorn:
It's the right thing to do. Regardless of the political consequenses.

Reaper16
01-27-2010, 10:31 PM
I was watching on PBS and their cameras caught a military official all bewildered and perplexed when Obama brought this up during the speech. It was hilarious.

Also, fucking finally.

Dottefan
01-27-2010, 11:59 PM
YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT YOU FUCKING HOMOPHOBS...WELL SEE THE SIG.

Dottefan
01-28-2010, 12:00 AM
I hope he does it. I hope it destroys his administration. And I hope that eventually the military and the American people accept it and get over the initial turbulence.

It should be an interesting show. :popcorn:

I Hope you follow my advice in my sig. :D

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 12:17 AM
I read in the Skip Towne thread that Dottefan is an alt. Anyone know who it is/was?

DJ's left nut
01-28-2010, 12:20 AM
I read in the Skip Towne thread that Dottefan is an alt. Anyone know who it is/was?

I dunno, but I'd start with anyone that spells their name incorrectly.

Like I said, this guy is a ringing endorsement of the Republican Party. With guys like him supporting the Dems, they really don't even need me around pointing out their shortcomings.

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 12:23 AM
I dunno, but I'd start with anyone that spells their name incorrectly.

Like I said, this guy is a ringing endorsement of the Republican Party. With guys like him supporting the Dems, they really don't even need me around pointing out their shortcomings.

:thumb:

Jenson71
01-28-2010, 12:27 AM
Why don't we have a separate division of gay soldiers like the Sacred Band of Thebes? Gay lovers fighting side by side are fierce.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 12:43 AM
I was watching on PBS and their cameras caught a military official all bewildered and perplexed when Obama brought this up during the speech. It was hilarious.

Also, ****ing finally.

Do you never learn? Just because Obama says it's going to happen, doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. If it did, Gitmo would be closed, we'd be at 8% unemployment, and gays would already be flaming their way through bootie camp.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 12:44 AM
I Hope you follow my advice in my sig. :D

Surprisingly negative? Really? Is your sense of propriety so off-kilter that you thought that speech was good? You're really under a spell, dude. :)

patteeu
01-28-2010, 12:46 AM
I read in the Skip Towne thread that Dottefan is an alt. Anyone know who it is/was?

My money is on Kotter in (half) black face.

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 12:52 AM
My money is on Kotter in (half) black face.

And half in the bag.

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 07:47 AM
hey neo-cons, Can you tell me how you are in favor of the government dictating personal liberty's to a small portion of the population what they can and can't do that the other 90% of their fellow citizens can do? You don't see a major principle of personal liberty in this issue?

patteeu
01-28-2010, 08:44 AM
hey neo-cons, Can you tell me how you are in favor of the government dictating personal liberty's to a small portion of the population what they can and can't do that the other 90% of their fellow citizens can do? You don't see a major principle of personal liberty in this issue?

What do you mean?

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 08:48 AM
Do you never learn? Just because Obama says it's going to happen, doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. If it did, Gitmo would be closed, we'd be at 8% unemployment, and gays would already be flaming their way through bootie camp.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I_iH1GhM2j8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I_iH1GhM2j8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 08:49 AM
hey neo-cons, Can you tell me how you are in favor of the government dictating personal liberty's to a small portion of the population what they can and can't do that the other 90% of their fellow citizens can do? You don't see a major principle of personal liberty in this issue?

There's a lot of people the US military discriminates against. It's the most discriminating of all. It has to be. There's no liberty in the US military. That's a contradiction in terms.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 08:52 AM
If B.O. was sincere about this, he could sign an Executive Order today. Oh thats right, it's just more empty rhetoric from the empty suit.

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 09:03 AM
What do you mean?I think its discrimination to not allow gays to serve openly in the military, not allow them to marry. We are discriminatin against a specfic group of fellow citizens to deny them the rights other citizens have. What if this was Bapitists? Red heads? or any other group? How is it okay to do this discrimination against "the gays" because we don't like their lifestyle? Understand it?

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 09:05 AM
I think its discrimination to not allow gays to serve openly in the military, not allow them to marry. We are discriminatin against a specfic group of fellow citizens to deny them the rights other citizens have. What if this was Bapitists? Red heads? or any other group? How is it okay to do this discrimination against "the gays" because we don't like their lifestyle? Understand it?

So will the EOEC make you check sexual preference on a job application?

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 09:15 AM
I think its discrimination to not allow gays to serve openly in the military, not allow them to marry. We are discriminatin against a specfic group of fellow citizens to deny them the rights other citizens have. What if this was Bapitists? Red heads? or any other group? How is it okay to do this discrimination against "the gays" because we don't like their lifestyle? Understand it?

One lives a military lifestyle in the military. It's not the private sector.
So the marriage argument doesn't apply here. That's not what we're discussing. The gays aren't entitled to practice their lifestyle the military and that goes for anyone else.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 09:17 AM
I think its discrimination to not allow gays to serve openly in the military, not allow them to marry. We are discriminatin against a specfic group of fellow citizens to deny them the rights other citizens have. What if this was Bapitists? Red heads? or any other group? How is it okay to do this discrimination against "the gays" because we don't like their lifestyle? Understand it?

There is no right to serve in the military or to have your marriage endorsed by the state. Besides, gays are allowed to serve in the military today.

What if we had rules in the military that forbid Baptists from proselytizing whenever they felt like it? We do. We have all kinds of rules designed to maintain order and discipline. If you want to be a free spirit and do your thing, don't join the military.

Having said that, I'm in favor of mainstreaming gays in the military. I think it needs to be done carefully and slowly (with lots of lube, so to speak, lol), but it ought to be done. Not because it's a right or even because it's the right thing to do, but instead because there's no reason why gays can't serve side by side with regulars (:Poke: Reaper16) and to exclude them is to ignore a valuable resource. "Don't ask don't tell" over the past decade or two has been a good first step.

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 09:17 AM
One lives a military lifestyle in the military. It's not the private sector.
So the marriage argument doesn't apply here. That's not what we're discussing. The gays aren't entitled to practice their lifestyle the military and that goes for anyone else.
So what makes you think they wouldn't live a "military lifestyle"? You think there are no gays in the military now? What are they currently doing? You think if they were allowed we would see pink sheets in the barracks, guys checking out other guys junk in the shower?

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 09:18 AM
I think its discrimination to not allow gays to serve openly in the military, not allow them to marry. We are discriminatin against a specfic group of fellow citizens to deny them the rights other citizens have.

Of course it's discrimination. Are you against discrimination in all forms, or do you — like every rational being — discriminate all day, every day?

What if this was Bapitists? Red heads? or any other group?

You'd have to give me a rationale for those. I'd listen to your reason before I agreed or disagreed.

How is it okay to do this discrimination against "the gays" because we don't like their lifestyle? Understand it?

You may not agree with the reasons for this particular discrimination, but they have nothing to do with liking or understanding their lifestyle. You already know the reasons. You're simply ascribing childish boundaries to the discussion.

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 09:32 AM
There is no right to serve in the military or to have your marriage endorsed by the state.
I disagree. If Joe and Jane Smith have that right, Jack and Tom have that right.
What if we had rules in the military that forbid Baptists from proselytizing whenever they felt like it? We do. We have all kinds of rules designed to maintain order and discipline. If you want to be a free spirit and do your thing, don't join the military.
I'm sure forbiding Baptists from proselytizing is because of the constitution and speration of church and state.

No one is saying that you get to be some flaming gay sterotype and still serve in the military and do whatever you want? They would have to conform to the exsisting rules just like everyone else.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 09:33 AM
So what makes you think they wouldn't live a "military lifestyle"? You think there are no gays in the military now? What are they currently doing? You think if they were allowed we would see pink sheets in the barracks, guys checking out other guys junk in the shower?

What makes me think that? Look at my earlier post...I've lived with them. Including under the promises they would abide by a certain set of rules out of respect for others. They routinely broke it. Including trying to make me experiment with being gay because—"it's in all of us."

The other reason is their exrtreme level of promiscuity. The average gay male has about 500 partners. ( please note I said "average" gay—not all )
Gay promiscuity has been reported for years by medical doctors et al. I personally witnessed it. They have a hectic necessity for it as in it being a compulsion with rampant cheating on their partners. Even the Kinsey Institute has reported it. A medical doctor from Beth Israel hospital clinical notes from treating them for years and even the NEJ of Medicine has been cited on it. ( not on the net). A gay mag proclaimed that "they" [gays] were the sexual revolution.

Their lifestyle is at odds with the set up in the military imo. It's not discrimination when someone acts differently that could cause problems. It's preservation. It also protects them. I didn't say they could not serve. I talking about billeting etc. I don't even believe women should be mixed with the men or in front line combat either for the same reasons but also due to rape. It does occur. It happened in Iraq.

I understand what your saying just admitting it is one thing....they break the rules it's another. But I see this as another incremental step for tolerance of their lifestyle entering in too....or it's discrimination.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 09:34 AM
I is because of the constitution and speration of church and state.

No such thing.

:rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 09:38 AM
I disagree. If Joe and Jane Smith have that right, Jack and Tom have that right.
It's not a right—at all. Furthermore it's not necessarily discrimination if all are treated equally under the law. Every person in this country has can marry a person of the opposite sex. Gays don't want to or are not compelled to. That's not the fault of the law. They're exercising thier rights. You're advocating special rights.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 09:40 AM
BRC marriage is not a right either. If it were there would be no need to get a liscense for it. A liscense is "permission" to do something. Now it may be that there should not be permission for certain things but there's no precedent that marriage is a fundamental right.

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 09:40 AM
What makes me think that? Look at my earlier post...I've lived with them. Including under the promises they would abide by a certain set of rules out of respect for others. They routinely broke it. Including trying to make me experiment with being gay because—"it's in all of us."

The other reason is their exrtreme level of promiscuity. The average gay male has about 500 partners. ( please not I said "average" gay—not all )
Gay promiscuity has been reported for years by medical doctors et al. I personally witnessed it. They have a hectic necessity for it as in it being a compulsion with rampant cheating on their partners. Even the Kinsey Institute has reported it. A medical doctor from Beth Israel hospital clinical notes from treating them for years and even the NEJ of Medicine has been cited on it. ( not on the net).

Their lifestyle is at odds with the set up in the military imo. It's not discrimination when someone acts differently that could cause problems. It's preservation. It also protects them. I didn't say they could not serve. I talking about billeting etc. I don't even believe women should be mixed with the men or in front line combat either for the same reasons but also due to rape. It does occur. It happened in Iraq.

I understand what your saying just admitting it is one thing....they break the rules it's another. But I see this as another incremental step for tolerance of their lifestyle entering in too....or it's discrimination.Like I said, I have no friends or family that are gay. But, I do know one thing.....history will show that banning gays from marriage and openly serving in the military was wrong.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 09:45 AM
Like I said, I have no friends or family that are gay. But, I do know one thing.....history will show that banning gays from marriage and openly serving in the military was wrong.
In your opinion it's wrong. History shows that societies tolerant of gays still didn't allow them to marry. And I have advocated govt out of marriage as a solution anyway.

But you can't say the are banned anymore than relatives or those not of age are banned. Marriage is defined as between a man and a women. They don't do that or want that. That's exercising their choice. I have gay friends still although I don't live with any now.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 09:50 AM
I disagree. If Joe and Jane Smith have that right, Jack and Tom have that right.

We don't let people over a certain age join. We don't let people who can't pass a physical join. We discriminate along all sorts of lines. Having said that, we don't discriminate along sexual preference lines. In fact, under our current policy, we don't even ask about it. It's not a right though.

I'm sure forbiding Baptists from proselytizing is because of the constitution and speration of church and state.

You're wrong. It has nothing to do with anything like that. We even have Chaplins in the military who do preach. They just don't do it at times or in places where it isn't allowed.

No one is saying that you get to be some flaming gay sterotype and still serve in the military and do whatever you want? They would have to conform to the exsisting rules just like everyone else.

Why are you willing to discriminate against gays who want to flame? Straights who want to be all serious get to do what they want. :shrug:

The answer is that we restrict some types of behavior but not others on the basis of what our military commanders (or in the case of "don't ask don't tell" our political leaders) think is good for order and discipline. That's as it should be. Personally, I think we can have good order and discipline even if gays are out of the closet in a professional way, but reasonable people can disagree on this. At least at first, you could expect some breakdowns of discipline when the DADT rule is lifted. How long that period of transition would be is something that remains to be seen, but it's not a non-issue.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 09:53 AM
What makes me think that? Look at my earlier post...I've lived with them. Including under the promises they would abide by a certain set of rules out of respect for others. They routinely broke it. Including trying to make me experiment with being gay because—"it's in all of us."

The other reason is their exrtreme level of promiscuity. The average gay male has about 500 partners. ( please note I said "average" gay—not all )
Gay promiscuity has been reported for years by medical doctors et al. I personally witnessed it. They have a hectic necessity for it as in it being a compulsion with rampant cheating on their partners. Even the Kinsey Institute has reported it. A medical doctor from Beth Israel hospital clinical notes from treating them for years and even the NEJ of Medicine has been cited on it. ( not on the net). A gay mag proclaimed that "they" [gays] were the sexual revolution.

Their lifestyle is at odds with the set up in the military imo. It's not discrimination when someone acts differently that could cause problems. It's preservation. It also protects them. I didn't say they could not serve. I talking about billeting etc. I don't even believe women should be mixed with the men or in front line combat either for the same reasons but also due to rape. It does occur. It happened in Iraq.

I understand what your saying just admitting it is one thing....they break the rules it's another. But I see this as another incremental step for tolerance of their lifestyle entering in too....or it's discrimination.

I think there's a kernel of truth in what you're saying here, but you've gone way over the top. There's no way that the average gay male has 500 partners. I believe there is more promiscuity in the gay male community, but nothing like what you make it out to be. You must have lived with some outliers.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 09:54 AM
You're not dealing with reality BRC. So what is some people are uncomfortable with gay behavior. When you work with people you have to deal with what you got in terms of attitudes to make things work. If most straights are uncomfortable with it that can affect moral. So a way to make it work may mean some contraints. Otherwise more things will enter the picture to deal with. Sorry that's just the reality.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 10:00 AM
I think there's a kernel of truth in what you're saying here, but you've gone way over the top. There's no way that the average gay male has 500 partners. I believe there is more promiscuity in the gay male community, but nothing like what you make it out to be. You must have lived with some outliers.

Once again you try to ascribe things to me in a personal manner despite what I posted. That's another strawman of yours.

Those numbers are based on clinical statistics and studies. And no I don't have the time to dig those out of an old file that I have no clue where I filed it. I referenced them in a manner as best I could for a quick post.

So no, I did not get that number from any outliers. Those studies and gay mags match exactly what I saw. If I recall it was 75% with over 500 and there was 25% that was way under or little to no sex life. It's less with the lesbians but they were still higher too. So being male has something to do with the high rate amoung gay men.

Furthermore, I've talked with enough other people who noticed the same. Extremely promiscuous. Even in so called gay "marriages" they just have that as a legal set-up for benefits but routinely practice open relationships with multiple partners as a group on average. STDs are rampant in the gay community.

Hang out in a gay male bar and you'll see it too. You have no experience with this at all. Many of them brag about such exploits. It is a characteristic of that group.
So you are wrong!

Bootlegged
01-28-2010, 10:02 AM
ooooo

http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaGay.jpg

Reaper16
01-28-2010, 10:05 AM
Once again you try to ascribe things to me in a personal manner despite what I posted. That's another strawman of yours.

Those numbers are based on clinical statistics and studies. And no I don't have the time to dig those out of an old file that I have no clue where I filed it. I referenced them in a manner as best I could for a quick post.

So no, I did not get that number from any outliers. Those studies and gay mags match exactly what I saw. If I recall it was 75% with over 500 and there was 25% that was way under or little to no sex life. It's less with the lesbians but they were still higher too. So being male has something to do with the high rate amoung gay men.

Furthermore, I've talked with enough other people who noticed the same. Extremely promiscuous. Even in so called gay "marriages" they just have that as a legal set-up for benefits but routinely practice open relationships with multiple partners as a group on average. STDs are rampant in the gay community.

Hang out in a gay male bar and you'll see it too. You have no experience with this at all. Many of them brag about such exploits. It is a characteristic of that group.
So you are wrong!
LMAO

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 10:07 AM
Once again you try to ascribe things to me in a personal manner despite what I posted. That's another strawman of yours.

Those numbers are based on clinical statistics and studies. And no I don't have the time to dig those out of an old file that I have no clue where I filed it. I referenced them in a manner as best I could for a quick post.

So no, I did not get that number from any outliers. Those studies and gay mags match exactly what I saw. If I recall it was 75% with over 500 and there was 25% that was way under or little to no sex life. It's less with the lesbians but they were still higher too. So being male has something to do with the high rate amoung gay men.

Furthermore, I've talked with enough other people who noticed the same. Extremely promiscuous. Even in so called gay "marriages" they just have that as a legal set-up for benefits but routinely practice open relationships with multiple partners as a group on average. STDs are rampant in the gay community.

Hang out in a gay male bar and you'll see it too. You have no experience with this at all. Many of them brag about such exploits. It is a characteristic of that group.
So you are wrong!
I think your opinion is not the norm and colored from your experience with gays. I dont think I would have any issues with telling a gay, thanks but no thanks just as I would a women if asked.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 10:17 AM
I think your opinion is not the norm and colored from your experience with gays. I dont think I would have any issues with telling a gay, thanks but no thanks just as I would a women if asked.

It's not just my experience with gays. It's a fact and backed up by medical cases.
Gay Doctor's findings (http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/bnclapdoctor.htm)

Sonnabend was, by this time, one of the world's top experts on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). There was an epidemic of VD spreading through the gay community, and his work at the gay clinic had given him good community contacts.

Sonnabend published his results in the Lancet in early 1982. The last sentence in his piece said that promiscuity was suppressing the immune system. Just before the article came out, he turned to one of his patients and told him: "If you don't stop ****ing around, you'll die."


Then Sonnabend wrote the same warning in the New York Native. He said that the fast-lane gay lifestyle was killing people. He said they were going to have to stop being so promiscuous, that having hundreds if not thousands of sex partners was making them very sick and very vulnerable.

It was a message the gay community didn't want to hear at that time. After fighting for the freedom to be themselves, they didn't want to hear about restraint. Indeed, for a large part of the male gay community, freedom was not simply the ability to love other men without legal or social restraint; it was defined in terms of sexual promiscuity. For many, to be young and gay and liberated in New York City meant having anonymous sex with two, three, four partners a night, night after night, year after year, STD after STD.

Sonnabend began to preach to his practice. He told them to stop screwing dozens of men every week; to stop the crazy stuff, the fisting, the rimming, all the oral-anal sexual practices. He advocated condoms long before "safe sex" became fashionable. Condoms would reduce most of the venereal diseases afflicting his patients, both the old-fashioned ones and this new epidemic.

Sonnabend's Native article and his personal message to his patients provoked a tremendous storm of protest. He was perceived as agreeing with the most right-wing, religious moralizers of the new Reagan era in America, of blaming this new "gay disease" this "gay cancer" on the gays themselves. The victim was to blame, or at least the victim's lifestyle. In truth, Sonnabend was telling them they had some responsibility for this new epidemic.

For his efforts, Sonnabend was denounced by virtually all of the gay community's leaders. He was vilified in the community itself. It seemed that everyone, except perhaps the thirty patients who participated in the "sluts" research, was angry with Sonnabend. He couldn't quite understand it. It was simply logic. He had done an experiment and proved a point. He was trying to save their lives. Not only was the uproar baffling, it caused Sonnabend tremendous pain. His own community was turning on him. It was a betrayal.

There's more studies and sources too. This here is just another example of the same vilification that Dr Semmelweis ran into....only having his work accepted 100 years later. Meanwhile more people died.

KC native
01-28-2010, 10:25 AM
Don't ask don't tell is fucking stupid. We know there are gays in the military already. The people in the military know. It's stupid that someone's career can be ended for speaking about their sexual orientation.

*Personal Anecdote* A friend that I played sports with and went to school with is in the Army and he's gay. It would be a terrible loss for our country if he were forced out because he works in intelligence.

Cannibal
01-28-2010, 10:26 AM
I thought Libertarians were generally pro-choice and pro-gay rights (i.e., it's none of the governments business). I don't think BEP is a true libertarian. She has proven time and again that she advocates government intervention on social issues.

I also think she has absolutely no clue about gay people's lifestyles. My sister is gay and has always had monogomous relationships like everyone else. I also worked with a gay dude as well and from what I gather his relationships were similar.

I will admit that there are gay people that want to fuck everything that moves, but guess what, there are also heterosexuals that want to fuck everything that moves. It's probably about the same for both orientations.

I highly, highly doubt that a gay dude that wants to fuck everything that moves is the type that wants to join the military in the first place.

KC native
01-28-2010, 10:28 AM
I thought Libertarians were generally pro-choice and pro-gay rights (i.e., it's none of the governments business). I don't think BEP is a true libertarian. She has proven time and again that she advocates government intervention on social issues.

I also think she has absolutely no clue about gay people's lifestyles. My sister is gay and has always had monogomous relationships like everyone else. I also worked with a gay dude as well and from what I gather his relationships were similar.

I will admit that there are gay people that want to **** everything that moves, but guess what, there are also heterosexuals that want to **** everything that moves. It's probably about the same for both orientations.

I highly, highly doubt that a gay dude that wants to **** everything that moves is the type that wants to join the military in the first place.

BEP is just batshit crazy.

On the bolded part, that's how my friend is.

banyon
01-28-2010, 10:32 AM
Great. Another dumbass Democrat POTUS is going to watch his administration be massively distracted and undermined by a policy that is really just not worht the effort. As if there is a massive line of gays and lesbians that are forming up to join the armed forces IF ONLY they would change their policy. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, you give the Republicans all kinds of talking points, rile up their base, and piss off 99% of the military for very, VERY little benefit. It's just f'n stupid.

Agree with this 1000%

patteeu
01-28-2010, 10:42 AM
Once again you try to ascribe things to me in a personal manner despite what I posted. That's another strawman of yours.

Those numbers are based on clinical statistics and studies. And no I don't have the time to dig those out of an old file that I have no clue where I filed it. I referenced them in a manner as best I could for a quick post.

So no, I did not get that number from any outliers. Those studies and gay mags match exactly what I saw. If I recall it was 75% with over 500 and there was 25% that was way under or little to no sex life. It's less with the lesbians but they were still higher too. So being male has something to do with the high rate amoung gay men.

Furthermore, I've talked with enough other people who noticed the same. Extremely promiscuous. Even in so called gay "marriages" they just have that as a legal set-up for benefits but routinely practice open relationships with multiple partners as a group on average. STDs are rampant in the gay community.

Hang out in a gay male bar and you'll see it too. You have no experience with this at all. Many of them brag about such exploits. It is a characteristic of that group.
So you are wrong!

I don't care where you think you got those numbers, they are laughable. Maybe they came from some fake study intent on demonizing gays that you couldn't distinguish from good social science or maybe they're just your imagination, but it doesn't take a Sexual Behavior Scientist to recognize that they aren't even in the ballpark of reality.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 10:47 AM
I thought Libertarians were generally pro-choice and pro-gay rights (i.e., it's none of the governments business). I don't think BEP is a true libertarian. She has proven time and again that she advocates government intervention on social issues.

I also think she has absolutely no clue about gay people's lifestyles. My sister is gay and has always had monogomous relationships like everyone else. I also worked with a gay dude as well and from what I gather his relationships were similar.

I will admit that there are gay people that want to **** everything that moves, but guess what, there are also heterosexuals that want to **** everything that moves. It's probably about the same for both orientations.

I highly, highly doubt that a gay dude that wants to **** everything that moves is the type that wants to join the military in the first place.

I've denied being a libertarian on this board regularly. Pay attention. Reading is a fundamental.

I've said I was a conservative. I am libertarian on certain things which would be gay marriage. But that has to be made into a private institution and not a govt one. So I advocate govt out of marriage as a solution.

That being said certain things are not rights. There is no right to serve in the military period. Many are called not all get chosen. It is the most discriminatory agency in govt. That is a fact.

Now where have I said a gay could not serve? Nowhere. Openly gay relationships in the military do present certain problems and things have to be set up to prevent that.

And someone can be a libertarian and still see FACTS such as the hi level of promiscuity in any group or individual. A libertarian would just say it's not the govts business if someone is or not. I can agree with that. But it's still a FACT...and that has nothing to do with being a libertarian. Besides even if it was an opinion a libertarian allows other libertarians to have that opinion about another group or individual. It would not regulate or control that either...on either side. You do not understand libertarianism.
Or that there is left libertarian and right libertarian. They're different.

Now, whether or not I am a libertarian has nothing to do with the argument here. I am relying on medical science. You are just deflecting off and discussing the poster....the way patteeu does 90% of the time. Epic FAIL = logical fallacy.

banyon
01-28-2010, 10:50 AM
BEP is accurate in this instance as she has carefully avoided describing herself as libertarian. She has used the term "paleo-conservative" regularly.

On non-social matters, of course, the distinction is meaningless.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 10:51 AM
I don't care where you think you got those numbers, they are laughable. Maybe they came from some fake study intent on demonizing gays that you couldn't distinguish from good social science or maybe they're just your imagination, but it doesn't take a Sexual Behavior Scientist to recognize that they aren't even in the ballpark of reality.

Prove otherwise instead of just opining about it.
It's not a fake study it's one of many with the same results. This one is by a gay doctor.
It also backs up my own experience with hundreds of them as well as the experience of others.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 10:51 AM
It's not just my experience with gays. It's a fact and backed up by medical cases.
Gay Doctor's findings (http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/bnclapdoctor.htm)








There's more studies and sources too. This here is just another example of the same vilification that Dr Semmelweis ran into....only having his work accepted 100 years later. Meanwhile more people died.

You realize, don't you, that the circa 1980 San Francisco bathhouse scene and the equivalent "fast-lane gay lifestyle" scenes in places like New York and southern Florida aren't the entire gay universe, right? Remarks about a study of 30 "sluts" aren't going to carry you very far in your effort to support your ridiculous claim that the AVERAGE gay male has 500 sexual partners.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 10:55 AM
You realize, don't you, that the circa 1980 San Francisco bathhouse scene and the equivalent "fast-lane gay lifestyle" scenes in places like New York and southern Florida aren't the entire gay universe, right? Remarks about a study of 30 "sluts" aren't going to carry you very far in your effort to support your ridiculous claim that the AVERAGE gay male has 500 sexual partners.
What part of on "average" do you not understand?

Gays gravitate toward their own special communities too. They prefer that. In fact they hire each other too which gays have claimed as an advantage for them. There are whole businesses with gays. In fact one had to cancel their businesses health insurance coverage due to the skyrocketing health claims. It got too expensive.

I await your proof in the meantime instead of your emotional reaction and opinion.

banyon
01-28-2010, 10:59 AM
LOL. "I await your proof [of your criticism that my claim in my fringe website is ridiculous]."

Not: Here's a reply directly to the point made in your critique (that the sample is small, biased, and disreputable, pretty dated, and transparently against common sense and experience).

patteeu
01-28-2010, 10:59 AM
I thought Libertarians were generally pro-choice and pro-gay rights (i.e., it's none of the governments business). I don't think BEP is a true libertarian. She has proven time and again that she advocates government intervention on social issues.

I also think she has absolutely no clue about gay people's lifestyles. My sister is gay and has always had monogomous relationships like everyone else. I also worked with a gay dude as well and from what I gather his relationships were similar.

I will admit that there are gay people that want to **** everything that moves, but guess what, there are also heterosexuals that want to **** everything that moves. It's probably about the same for both orientations.

I highly, highly doubt that a gay dude that wants to **** everything that moves is the type that wants to join the military in the first place.

I don't think it's about the same. I think BEP is right that there's a greater degree of promiscuity among gay males, but it's nothing like she describes. This is another case of her misapplying something she misread. She reads about a study of 30 gay male sluts and thinks it applies to the average gay male. She makes these mistakes all the time.

I think one of the reasons for a higher degree of promiscuity among gay males is that they're all males. I'm convinced that hetero males would aspire to similar levels of promiscuity if women gave it up as freely as many men do. I think another factor is the taboo nature of homosexuality and the fact that society doesn't honor committed, monogamous gay partnerships the way we do with hetero partnerships (ie marriages). That's one of the reasons I think it would be good for society to extend marriage to gay couples.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 11:01 AM
Where's your proof those disagree with me even if just on the order of magnitude.

BTW their relationships are, on average of short duration too. Not that would have anything to do with berthing and showering in the military.

Cannibal
01-28-2010, 11:03 AM
I don't think it's about the same. I think BEP is right that there's a greater degree of promiscuity among gay males, but it's nothing like she describes. This is another case of her misapplying something she misread. She reads about a study of 30 gay male sluts and thinks it applies to the average gay male. She makes these mistakes all the time.

I think one of the reasons for a higher degree of promiscuity among gay males is that they're all males. I'm convinced that hetero males would aspire to similar levels of promiscuity if women gave it up as freely as many men do. I think another factor is the taboo nature of homosexuality and the fact that society doesn't honor committed, monogamous gay partnerships the way we do with hetero partnerships (ie marriages). That's one of the reasons I think it would be good for society to extend marriage to gay couples.

The promiscuity among gay males I believe resides in the younger generation. As they age, they settle down just like everyone else regardless of whether they are allowed to marry are not.

vailpass
01-28-2010, 11:10 AM
The promiscuity among gay males I believe resides in the younger generation. As they age, they settle down just like everyone else regardless of whether they are allowed to marry are not.

What does this mean? The ass can only take so much pounding before it has to slow down or blow out?

patteeu
01-28-2010, 11:11 AM
Where's your proof those disagree with me even if just on the order of magnitude.

BTW their relationships are, on average of short duration too. Not that would have anything to do with berthing and showering in the military.

My proof is in your failure and inability to back up your claim.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 11:15 AM
My proof is in your failure and inability to back up your claim.

Prove your claim that it's otherwise.

Just one source for now as I did. Note that I cited other sources too.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 11:16 AM
The promiscuity among gay males I believe resides in the younger generation. As they age, they settle down just like everyone else regardless of whether they are allowed to marry are not.

No it's not the younger generation. Provide evidence of your claim.
What did Rock Hudson die of?

patteeu
01-28-2010, 11:16 AM
The promiscuity among gay males I believe resides in the younger generation. As they age, they settle down just like everyone else regardless of whether they are allowed to marry are not.

I agree that everyone settles down with age. I disagree that marriage is irrelevant. Marriage has a taming effect on men, generally speaking. Marriage encourages men to settle down earlier, and perhaps to a greater degree, than they otherwise would if marriage didn't exist, IMO.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 11:17 AM
You realize, don't you, that the circa 1980 San Francisco bathhouse scene and the equivalent "fast-lane gay lifestyle" scenes in places like New York and southern Florida aren't the entire gay universe, right? Remarks about a study of 30 "sluts" aren't going to carry you very far in your effort to support your ridiculous claim that the AVERAGE gay male has 500 sexual partners.

You do realize those bathhouses still exist right?

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 11:23 AM
.Despite the impression given by the media, the actual number of homosexuals is quite small.Essentially all surveys show the number of homosexuals to be only 1-3% of the population.

•According to Statistics Canada (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/040615/dq040615b-eng.htm), 1.3% of men and 0.7% of women considered themselves to be homosexual.

• Recent studies in many different countries show that the prevalence of homosexuality is less than 3% of the population: In a US study, the prevalence of homosexuality was estimated to be 2.1% of men and 1.5% of women. (Gilman SE. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 933-9.) Another US study estimated the prevalence of the adult lesbian population to be 1.87% (Aaron DJ et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57: 207-9.) In a recent British survey, 2.8% of men were classified as homosexuals (Mercer CH et al. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8). In a recent Dutch study 2.8% of men and 1.4% women had had same-sex partners. (Sandfort TG et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.) In a New Zealand study, 2.8% of young adults were classified as homosexual or bisexual. (Fergusson DM et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 876-80)

Cannibal
01-28-2010, 11:27 AM
What does this mean? The ass can only take so much pounding before it has to slow down or blow out?

ROFL Up yours.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 11:28 AM
A different study plus another more up to date:

A. There are very high rates of sexual promiscuity among the homosexual population with short duration of even 'committed' relationships.

• A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).[ this is a different study]

• Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many 'lesbian' women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)

• Far higher rates of promiscuity are observed even within 'committed' gay relationships than in heterosexual marriage: In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.) Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)

• In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)

• The high rates of promiscuity are not surprising: Gay authors admit that 'gay liberation was founded … on a sexual brotherhood of promiscuity.' (Rotello G. Sexual Ecology. New York 1998)

Warning: This site is religious. I don't agree with all aspects of this link but am just using the numbers on the above as another survey. But it is done by two doctors: JOHN SHEA, M.D., JOHN WILSON, M.D., ET. AL.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 11:32 AM
Bug Chasing in the Gay Community

Bug parties (or "conversion parties") are gatherings at which gift givers and bug chasers meet to have sex, in order that the HIV negative men may catch the disease.[6] In the late 90's Paul Morris a gay film pornographer and owner of the Treasure Island Media studio was the first to actively promote this vampiric like cult which promoted the active seroconversion lifestyle, often referred to as "breeding" or being "bred". Subsequently other studios such as Hot Desert Knights also joined in the movement soon after. Bugchasers are also referred to as bugcatchers. The films they produce become more graphic and prolific in participants every year, with some bugcatchers/bugchasers receiving more than 60 ejaculations from hiv+ men. These films treat semen as vampires treat blood in Interview with a vampire by ann rice.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing

NOTE: there are gays that despise these gays and don't condone it.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 11:39 AM
Well I wouldn't call saying this thing called promiscuity is a fear. Perhaps for some. I think it's just something that is. Some people refuse to confront facts:

Jay and Young are both gay activists. The question of partiality might therefore immediately present itself. y persons of all ages and from all walks of life (and Christian denominations) surveyed on various aspects of their lifestyle and sub-culture.

Professor of Sociology and gay author Laud Humphreys insists, "all of us who are gay will find ourselves here" (cited in book jacket). Author Jane Rule asserts "This is not just a book of statistics; it is a book of voices, our voices." (ibid.)

Let us see, therefore, what the gay community admits about itself and its practices, admissions it apparently is little concerned to transmit to the straight mainstream.

Promiscuity
Accusations of promiscuity had long been levelled at the gay community. As Jay and Young's research indicates, these fears were justified. According to the study, 35% of respondents admitted to having had 100 or more different sexual partners throughout their lives (p.249); 18% admitted to having had between seven and 60 such partners in the previous month alone (p. 248), and 18% to having had three or more in the previous week (p. 248). 38% said the longest relationship they had ever had did not last longer than a year (p. 340). For lesbians the average relationship lasted 38 months (p. 302).

In answer to the question "how often do you go home to have sex with someone you have just met?" a total of 50% answered under the "always," "very frequently" or "somewhat frequently category" (p. 251). Jay and Young sum up, "Clearly, then, the one-night stand is within the experience of an overwhelming majority of gay men" (p. 252).

Furthermore, 77% of respondents had taken part in "threesomes" at least once, while 59% had taken part in orgies or group sex (p. 587). 38% had partaken of sadomasochistic practices at least once and 23% had practiced urination in association with sex (p. 555). 24% admitted to having been paid for sex (p. 260).

Nor are gay leaders shy to publicize their feelings in this regard. In the classic gay work Gay Manifesto, author Carl Wittman said that sadomasochism, "when consensual can be described as a highly artistic endeavor, a ballet the constraints of which are the thresholds of pain and pleasure" (cited on p. 554). Celebrated gay poet Allen Ginsberg commented favorably on orgies that, "It's an important human experience to relate to yourself and others as a hunk of meat sometimes" (pgs. 589-590), and referred to the orgy as "one holy divine yoga of losing ego" (590).

Curiously, Jay and Young appear to have little notion that the above constitutes "promiscuity." According to them, "Where does one draw the line and say that certain people have been promiscuous, and others have not? What value judgment is implied by the term 'promiscuous'? These questions are impossible to answer because they depend on subjective attitudes" (p. 249). [ I disagree. Promiscuity is defined as casual sex.]

They cite gay respondents as saying that, "Promiscuity is a heterosexual concept used to attack us... If you speak in terms of 'sexual freedom' and sharing of sensual experience, it can be a fine thing. I guess it all depends upon motives" (p. 249). Another asserts that, "I have trouble with the word 'promiscuity' because I really do not know what it means. What is the line between infrequent or frequent sex and promiscuity? If I have sex three times a day and am very selective in the choice of mates, am I promiscuous or highly selective and super-horny?" (p. 249)

vailpass
01-28-2010, 11:40 AM
Bug Chasing in the Gay Community

Bug parties (or "conversion parties") are gatherings at which gift givers and bug chasers meet to have sex, in order that the HIV negative men may catch the disease.[6] In the late 90's Paul Morris a gay film pornographer and owner of the Treasure Island Media studio was the first to actively promote this vampiric like cult which promoted the active seroconversion lifestyle, often referred to as "breeding" or being "bred". Subsequently other studios such as Hot Desert Knights also joined in the movement soon after. Bugchasers are also referred to as bugcatchers. The films they produce become more graphic and prolific in participants every year, with some bugcatchers/bugchasers receiving more than 60 ejaculations from hiv+ men. These films treat semen as vampires treat blood in Interview with a vampire by ann rice.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing

NOTE: there are gays that despise these gays and don't condone it.

:Lin:

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 11:41 AM
Why would someone want HIV?

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 11:50 AM
Why would someone want HIV?

Ever hear of such a thing as a "death wish"? Well, such things do exist in people.

Pick up a gay mag and see the other things they like to do....like pee on each other etc.

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 11:50 AM
Why would someone want HIV?

It might be somewhat akin to those in the nonhearing community who are opposed to cochlear implants for those who could be aided by such a treatment. Maybe it's a solidarity thing. Maybe I'm full of crap.

Assuredly I'm full of crap.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 12:00 PM
Prove your claim that it's otherwise.

Just one source for now as I did. Note that I cited other sources too.

Your source demonstrated the flaw in your analysis. We might as well call it my source since it did nothing to substantiate your claim and, in fact, undermined it.

But just to show you that there are contrary indicators out there, I'll link you to two sources that suggest the number is far lower than your 500.

1. Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/13/AR2007091301458.html) citing a study that suggests that there isn't that big of a difference between promiscuity of homosexuals and heterosexuals:

In fact, for straight men and women to experience an epidemic of HIV infection as widespread as that of gay men, they would have to have an average of almost five unprotected sexual partners every year -- almost three times the rate of the average gay male, Goodreau and Golden found.

Note that that means the average gay male has less than two unprotected sexual partners per year. For your 500 number to be right, protected sex must be nearly universal in the homosexual community.

2. An analysis on the Inductivist blog (http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2009/05/mean-lifetime-sexual-partners-for-gay.html) of data compiled in something called The General Social Survey, which asked 4,964 people about their sexual orientation, came up with these results:

Heterosexual men (N = 2,993)
Mean lifetime partners 17.71
Percent with only one lifetime partner 20.2


Gay men (N = 80)
Mean lifetime partners 46.05
Percent with only one lifetime partner 15.0

Neither of these are offered as definitive studies, but they're both just as informative as the "sluts" study that you are relying upon. Now it's back to you to actually offer the first bit of evidence to back up what you claimed. Don't waste your time, just admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 12:01 PM
Pick up a gay mag and see the other things they like to do....like pee on each other etc.I don't think thats a gay thing. I've seen tubgirl.:eek:

patteeu
01-28-2010, 12:02 PM
You do realize those bathhouses still exist right?

Of course. What does that have to do with it? Bathhouse behavior isn't average behavior.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 12:05 PM
Of course. What does that have to do with it? Bathhouse behavior isn't average behavior.
They're frequented by gay men more. So its relevant to their behavior. But the study didn't say it was taken from bathhouses but from the gay community.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 12:07 PM
Your source demonstrated the flaw in your analysis. We might as well call it my source since it did nothing to substantiate your claim and, in fact, undermined it.
In your opinion. But a blog? Lol!

Sorry but I've also seen it by the hundreds. You're not going to change your mind anyway so I am wasting my time.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 12:08 PM
I don't think thats a gay thing. I've seen tubgirl.:eek:

It's more common. The sexual revolution has expanded things in general though.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 12:09 PM
Well I wouldn't call saying this thing called promiscuity is a fear. Perhaps for some. I think it's just something that is. Some people refuse to confront facts:

According to the study, 35% of respondents admitted to having had 100 or more different sexual partners throughout their lives



Let's assume this study is definitive. Can you imagine how high the numbers have to be for the 35% to make up for the 65% who have had fewer than 100 partners in their lifetime? Even if every one of the 65% had 99, the 35% would have to average 1245.

If we were talking about income and someone said that 35% of workers make more than $100k while 65% make less, wouldn't it be hard to believe that the AVERAGE salary was $500k? Use some common sense, BEP. Or absent that, find something that doesn't make a mockery of your claim.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 12:11 PM
They're frequented by gay men more. So its relevant to their behavior. But the study didn't say it was taken from bathhouses but from the gay community.

A narrow group of the gay community that it described as "sluts". A group that you want to pretend is AVERAGE.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 12:14 PM
Meanwhile you rely on:

I limited the analysis to men ages 45 and over since the number of different sexual partners has slowed down by that age.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 12:17 PM
A narrow group of the gay community that it described as "sluts". A group that you want to pretend is AVERAGE.

Strawman. No one labeled sluts as a category. You did extrapolated that on your own.
I said the average gay. I did not say average overall. Now what that does that mean here it means half are above and half are below that. Then again I cited percentages for how many were over that and how many were below that. Then there was another study with different percentages as above and below. It was by medical personel and other by gays or gay doctor. You relied on a blog--------------> Epic FAIL!

Reaper16
01-28-2010, 12:40 PM
If there are any homosexuals reading this thread they are either laughing or crying. Either reaction is appropriate.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 12:43 PM
Meanwhile you rely on:

I'm not relying on anything other than the fact that your assertion is ridiculous and you've been unable to back it up. I specifically said that I wasn't offering those counter-examples as definitive statements. Your reading comprehension is pathetic as usual.

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 12:43 PM
Where is BRC? I thought he was going to be here to take his due flak for being totally wrong in his assessment of his cut and paste article.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 12:47 PM
patteeu if you think I am going to continue to engage your excessively argumentive and aggressive personality on this think again. I'm not. I made my case. It backs my observations.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 12:48 PM
Strawman. No one labeled sluts as a category. You did extrapolated that on your own.
I said the average gay. I did not say average overall. Now what that does that mean here it means half are above and half are below that. Then again I cited percentages for how many were over that and how many were below that. Then there was another study with different percentages as above and below. It was by medical personel and other by gays or gay doctor. You relied on a blog--------------> Epic FAIL!

LOL, what a moron. It was YOUR source that called it "'sluts' research". Your research didn't even purport to be a general finding about gay men, it was narrowly focused on an extremely promiscuous subset, but you're apparently too stupid to understand that.

patteeu
01-28-2010, 12:50 PM
patteeu if you think I am going to continue to engage your excessively argumentive and aggressive personality on this think again. I'm not. I made my case. It backs my observations.

Yes, speaking of epic fail, you made your case alright. LMAO

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 12:53 PM
That's not what I meant. And you know that. Just saying I've presented it. Not that you accepted it. You just like to argue for the sake of it.

Just another http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/5467/strawman.gif

Keep spinning including the kcnaive touch with the smiley.

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 12:54 PM
Come on you guys, can't we all just get along?

Cannibal
01-28-2010, 01:06 PM
Of course there is a subset of perverted gay people. There is also a subset of perverted hetero's. It doesn't prove anything positive or negative of regular gay people or regular heterosexual people.

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 01:08 PM
Of course there is a subset of perverted gay people. There is also a subset of perverted hetero's. It doesn't prove anything positive or negative of regular gay people or regular heterosexual people.

There is no such rule here cannibus, don't ask don't tell, at least don't tell us any more than you've already divulged. We don't care about your lifestyle.

vailpass
01-28-2010, 01:09 PM
If there are any homosexuals reading this thread they are either laughing or crying. Either reaction is appropriate.

Which are you doing?

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 01:15 PM
Of course there is a subset of perverted gay people. There is also a subset of perverted hetero's. It doesn't prove anything positive or negative of regular gay people or regular heterosexual people.

Promiscuity increased due to the sexual revolution. So of course it's affected hetero's. This is a strawman though because what I originally posted was that the average gay male was far more promiscuous than a hetero male.

Reaper16
01-28-2010, 01:34 PM
Which are you doing?
Whining, it seems.

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 01:50 PM
Serious question......

So will a gay person in the military still shower at the same facility/time as his hetero fellow soldiers?

Cannibal
01-28-2010, 01:53 PM
Promiscuity increased due to the sexual revolution. So of course it's affected hetero's. This is a strawman though because what I originally posted was that the average gay male was far more promiscuous than a hetero male.

Shall we link you some hetero's engaging in scatology, bukkake, similated rape, torture or mutilation? It's out there. Maybe you and Tommyboy can watch some movies together.

Cannibal
01-28-2010, 01:55 PM
Of course beastiality is probably more up Tommyboy's street.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 01:58 PM
I see both sides of the issue on this except for BEP's stat that gay guys have sex with 500 guys.

JFC imagine how big your asshole would be after that. It would be like opening up a fire hydrant every time you bend over.

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 02:44 PM
Shall we link you some hetero's engaging in scatology, bukkake, similated rape, torture or mutilation? It's out there. Maybe you and Tommyboy can watch some movies together.

It looks like you and tommy are butthole buddies. NTTIAWWT

You seem to have a line on all of the deviant sexual behavior, remember the clap can be cured, syphylis and herpes lasts for ever and AIDS kills. Abstain so you don't share with others.

Cannibal
01-28-2010, 02:52 PM
It looks like you and tommy are butthole buddies. NTTIAWWT

You seem to have a line on all of the deviant sexual behavior, remember the clap can be cured, syphylis and herpes lasts for ever and AIDS kills. Abstain so you don't share with others.

You're Tommyboy dummy.

Iowanian
01-28-2010, 02:56 PM
I guess the Marines can now put fear into our enemies with the threat of sending the Pink Brigade on a flanking mission around the Rear.

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 02:57 PM
Serious question......

So will a gay person in the military still shower at the same facility/time as his hetero fellow soldiers?
?

Iowanian
01-28-2010, 03:02 PM
I don't think 2 guys are going to be giving each other head in the shower. jeeezzz.

In training, starting in basics during cold weather, there are times when sleeping bags are zipped together and shared for body heat, in Iraq, by brother currently lives in a tin can with 4 other guys. Group showers, barracks...there are plenty of times when I think a straight soldier would be well within normal thinking to be uncomfortable with a gay bunkmate.

I forgot, their thoughts don't really count.


That said, there are plenty of truck driver looking women with flattops in the military that function well, and I'm sure plenty of quietly gay soldiers serve as well as any other.

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 03:05 PM
In training, starting in basics during cold weather, there are times when sleeping bags are zipped together and shared for body heat, in Iraq, by brother currently lives in a tin can with 4 other guys. Group showers, barracks...there are plenty of times when I think a straight soldier would be well within normal thinking to be uncomfortable with a gay bunkmate.

I forgot, their thoughts don't really count.

The fact that a dude is gay doesn't mean he's seeking to do it with every hetero guy he runs across.

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 03:07 PM
The fact that a dude is gay doesn't mean he's seeking to do it with every hetero guy he runs across.

So does that mean a straight soldier should have to put up with taking showers, etc with a gay guy?

KC native
01-28-2010, 03:07 PM
In training, starting in basics during cold weather, there are times when sleeping bags are zipped together and shared for body heat, in Iraq, by brother currently lives in a tin can with 4 other guys. Group showers, barracks...there are plenty of times when I think a straight soldier would be well within normal thinking to be uncomfortable with a gay bunkmate.

I forgot, their thoughts don't really count.


That said, there are plenty of truck driver looking women with flattops in the military that function well, and I'm sure plenty of quietly gay soldiers serve as well as any other.

http://granitegrok.com/pix/moth-flame.jpg

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 03:12 PM
So does that mean a straight soldier should have to put up with taking showers, etc with a gay guy?

They may or may not have to put up with it now as things stand today. Who knows with DADT?

I don't see a problem. I have no proof that my college roommate was gay, but everyone suspected that was the case. We all took communal showers in that dorm regardless of his sexual orientation.

Had to smell nice for the ladies, you know.

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 03:17 PM
You're Tommyboy dummy.

You are as dumb as you look.

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 03:28 PM
They may or may not have to put up with it now as things stand today. Who knows with DADT?

I don't see a problem. I have no proof that my college roommate was gay, but everyone suspected that was the case. We all took communal showers in that dorm regardless of his sexual orientation.

Had to smell nice for the ladies, you know.

Right, today they don't know.

My point is should a straight guy be forced to shower with a gay guy? I'm just wondering what rights issue will come of this decision.

Iowanian
01-28-2010, 03:30 PM
I'm going to start wearing less flattering pants so kcn will stop following me so close. Its just strange having someone hang onto your belt loops and panting.



The rights of the supermajority don't matter, its about the 1 guy in the room that might be offended. its acceptable when its 2500.

KC native
01-28-2010, 03:32 PM
I'm going to start wearing less flattering pants so kcn will stop following me so close. Its just strange having someone hang onto your belt loops and panting.



The rights of the supermajority don't matter, its about the 1 guy in the room that might be offended. its acceptable when its 2500.

I posted in this thread long before you did. I'm surprised it took you so long to get here.

Norman Einstein
01-28-2010, 03:33 PM
I'm going to start wearing less flattering pants so kcn will stop following me so close. Its just strange having someone hang onto your belt loops and panting.



The rights of the supermajority don't matter, its about the 1 guy in the room that might be offended. its acceptable when its 2500.

Don't say anything that can be construed as racist, KCN will be all over you like white on rice.

Iowanian
01-28-2010, 03:44 PM
I posted in this thread long before you did. I'm surprised it took you so long to get here.

I hadn't said ANYTHING to you, and no, I am not interested in that game of Tummy Sticks you're asking about.


Sorry to keep you waiting in the outhouse, I was either off perpetuating the sweatshop abuse of a herd of Mayans for scaring people about 2012.

KC native
01-28-2010, 03:47 PM
I hadn't said ANYTHING to you, and no, I am not interested in that game of Tummy Sticks you're asking about.

I just find it highly amusing that a gay thread gets started and you come in and started talking about getting it in the rear after the thread is pretty much dead. Like a moth to a flame ROFL

Iowanian
01-28-2010, 03:49 PM
I find it funnier that you spent your entire day waiting in the thread for that possibility, kcgoatse.

KC native
01-28-2010, 03:51 PM
I find it funnier that you spent your entire day waiting in the thread for that possibility.

I wasn't waiting. I've been quite active today. I don't have much to do at work for the rest of the week and I'm not trying to volunteer for anything else. So sorry to disappoint you on that.

vailpass
01-28-2010, 04:18 PM
I wasn't waiting. I've been quite active today. I don't have much to do at work for the rest of the week and I'm not trying to volunteer for anything else. So sorry to disappoint you on that.

The Brown Pivot shows it's face.

stevieray
01-28-2010, 04:22 PM
I find it funnier that you spent your entire day waiting in the thread for that possibility, kcgoatse.
like a moth to a flame...coinkydink?

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 05:11 PM
Right, today they don't know.

My point is should a straight guy be forced to shower with a gay guy? I'm just wondering what rights issue will come of this decision.

I don't see why not. As others have noted on this issue, the individual leaves a lot of his rights and preferences by the door on his way into the military.

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 07:03 PM
I see both sides of the issue on this except for BEP's stat that gay guys have sex with 500 guys.
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/5467/strawman.gifStrawman!
I didn't say "gay guys" as a generality. I said the average gay guy with percentages for how many and the number of men include none having any sex. What part of the word "average" do you not understand? Or are you spinning like Pat?

BucEyedPea
01-28-2010, 07:07 PM
Shall we link you some hetero's engaging in scatology, bukkake, similated rape, torture or mutilation? It's out there. Maybe you and Tommyboy can watch some movies together.

That would do nothing to disprove the stats I put up. It would be a red herring. Otherwise, feel free to so long as you cite the average, with a percentage breakdown. You're re-acting emotionally now. Guess you got nuthin'!

Cannibal
01-28-2010, 09:52 PM
That would do nothing to disprove the stats I put up. It would be a red herring. Otherwise, feel free to so long as you cite the average, with a percentage breakdown. You're re-acting emotionally now. Guess you got nuthin'!

You react emotionally on the majority of your posts. Guess you normally "Got nuthin!"

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 10:11 PM
I don't see why not. As others have noted on this issue, the individual leaves a lot of his rights and preferences by the door on his way into the military.

Than we can abolish all segregated showers in the military for budget reasons. Women soldiers should be forced to shower with men because they left their rights at the door.

ClevelandBronco
01-28-2010, 11:00 PM
Than we can abolish all segregated showers in the military for budget reasons. Women soldiers should be forced to shower with men because they left their rights at the door.

I think men showering with men and women showering with women is worth the extra water.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2010, 07:04 AM
You react emotionally on the majority of your posts. Guess you normally "Got nuthin!"

I post far more posts with an actual argument and substance and then I do some posts that aren't. Check it out. You don't. You've only had ad hominem in here toward me.
That's an admission of being unable to articulate a position.

Inspector
01-29-2010, 11:50 AM
Gay guys in the military can be put to good use styling everyone's hair and picking out the curtains for the tents.

There is an upside to everything.

ClevelandBronco
01-29-2010, 11:54 AM
I post far more posts with an actual argument and substance and then I do some posts that aren't. Check it out. You don't. You've only had ad hominem in here toward me.
That's an admission of being unable to articulate a position.

What kind of idiot would say something like that? :):):)