Going off topic with the religious discussion from page 11 and onwards will net you a 2 day ban at least. Stay on topic pretty please, with minerals on top.
The United States' ban on homosexuals in the military is finally officially repealed as of tomorrow, September 20th. In a statement made 59 days ago, President Obama stated that the American military is ready for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The military service branches were given 60 days to prepare for the enactment of the repeal. The bill had been signed into law 17 years ago by a then-newly elected President Clinton.
The repeal has been in the works for quite some time, giving the military branches time to prepare and provide education to service members.
One important thing to be noted is that federal benefits to same-sex couples are still restricted by the so-called "defense of marriage act." Those benefits include base housing, health insurance, certain death benefits, legal counseling and access to base commissaries and other stores. This is but a step in the right direction for equality in the military services.
By officially repealing this policy, the United States joins approximately 42 other countries with non-discriminatory policies on gays in the military. List of countries which allow gays to serve openly: + Show Spoiler +
Albania Argentina Australia Austria Bahamas Belgium Bermuda Canada Republic of China Colombia Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Republic of Ireland Israel Italy Japan Lithuania Luxembourg Malta The Netherlands New Zealand Norway Peru Philippines Poland Romania Russia Serbia Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Thailand United Kingdom Uruguay
While this repeal does not affect me personally as I have no desire of joining the military, I sincerely hope that those currently in the service and those considering joining may do so without fear of discrimination based upon who they are.
This is presumably a scan of the official notice declaring the repeal, to be released tomorrow. + Show Spoiler +
Please keep all discussion on topic, and not about whether or not the USA should be fighting the wars it is, etc. Start your own thread on that should you choose.
EDIT: Apparently HBO is airing a documentary entitled "The Strange History of Don't Ask, Don't Tell" tonight at midnight and Tuesday night at 8 pm. Here's the trailer for it: HBO link
It says a lot about American culture that a policy was controversial in 1993 because it was too accepting of gay people and is now being repealed because it's considered too restrictive toward them.
On September 20 2011 07:43 Duban wrote: It says a lot about American culture that a policy that was so controversial because it was too accepting of gay people is being repealed because it's now considered too restrictive toward them.
Quite the improvement it seems, if nothing else. ;D
On September 20 2011 07:43 Duban wrote: It says a lot about American culture that a policy that was so controversial because it was too accepting of gay people is being repealed because it's now considered too restrictive toward them.
Could reiterate what it says about American culture plz?
On September 20 2011 07:43 Duban wrote: It says a lot about American culture that a policy that was so controversial because it was too accepting of gay people is being repealed because it's now considered too restrictive toward them.
Could reiterate what it says about American culture plz?
It says that collectively americans are becoming more tolerant on social issues.
On September 20 2011 07:43 Duban wrote: It says a lot about American culture that a policy that was so controversial because it was too accepting of gay people is being repealed because it's now considered too restrictive toward them.
Could reiterate what it says about American culture plz?
It says that collectively americans are becoming more tolerant on social issues.
Oh that makes more sense. Then again, you have to understand that American culture is more assimilation than say Canadian culture is tries to accept diversity (especially when there are two major provinces of differing laws and language).
On September 20 2011 07:43 Duban wrote: It says a lot about American culture that a policy that was so controversial because it was too accepting of gay people is being repealed because it's now considered too restrictive toward them.
Could reiterate what it says about American culture plz?
In 1993, the policy was enacted. According to the cultural norms of a mear 18 years ago it was a big deal that homosexual people could legally join the US Military so long as they stayed closeted. Now, just a shot time later, the same law is being repealed because according to our cultural norms the fact that they have to remain closeted is too restrictive. It says a lot about the shift in American's acceptance of homosexuality.
Honestly, it's nice that openly gay people can serve in the military but I think it's an even bigger cultural victory than it is a legal one.
On September 20 2011 07:43 Duban wrote: It says a lot about American culture that a policy that was so controversial because it was too accepting of gay people is being repealed because it's now considered too restrictive toward them.
Could reiterate what it says about American culture plz?
In 1993, the policy was enacted. According to the cultural norms of a mear 18 years ago it was a big deal that homosexual people could legally join the US Military so long as they stayed closeted. Now, just a shot time later, the same law is being repealed because according to our cultural norms the fact that they have to remain closeted is too restrictive. It says a lot about the shift in American's acceptance of homosexuality.
Honestly, it's nice that openly gay people can serve in the military but I think it's an even bigger cultural victory than it is a legal one.
I definitely agree. Cultural victories, at this point, are probably at least if not MORE important than legal ones.
The guy in the room across from me in the barracks was gay, and literally everyone who knew him knew he was gay, and it didn't really cause any problems so long as he didn't explicitly state it. It certainly didn't affect anything like "unit cohesion" or any of that BS, so I suspect repealing DADT will have practically no affect on the armed services.
Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
This topic gave me hope for American culture and society.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
this is why the general forum cant have nice things.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
It obviously leads to that because it gives homosexuals equal rights and opportunities since regardless of the sexual orientation, they are still Americans and people.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
What has marriage to do with anything?
I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway...
I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't?
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
What has marriage to do with anything?
I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway...
That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage.
Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
It's people like you who make me want to leave this country.
Anyway, glad to hear this is official, good stuff!
On September 20 2011 08:13 SpamMeLots wrote: This is a sad day for America. Then again allowing homosexuals into the military as long as they kept quiet wasn't a good day either. It should be common sense to anyone that, though you wouldn't want them anywhere, the military is one of the last places you'd want homosexuals. And as the results of the survey of the military shows, the members of the military overwhelmingly oppose allowing open homosexuals among their ranks.
The American Psychological Association (APA) classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, then declassified it as such. Today the APA is on its way to declassify pedophilia as a mental disorder, condone it, and make it normal and accepted, following the path of homosexuality.
Will it be 18 years before pedophiles are protected, or are we already there?
Source on de-classifying pedophilia as a mental disorder? Or were you listening to some batshit crazy "American Family Association" pundit spewing his mouth on something that he knows exactly nothing about. The APA has never entertained such ideas ever, and why does every person always equate homosexuality with pedophilia? Do some research before making your ridiculous, outlandish, incredibly ignorant claims, pleasel.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
This topic gave me hope for American culture and society.
Then you killed it.
How did you do it so effortlessly?
Gay marriage will be legalized eventually, it's inevitable. The only reason it isn't atm is the older generation's stigma against homosexuals due to religious reasons.
The younger generation is far more tolerant and accepting. As our generation gets older, I don't see them changing their minds to suddenly disapproving of gay marriage, and thus assuming the next generation after us doesn't have a wild swing in the opposite direction, I just don't see how it won't happen in my lifetime.
On September 20 2011 08:13 SpamMeLots wrote: This is a sad day for America. Then again allowing homosexuals into the military as long as they kept quiet wasn't a good day either. It should be common sense to anyone that, though you wouldn't want them anywhere, the military is one of the last places you'd want homosexuals. And as the results of the survey of the military shows, the members of the military overwhelmingly oppose allowing open homosexuals among their ranks.
The American Psychological Association (APA) classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, then declassified it as such. Today the APA is on its way to declassify pedophilia as a mental disorder, condone it, and make it normal and accepted, following the path of homosexuality.
Will it be 18 years before pedophiles are protected, or are we already there?
Source on de-classifying pedophilia as a mental disorder? Or were you listening to some batshit crazy "American Family Association" pundit spewing his mouth on something that he knows exactly nothing about. The APA has never entertained such ideas ever, and why does every person always equate homosexuality with pedophilia? Do some research before making your ridiculous, outlandish, incredibly ignorant claims, pleasel.
Hell of an amazing first post.
Only anti-homosexual people bring that up, but you're right, it ALWAYS seems to get fucking brought up eventually.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
It's people like you who make me want to leave this country.
Anyway, glad to hear this is official, good stuff!
Why leave? This attitude of intolerance keeps diminishing over the years, soon enough same sex marriages will be recognized by the government. Any way, that someone is allowed to say something like that, as ignorant and bigoted as it is, is the main reason I'm interested in staying here.
On September 20 2011 08:13 SpamMeLots wrote: This is a sad day for America. Then again allowing homosexuals into the military as long as they kept quiet wasn't a good day either. It should be common sense to anyone that, though you wouldn't want them anywhere, the military is one of the last places you'd want homosexuals. And as the results of the survey of the military shows, the members of the military overwhelmingly oppose allowing open homosexuals among their ranks.
The American Psychological Association (APA) classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, then declassified it as such. Today the APA is on its way to declassify pedophilia as a mental disorder, condone it, and make it normal and accepted, following the path of homosexuality.
Will it be 18 years before pedophiles are protected, or are we already there?
This is an amazing troll post. Its over the top but consistent enough to believe it could be a real opinion. Anyways, I am very happy for this progress. I never saw myself in the military but it is a good thing that future generations of gay men will at least have the option.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
If you give an inch, they'll take a mile. The inch that was given is that someone is a homosexual. There is no such thing as a homosexual. There are only males and females.
On September 20 2011 08:18 FabledIntegral wrote: Gay marriage will be legalized eventually, it's inevitable. The only reason it isn't atm is the older generation's stigma against homosexuals due to religious reasons.
The younger generation is far more tolerant and accepting. As our generation gets older, I don't see them changing their minds to suddenly disapproving of gay marriage, and thus assuming the next generation after us doesn't have a wild swing in the opposite direction, I just don't see how it won't happen in my lifetime.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
This topic gave me hope for American culture and society.
Then you killed it.
How did you do it so effortlessly?
Gay marriage will be legalized eventually, it's inevitable. The only reason it isn't atm is the older generation's stigma against homosexuals due to religious reasons.
The younger generation is far more tolerant and accepting. As our generation gets older, I don't see them changing their minds to suddenly disapproving of gay marriage, and thus assuming the next generation after us doesn't have a wild swing in the opposite direction, I just don't see how it won't happen in my lifetime.
Yep, it's funny actually. Some times it seems like cultural developments like this are mostly just the product of time, and embittered older generations slowly dying off until they're significantly outnumbered. :|
On September 20 2011 08:24 No_Roo wrote: Yep, it's funny actually. Some times it seems like cultural developments like this are mostly just the product of time, and embittered older generations slowly dying off until they're significantly outnumbered.
We're going to become the older generation someday. Younger generations will point at us and laugh because we considered pedophilia a crime or something equally heinous to us in the future.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
It's people like you who make me want to leave this country.
Anyway, glad to hear this is official, good stuff!
Why leave? This attitude of intolerance keeps diminishing over the years, soon enough same sex marriages will be recognized by the government. Any way, that someone is allowed to say something like that, as ignorant and bigoted as it is, is the main reason I'm interested in staying here.
It's more that you don't want to be surrounded by people with opposite mentalities such as yourself. Sure, you want them to be able to say anything they want, but do you want to live in that society? I'd move if I was surrounded by a bunch of intolerant bigots, even if I want them to have the right to be bigoted.
On September 20 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote: It's more that you don't want to be surrounded by people with opposite mentalities such as yourself. Sure, you want them to be able to say anything they want, but do you want to live in that society? I'd move if I was surrounded by a bunch of intolerant bigots, even if I want them to have the right to be bigoted.
Or we could live in Britain or somewhere that speaks English that's a decade ahead of the United States in terms of culture.
I mean, people are allowed to speak their mind in Europe but they seem to be quite a bit more liberal in terms of social policy. No old people campaigning against monokinis and other stuff. And maybe somewhat more intelligent in terms of mathematical and scientific skill.
...well, I guess Germany banned swastika talk. But that's all I know of.
On September 20 2011 08:24 No_Roo wrote: Yep, it's funny actually. Some times it seems like cultural developments like this are mostly just the product of time, and embittered older generations slowly dying off until they're significantly outnumbered.
We're going to become the older generation someday. Younger generations will point at us and laugh because we considered pedophilia a crime or something equally heinous to us in the future.
We all know it's going to happen.
Pedophilia isn't a crime. Molesting/abusing children is.
On September 20 2011 08:27 FabledIntegral wrote: It's more that you don't want to be surrounded by people with opposite mentalities such as yourself. Sure, you want them to be able to say anything they want, but do you want to live in that society? I'd move if I was surrounded by a bunch of intolerant bigots, even if I want them to have the right to be bigoted.
Or we could live in Britain or somewhere that speaks English that's a decade ahead of the United States in terms of culture.
I mean, people are allowed to speak their mind in Europe but they seem to be quite a bit more liberal in terms of social policy. And, if I might add, somewhat more intelligent in terms of mathematical and scientific skill.
Note, I'm a [moderate] libertarian (oxymoron?). I'd hate living with European social policies, it's a byproduct of being an economics major.
This is great but it is really terrible that discrimination based on sexuality is still given only a rational basis test and not given intermediate or strict scrutiny despite that homosexuals fit all the the requirements of a suspect class.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
If you give an inch, they'll take a mile. The inch that was given is that someone is a homosexual. There is no such thing as a homosexual. There are only males and females.
Personally I think you draw the line too far. The only reason homosexual behaviour is tolerated is because heterosexual sex is treated as acceptable. Wtf is with that. It gets in the way of schoolwork, distracts kids, leads to antisocial behaviour such as going out and drinking, partying, drugs and places a huge burden on people with STDs and infants. And you know who ends up picking up the bill for it? The American taxpayer and the family. We should protect families and lower taxes. We wouldn't be in this mess right now if we hadn't ingrained it in our children that it's okay for two consenting adults to do what they like with their bodies through this constant obsession with sex in the media and popular culture. You're right, we should take a stance against it because it's getting out of hand. I say tackle it at the source, full on gender based segregation. All the men should live together, shower together, work together, sleep together and so forth so they never get the idea of sticking their penis in things which, by the slippery slope you proved earlier, will inevitably lead to sticking their penis in each other. You can't have gay sex without sex.
On September 20 2011 08:17 Stereotype wrote: Source on de-classifying pedophilia as a mental disorder? The APA has never entertained such ideas ever, and why does every person always equate homosexuality with pedophilia?
It's not that people equate homosexuality with pedophilia, but it's not uncommon for homosexuals to have been molested as a child. Even George Takei on the Howard Stern show told the story of being molested as a child as how he knew he was a homosexual.
How does that have anything to do with paedophilia? That has to be the worst attempt at sourcing an argument I've ever seen.
don't see why gay people can't serve in the military without people knowing they're gay. Not a big deal but america is joke like that imo (first post summed it up)
but i do see why gay people shouldn't be "allowed" having a religious wedding though. Non religious is fine but wanting religious marriage is a joke when you're trying to force your beliefs on a group of people that don't like you and dont want to change their beliefs. fyi i think religions are a joke as well but i'm not going to tell them what they can or can't believe. thats just rude
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
If you give an inch, they'll take a mile. The inch that was given is that someone is a homosexual. There is no such thing as a homosexual. There are only males and females.
Yep, that's right. There are ONLY males and females. All those other people must not exist, thanks.
I'm always curious if people that spam science wikipedia links actually know anything about what they're linking
what kind of chromosomes/number has nothing to do with defining gender genetically speaking at least. If you have proper SRY you're a man, if you don't you're a woman. Go wikipedia some more :|
On September 20 2011 08:24 No_Roo wrote: Yep, it's funny actually. Some times it seems like cultural developments like this are mostly just the product of time, and embittered older generations slowly dying off until they're significantly outnumbered.
We're going to become the older generation someday. Younger generations will point at us and laugh because we considered pedophilia a crime or something equally heinous to us in the future.
We all know it's going to happen.
I have always felt that the true American tradition is a progression of civil liberties. It should be up to the state to have a good reason to deny rights, not up to the individual making use of them. Just as the myths of minority and female inferiority were dispelled, so too are the myths surrounding the union of two consenting adults of the same gender. These are all matters in which we compensated for our ignorance by propagating lies and half truths with little to no context. While I have no doubt that this progress will continue in new and amazing ways, I think we are accruing such a huge body of evidence and objective data that it is constantly getting harder for us to fool ourselves in this way. If something like pedophilia were a victimless crime that is simply subject to our prejudices, I find it very hard to believe there would not be compelling evidence being advocated somewhere. In short, I think that once we are working our way toward equality for smaller minorities but don't think something so radical as what you suggest is possible.
On September 20 2011 08:29 FabledIntegral wrote: Pedophilia isn't a crime. Molesting/abusing children is.
I don't consider pedophilia in of itself morally reprehensible or criminal but I had to choose something that a majority would agree was morally reprehensible. Most cultural crimes would also fit here, maybe even public nudity. It's quite clear that some (not all) of the stuff we consider wrong and punishable by law will be overturned by younger generations. Just like us with our grandparents.
On September 20 2011 08:29 FabledIntegral wrote: Note, I'm a [moderate] libertarian (oxymoron?). I'd hate living with European social policies, it's a byproduct of being an economics major.
*shrug* Always thought most economists were variants of the neoclassical or Keynesian school, not the monetarist or Austrian school. Not that the liberal/libertarian axes exactly divides down that way, but it's pretty close.
On September 20 2011 08:29 FabledIntegral wrote: Pedophilia isn't a crime. Molesting/abusing children is.
I don't consider pedophilia in of itself morally reprehensible or criminal but I had to choose something that a majority would agree was morally reprehensible. Most cultural crimes would also fit here, maybe even public nudity. It's quite clear that some (not all) of the stuff we consider wrong and punishable by law will be overturned by younger generations. Just like us with our grandparents.
On September 20 2011 08:29 FabledIntegral wrote: Note, I'm a [moderate] libertarian (oxymoron?). I'd hate living with European social policies, it's a byproduct of being an economics major.
*shrug* Always thought most economists were neoclassical or Keynesian, not monetarist or Austrian. Not that the liberal/libertarian divide exactly divides down that way, but it's pretty close.
Most economists are "keynesian" (didn't even know it could be used like that!). Almost all the economics I've learned are keynesian. Hence "moderate" libertarian. It's my own interpretation, so maybe I'm classifying myself incorrectly, never given it too much thought tbh.
On September 20 2011 08:58 FabledIntegral wrote: Most economists are "keynesian" (didn't even know it could be used like that!). Almost all the economics I've learned are keynesian. Hence "moderate" libertarian. It's my own interpretation, so maybe I'm classifying myself incorrectly, never given it too much thought tbh.
If it's "government should stay out of everything except what explicitly causes negative externalities and prioritize LM policy over IS policy", that's the neoclassical school. I think. There's a grey blur between this and Friedman's monetarism, so there could be some overlap. I guess monetarism places a good deal more emphasis on M2 stability.
Just from your previous posts, I think neoclassical's closer to your school.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
If you give an inch, they'll take a mile. The inch that was given is that someone is a homosexual. There is no such thing as a homosexual. There are only males and females.
Yep, that's right. There are ONLY males and females. All those other people must not exist, thanks.
I'm always curious if people that spam wikipedia links actually know anything about what they're linking
what kind of chromosomes/number has nothing to do with defining gender biologically speaking at least. If you have SRY you're a man, if you don't you're a woman. heres a wikilink since you got your degree through wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRY
The whole point of the links is that there are more than 2 sexes. I didn't say anything about being an expert. I doubt somebody like the guy I originally quoted even knows the difference between gender and sex, so just throwing intersex conditions at him served my purpose.
Nobody knows what truly defines biological GENDER. People who have proper SRY but also have intersex conditions and female genitalia may grow up and decide being male feels completely wrong to them.
Transsexualism and studies on transsexuals have called into question how biological gender is determined. There are lots of theories, but none are proven, least of all SRY.
On September 20 2011 08:00 Phyrigian wrote: Better late than never.
My thoughts on the subject exactly.
Now America just has to get working to resolve all the other cultural and legal inequalities for the GLBT community. Unfortunately it will probably be decades until that happens, but baby steps of progress is better than no progress at all.
On September 20 2011 08:46 askTeivospy wrote: don't see why gay people can't serve in the military without people knowing they're gay. Not a big deal but america is joke like that imo (first post summed it up)
but i do see why gay people shouldn't be "allowed" having a religious wedding though. Non religious is fine but wanting religious marriage is a joke when you're trying to force your beliefs on a group of people that don't like you and dont want to change their beliefs. fyi i think religions are a joke as well but i'm not going to tell them what they can or can't believe. thats just rude
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
If you give an inch, they'll take a mile. The inch that was given is that someone is a homosexual. There is no such thing as a homosexual. There are only males and females.
Yep, that's right. There are ONLY males and females. All those other people must not exist, thanks.
I'm always curious if people that spam wikipedia links actually know anything about what they're linking
what kind of chromosomes/number has nothing to do with defining gender genetically speaking at least. If you have proper SRY you're a man, if you don't you're a woman.
Firstly, what are bisexuals/hermaphrodites then? Secondly, if you read some of the articles, you'd notice that the physical and mental lines that make these people male or female (Sexual orientation/capabilities, Testosterone/Estrogen ect.) are greatly different than the norm. What I get from this is that genders are not absolute as you would have us believe.
On September 20 2011 08:58 FabledIntegral wrote: Most economists are "keynesian" (didn't even know it could be used like that!). Almost all the economics I've learned are keynesian. Hence "moderate" libertarian. It's my own interpretation, so maybe I'm classifying myself incorrectly, never given it too much thought tbh.
If it's "government should stay out of everything except what explicitly causes negative externalities and prioritize LM policy over IS policy", that's the neoclassical school. I think. There's a grey blur between this and Friedman's monetarism, so there could be some overlap. I guess monetarism places a good deal more emphasis on M2 stability.
Just from your previous posts, I think neoclassical's closer to your school.
Way off-topic ><
Quite possibly, maybe I should look into it a little more before defining myself in a manner that doesn't even represent me, but agreed, off topic now .
Its amazing that this is finally going to be applied. It takes an eternity to get anything done in washington, its a wonder it ever got through. This is a great day for America
On September 20 2011 08:59 askTeivospy wrote: why are people talking about pedophilia? :|
Because it is an extremely common red herring that anti-gay bigots tend to throw out: implying pedophilia and homosexuality are somehow linked.
Maybe because pedophilia is a sexual inclination which is unacceptable according to the modern standards of society and is classified as a mental disorder, much like homosexuality used to be unacceptable and classified as a disorder until recent history? But I get it, it is fine to hate or discriminate against pedophiles, because what they feel is simply "disgusting" and "unnatural."
On September 20 2011 08:59 askTeivospy wrote: why are people talking about pedophilia? :|
Because it is an extremely common red herring that anti-gay bigots tend to throw out: implying pedophilia and homosexuality are somehow linked.
Maybe because pedophilia is a sexual inclination which is unacceptable according to the modern standards of society and is classified as a mental disorder, much like homosexuality used to be unacceptable and classified as a disorder until recent history? But I get it, it is fine to hate or discriminate against pedophiles, because what they feel is simply "disgusting" and "unnatural."
If you want to discuss whether paedophilia is acceptable or not start another thread. In here it's off topic.
On September 20 2011 08:59 askTeivospy wrote: why are people talking about pedophilia? :|
Because it is an extremely common red herring that anti-gay bigots tend to throw out: implying pedophilia and homosexuality are somehow linked.
Maybe because pedophilia is a sexual inclination which is unacceptable according to the modern standards of society and is classified as a mental disorder, much like homosexuality used to be unacceptable and classified as a disorder until recent history? But I get it, it is fine to hate or discriminate against pedophiles, because what they feel is simply "disgusting" and "unnatural."
Pedophilia is to child molesting what heterosexuality is to rape. Neither pose a danger to society unless they choose to sexually assault another human and both pose a danger if they do. I expect there are thousands, if not millions, of people with pedophilic fantasies living normal lives in normal relationships because they aren't sociopaths. Thoughts are not and should not be illegal, it's what you do that counts.
When I was in the Marines from 2003 to 2008, I noticed a lot of prejudicial remarks towards gays. I imagine this was due to the fact that all of them were closeted, so they couldn't defend themselves the way you can if your religion/gender/race/etc is being criticized.
I expect it'll be an interesting transition, but the military has a handy way of enforcing behavior (zero tolerance for dissent) that should make the transition to a gay-tolerant culture fairly smooth. It's a good thing, and I'm glad we're here. Hopefully DOMA gets repealed next.
On September 20 2011 08:59 askTeivospy wrote: why are people talking about pedophilia? :|
On September 20 2011 09:08 KSMB wrote:
On September 20 2011 08:59 askTeivospy wrote: why are people talking about pedophilia? :|
Because it is an extremely common red herring that anti-gay bigots tend to throw out: implying pedophilia and homosexuality are somehow linked.
Maybe because pedophilia is a sexual inclination which is unacceptable according to the modern standards of society and is classified as a mental disorder, much like homosexuality used to be unacceptable and classified as a disorder until recent history? But I get it, it is fine to hate or discriminate against pedophiles, because what they feel is simply "disgusting" and "unnatural."
Pedophilia is to child molesting what heterosexuality is to rape. Neither pose a danger to society unless they choose to sexually assault another human and both pose a danger if they do. I expect there are thousands, if not millions, of people with pedophilic fantasies living normal lives in normal relationships because they aren't sociopaths. Thoughts are not and should not be illegal, it's what you do that counts.
I agree completely with you. I just find it very hypocritical when people who are preaching about "equal rights" and "tolerance" suddenly get extremely offended when gays are mentioned with pedophiles. Like "don't compare gays with those sickos!" They can't even see the hypocrisy in it lol.
Well, when you say pedophiles I think most people tend to assume that you're talking about practicing pedophiles. If you took the time to explain the difference between inclination and action and how you use the word in that context, I imagine that the "equal rights" and "tolerance" people will tend to agree with you.
On September 20 2011 08:46 askTeivospy wrote: I'm always curious if people that spam science wikipedia links actually know anything about what they're linking
what kind of chromosomes/number has nothing to do with defining gender genetically speaking at least. If you have proper SRY you're a man, if you don't you're a woman. Go wikipedia some more :|
I'm always curious why people are jerks to strangers on the internet.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
It's people like you who make me want to leave this country.
Anyway, glad to hear this is official, good stuff!
Why leave? This attitude of intolerance keeps diminishing over the years, soon enough same sex marriages will be recognized by the government. Any way, that someone is allowed to say something like that, as ignorant and bigoted as it is, is the main reason I'm interested in staying here.
Well yeah, I'm glad that we as a country are moving forward towards legalizing gay marriage, but it's the people who cling onto their non-existent arguments as to why gays don't deserve to get married that make me ashamed to be an American.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
This topic gave me hope for American culture and society.
Then you killed it.
How did you do it so effortlessly?
Do people really have to all believe the same things? It's not exactly wise to espouse such opinions on the forums because people like to jump all over opinions like that, but you people reacting that was are as much of the problem as those baiting you.
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
A union between two gay people should absolutely be equal in the eyes of the law than a union between two heterosexuals. But frankly why stop there? Why shouldn't a union between more than two people also be equal in the eyes of the law?
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
*shrug* churches have to acknowledge atheist marriages too
met some people on a bus ride one, saying you can't be in love with someone until you love jesus. that's the sort of stupid thing churches say
you don't have to condone homosexuality. But this isn't a theocracy. If something is legal, live with it. two dudes getting married isn't cutting into anyone else's rights.. same arguments against mixed race marriage..
this repeal is great tho.. forgotten that this had not "happened" yet. don't see what it really changes practically tho
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
Even religions change over time. Many (most) religions of today are completely different from religions in the past, even based on the same scripture.
The argument that something isn't bigoted because it's following scripture isn't a good argument.
As for forcing churches to acknowledge homosexual marriages, that's not happening. Unless you mean culturally and not legally. Churches are free to marry and not marry whomever they choose, and legalizing gay marriage doesn't change that even one little bit.
On September 21 2011 00:15 FabledIntegral wrote: "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
If the church's dogma is bigoted, and they adhere to that dogma, then yes. Bigoted church. Most scripture also condones and advocates slavery, would you give them a free pass just because they went around advocating slavery because they're doing it out of religious beliefs? Marriage goes far beyond a religious institution due to all the legal rights and benefits that come with it, religious institutions should have no say over whom should have the right to receive those benefits based on their scriptures.
This is a great step in the right direction, and a victory for equality and our culture.
A few thoughts: - Pedophilia cannot be compared to homosexuality, even if both might be a mental disorder. There is no victim in a gay relationship, while there is a victim when a pedophile pursues his or her thoughts. - Marriage has nothing to do with religion (the only thing religion may have to do with marriage is coining the term), it is simply a legal bonding between two consenting human beings.
As for the topic, it's great that the USA finally took another step away from being an oldfashioned country.
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
Even religions change over time. Many (most) religions of today are completely different from religions in the past, even based on the same scripture.
The argument that something isn't bigoted because it's following scripture isn't a good argument.
As for forcing churches to acknowledge homosexual marriages, that's not happening. Unless you mean culturally and not legally. Churches are free to marry and not marry whomever they choose, and legalizing gay marriage doesn't change that even one little bit.
Changing over time hardly is a valid argument though. In fact, I'd just argue modern day religion chooses to filter out part of the scriptures to better suit their message, and not a true representation of what the religion is meant to embody. So I'd argue most religions today are simply less "true" to the scripture they're based off.
But I'll give you that maybe it wasn't the best argument that following scripture doesn't mean they aren't bigoted. I'll argue instead that churches should be bigoted.
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
What qualifies as "forcing" the church to acknowledge gay marriage? Honest question -- this could be interpreted a few ways.
From an individual perspective, if somebody wants to believe that marriage is limited to white Christian heterosexual couples, that's their right to do so. But if they make the government/law only grant the rights of marriage to those couples, then they're the ones forcing everybody else to accept a particular view of marriage.
Don't ask dont tell is the least of our worries our government i swear ... WHO CARES anymore if your gay your gay *high five* give me a hug lets move the fuck on. If gays want to join the military and bleed for our country WHO the hell gives our government the right to say no ....
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
What qualifies as "forcing" the church to acknowledge gay marriage? Honest question -- this could be interpreted a few ways.
From an individual perspective, if somebody wants to believe that marriage is limited to white Christian heterosexual couples, that's their right to do so. But if they make the government/law only grant the rights of marriage to those couples, then they're the ones forcing everybody else to accept a particular view of marriage.
Nah you're right, I just remember people YES on prop 8 bringing up a court case where some lawsuit where a gay couple sued a church for refusing to marry them because they were homosexual and won. I forgot the conclusion of the case was that it was actually because he was somehow employed by the government or something along those lines, and thus a completely different matter. My bad.
I shouldn't have used the word "forced" it's just how I sort of interpreted the message of "bigoted churches will die out" as "they'll need to adapt" or something along those lines. Probably interpreted it incorrectly.
On September 21 2011 00:45 Thorakh wrote: A few thoughts: - Pedophilia cannot be compared to homosexuality, even if both might be a mental disorder. There is no victim in a gay relationship, while there is a victim when a pedophile pursues his or her thoughts. - Marriage has nothing to do with religion (the only thing religion may have to do with marriage is coining the term), it is simply a legal bonding between two consenting human beings.
As for the topic, it's great that the USA finally took another step away from being an oldfashioned country.
Conservative Christians have invented all sorts of reasons to explain why homosexuality is a crime, and the victims are the people doing it. If you say that two consenting adults are not victims (an argument I agree with), it'll go right over their heads.
Amazes me that people can completely distrust one organization that wants control over their lives and behaviour (government) but, simultaneously, fully trusts another organization that wants the same thing (their Church).
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't?
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
What has marriage to do with anything?
I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway...
That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage.
Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is.
Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage? Currently if you are Catholic getting married is religiously different than it you where Mormon or Baptist, even more so if you are Muslim, Jewish or Orthodox. Yet they are the same legally.
If my religious beliefs hold to the ideal that gay men can join is a holy union in the presents of my lord. It should be reconciled as such, a religious marriage and not just a legal one.
The "slippery slope" idea is just a way to tie a not so harmful or scary thing to something more scary in hopes people will fear the original idea more than before.
like having protected sex before marriage with one person, Right wing conservatives would say "sex before marriage has increased risk of contracting HIV or AIDS!" We all fear AIDS and HIV so we should fear protected sex before marriage too right? Truly do we believe that some how marriage will protect you from HIV? which is silly, if we have a monogamous relationship married or not.
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't?
I mean... come on...
On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
What has marriage to do with anything?
I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway...
That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage.
Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is.
Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage?
Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so.
If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another?
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't?
I mean... come on...
On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
What has marriage to do with anything?
I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway...
That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage.
Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is.
Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage?
Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so.
If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another?
None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously)
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't?
I mean... come on...
On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
What has marriage to do with anything?
I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway...
That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage.
Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is.
Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage?
Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so.
If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another?
None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously)
Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage.
You guys do realize there are those who feel that homosexuals in the military are a bad idea and have nothing to do with any church, right?
I just happen to believe that women should not be allowed in the military due to the distractions they could pose. When applying that logic to gay men I have to be consistent.
I also feel that until I see genetic proof of homosexuality I don't have to accept the fact that people naturally have different sexual orientations, in the same way the I feel that one is not born a pedophile or necrophiliac.
Doesn't make me a biggot, I don't care how someone gets off or what they do in the bedroom (or in public for that matter), I just wish the federal government would take away the marriage incentives so we would never have to hear about it again.
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't?
I mean... come on...
On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
What has marriage to do with anything?
I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway...
That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage.
Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is.
Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage?
Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so.
If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another?
None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously)
Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage.
let us view your point with other faces in place of gays.
" I believe black men and white should not marry, mixing races is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. Brown I will not preform your marriage to this white woman here in this church. "
" I believe the people of Islam and us Jews should not marry. It is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. I will not preform your marriage to this Muslim woman here in this Synagogue. "
All of the above seems wrong and is against the law. So should the following be:
"I believe only a man and woman should marry. I will not marry you in my church"
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't?
I mean... come on...
On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
What has marriage to do with anything?
I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway...
That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage.
Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is.
Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage?
Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so.
If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another?
None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously)
Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage.
let us view your point with other faces in place of gays.
" I bevel black men and wight white should not marry, mixing races is against the law set down my my lord. As so Mr. Brown I will not preform your marriage to this white woman here in this church. "
" I bevel the people of Islam and us Jews should marry. It is against the law set down my my lord. As so Mr. I will not preform your marriage to this Muslim woman here in this Synagogue. "
All of the above seems wrong and is against the law. So should the following be:
"I bevel only a man and woman should marry. I will not marry you in my church"
Is this what you bevel
You mean 'believe'?
I believe who gives a shit what someone else thinks? If I was gay and wanted to get married, I would simply require the State to give my gay marriage the same legal benefits as a straight marriage and THAT'S IT. No further. I would not demand an edict that forces my local Church to ratify my marriage. I don't need their blessing and I sure as shit wouldn't want it, the way they've treated me these many long years. Demanding so would be merely vindictive.
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't?
I mean... come on...
On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
What has marriage to do with anything?
I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway...
That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage.
Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is.
Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage?
Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so.
If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another?
None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously)
Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage.
let us view your point with other faces in place of gays.
" I believe black men and white should not marry, mixing races is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. Brown I will not preform your marriage to this white woman here in this church. "
" I believe the people of Islam and us Jews should not marry. It is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. I will not preform your marriage to this Muslim woman here in this Synagogue. "
All of the above seems wrong and is against the law. So should the following be:
"I believe only a man and woman should marry. I will not marry you in my church"
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't?
I mean... come on...
On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
What has marriage to do with anything?
I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway...
That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage.
Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is.
Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage?
Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so.
If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another?
None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously)
Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage.
let us view your point with other faces in place of gays.
" I believe black men and white should not marry, mixing races is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. Brown I will not preform your marriage to this white woman here in this church. "
" I believe the people of Islam and us Jews should not marry. It is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. I will not preform your marriage to this Muslim woman here in this Synagogue. "
All of the above seems wrong and is against the law. So should the following be:
"I believe only a man and woman should marry. I will not marry you in my church"
Is this what you believe ?
Edit- Spelling, auto spell check let me down
Is it against the law?
A white Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. The Governor of Louisiana called for the dismissal of him.
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't?
I mean... come on...
On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
What has marriage to do with anything?
I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway...
That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage.
Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is.
Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage?
Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so.
If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another?
None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously)
Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage.
let us view your point with other faces in place of gays.
" I believe black men and white should not marry, mixing races is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. Brown I will not preform your marriage to this white woman here in this church. "
" I believe the people of Islam and us Jews should not marry. It is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. I will not preform your marriage to this Muslim woman here in this Synagogue. "
All of the above seems wrong and is against the law. So should the following be:
"I believe only a man and woman should marry. I will not marry you in my church"
Is this what you believe ?
Edit- Spelling, auto spell check let me down
Is it against the law?
Good point. It isn't. They can decline to marry whoever they hell they want, since they're a private entity. It's well within their right to refuse to marry an interracial couple, a gay couple, a couple of any other religious denomination or whoever, for whatever reasons (e.g. a convicted sex offender).
The state, however, should not. They are a public entity, and should marry any two consenting adults who want to get married. You don't need the Church's blessing for your marriage, and I have to wonder why someone who gets regularly discriminated by them would want it. I just got married last week and the absolute last place on earth either of us wanted to, or should have, got married was in a Church. Neither of us are Christian, so why on earth would we want to get married in a Church by a Priest?
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
If I am a man and get married to a woman and swear my oaths to Satan, is that really better? That's a marriage under LAW, and somebody swearing their oaths under God if they're the same sex isn't?
I mean... come on...
On September 20 2011 08:12 Khenra wrote:
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
What has marriage to do with anything?
I'm glad that this finally got repealed. No idea how such large scale discrimination could have taken place in 2011 anyway...
That's the reason religious people are opposed to gay rights. They think it is a slippery slope that leads to same-sex marriage.
Oddly enough, they're right too... but it isn't a bad thing like they think it is.
Why must we separate legal marriage and religious marriage?
Separation of Church and State. The Church should have ZERO power over the State, and the State should have ZERO power over the Church. If the State legalizes gay marriage, it doesn't have to be done by a Church. It will be done at local registrars office, hotels, other non-religious venues, or isolated branches of the religion that chooses, on their own, to allow it. There will be no mandate that forces all Churches across the country to allow gay marriage because the State said so.
If there is, THEN you can kick up a stink over it. Until then, what moral grounds do you believe you have to deny someone the same rights as another?
None, I did not clam to have them. I am gay and I am married (to my husband, legally and religiously)
Then, in order to coexist, you need to realize that you can't force them to do something they don't want to do. Legalization of state gay marriage does not necessitate legalization of religious gay marriage.
let us view your point with other faces in place of gays.
" I believe black men and white should not marry, mixing races is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. Brown I will not preform your marriage to this white woman here in this church. "
" I believe the people of Islam and us Jews should not marry. It is against the law set down my lord. As so Mr. I will not preform your marriage to this Muslim woman here in this Synagogue. "
All of the above seems wrong and is against the law. So should the following be:
"I believe only a man and woman should marry. I will not marry you in my church"
Is this what you believe ?
Edit- Spelling, auto spell check let me down
Is it against the law?
A white Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. The Governor of Louisiana called for the dismissal of him.
Justice of Peace = state though. Not a church or synagogue like you mentioned.
We shall win the psychological war on the terrorists yet. Say bye bye to your 72 virgins if you get popped by a pork eating, sodomizing infidel. 'MERICA!
It really is amazing it took so long for something that makes sense on so many levels
On September 21 2011 02:54 Hawk wrote: We shall win the psychological war on the terrorists yet. Say bye bye to your 72 virgins if you get popped by a pork eating, sodomizing infidel. 'MERICA!
It really is amazing it took so long for something that makes sense on so many levels
It was a good thing when it was implemented. It really didn't take that long, if you ask me. When it was originally implemented, it was more so viewed as favoring gays, not discriminating against them, from what I'm aware. I could be wrong, though, as it's only what I've heard it was intended as.
It's about time. Who cares if someone is gay/bi/animal lover etc etc. It doesnt effect other peoples lives. The only people that I know of that are against gays or policies like this are bible busters and/or hardcore conservatives that still believe in fairy tales that are over 2,000 years on. Move on people.
On September 21 2011 02:54 Hawk wrote: We shall win the psychological war on the terrorists yet. Say bye bye to your 72 virgins if you get popped by a pork eating, sodomizing infidel. 'MERICA!
It really is amazing it took so long for something that makes sense on so many levels
It was a good thing when it was implemented. It really didn't take that long, if you ask me. When it was originally implemented, it was more so viewed as favoring gays, not discriminating against them, from what I'm aware. I could be wrong, though, as it's only what I've heard it was intended as.
Back then the Republicans had enough votes to force through a full ban and override a veto from Clinton so he brought in DADT. Wasn't the best solution but at least it didn't outright ban gays.
Great that gays won't be removed from the military, unfortunate that they are still don't have the benefits that straight people get though.
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote: As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
...Are you seriously worried about this?
You really think that homosexuals are animals who aren't capable of controlling their sexual urges?
How on Earth can you fight a war alongside a female soldier? Don't you just drop your gun and tear off her clothes on the battlefield?
Homosexuals receive the same training that heterosexuals do. They're still military. Take them seriously.
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote: As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
What happens when male and female armed service members get caught having sex on the base? I imagine they would be subject to the exact same disciplinary procedure.
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote: As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
It's not like they aren't already in the showers with you, they just haven't been open about their sexuality. It's not like they couldn't look at your junk beforehand.
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote: As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
lol that argument about "bathrooms" and such has always been interesting to me.
Why do we segregate restrooms and showers by sex? Is it because of human sexual impulses? If so, doesn't that ignore the possibility of homosexual impulses? Obviously there are more heterosexuals, so is it simply a matter of numbers? And if so, how is that not discriminatory against heterosexuals, to segregate them from each other but not homosexuals?
On September 21 2011 02:54 Hawk wrote: We shall win the psychological war on the terrorists yet. Say bye bye to your 72 virgins if you get popped by a pork eating, sodomizing infidel. 'MERICA!
It really is amazing it took so long for something that makes sense on so many levels
It was a good thing when it was implemented. It really didn't take that long, if you ask me. When it was originally implemented, it was more so viewed as favoring gays, not discriminating against them, from what I'm aware. I could be wrong, though, as it's only what I've heard it was intended as.
Yeah I understand the intentions, as skewed as they were. But it's just kind of fucked that such a policy was considered good at one point. Funny country we live in!
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote: As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
You're telling me that other soldiers will be jealous and resort to team swapping?? I thought it was only them Navy boys who operate under the jailhouse rules!
from what buddies in the military have told me, there's plenty of humping between heteros despite the existance of those rules, so i have no idea why people bring that up
We segregate bathrooms by sex mostly because of physiology, I think. Women would have a hard time using urinals...and most men seem to deliberately aim for the toilet seat or something, it's disgusting.
All jokes aside, I'm not sure why communal bathrooms are so rare in Western society. Communal public bathhouses certainly exist in Asia and probably parts of America/Europe, but even bathrooms are segregated by sex there.
On September 21 2011 02:54 Hawk wrote: We shall win the psychological war on the terrorists yet. Say bye bye to your 72 virgins if you get popped by a pork eating, sodomizing infidel. 'MERICA!
It really is amazing it took so long for something that makes sense on so many levels
It was a good thing when it was implemented. It really didn't take that long, if you ask me. When it was originally implemented, it was more so viewed as favoring gays, not discriminating against them, from what I'm aware. I could be wrong, though, as it's only what I've heard it was intended as.
Yeah I understand the intentions, as skewed as they were. But it's just kind of fucked that such a policy was considered good at one point. Funny country we live in!
I viewed it as more so "a step in the right direction."
Like even if gay marriage isn't legal, implementing civil unions for homosexuals is a step in the right direction, even if discriminatory, as it's better than nothing.
On September 21 2011 02:54 Hawk wrote: We shall win the psychological war on the terrorists yet. Say bye bye to your 72 virgins if you get popped by a pork eating, sodomizing infidel. 'MERICA!
It really is amazing it took so long for something that makes sense on so many levels
It was a good thing when it was implemented. It really didn't take that long, if you ask me. When it was originally implemented, it was more so viewed as favoring gays, not discriminating against them, from what I'm aware. I could be wrong, though, as it's only what I've heard it was intended as.
Yeah I understand the intentions, as skewed as they were. But it's just kind of fucked that such a policy was considered good at one point. Funny country we live in!
I viewed it as more so "a step in the right direction."
Like even if gay marriage isn't legal, implementing civil unions for homosexuals is a step in the right direction, even if discriminatory, as it's better than nothing.
No it definitely was at the time and I do understand and agree with the logic you're talking about. like the marriage thing, even advancements are depressing because it really opens your eyes as far as how tied this country is to stupid religious institutions which facilitate such bigotry
On September 20 2011 16:10 Dulak wrote: A union between two gay people should absolutely be equal in the eyes of the law than a union between two heterosexuals. But frankly why stop there? Why shouldn't a union between more than two people also be equal in the eyes of the law?
If you could establish the correct legal guidelines (how taxes are handled, how medical decisions are made, how people are separated, etc). What would actually be the downside here?
On September 20 2011 16:10 Dulak wrote: A union between two gay people should absolutely be equal in the eyes of the law than a union between two heterosexuals. But frankly why stop there? Why shouldn't a union between more than two people also be equal in the eyes of the law?
If you could establish the correct legal guidelines (how taxes are handled, how medical decisions are made, how people are separated, etc). What would actually be the downside here?
As long as benefits would be reworked.
I hear a lot of comments by people saying that marriage incentives are usually given out to benefit people who have kids, and that's why homosexual marriages shouldn't receive the incentives... I don't get why we don't just change the incentives to "those who are married and are raising kids" (I use the term "raising" so that it doesn't include those who give up their children for adoption, but does include parents who decide to adopt).
On September 21 2011 05:32 FabledIntegral wrote: I hear a lot of comments by people saying that marriage incentives are usually given out to benefit people who have kids, and that's why homosexual marriages shouldn't receive the incentives... I don't get why we don't just change the incentives to "those who are married and are raising kids" (I use the term "raising" so that it doesn't include those who give up their children for adoption, but does include parents who decide to adopt).
It's just a rationalization. We let couples get married where both partners are over the age of 50; they won't be having any kids.
Besides that, the "financial incentive" for having kids is bring able to claim them as dependents on tax returns or to itemize expenses on them such as education or daycare (I think?). Difficult to argue that hospital visitation rights for your partner or joint filing status should be dependent on having children.
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote: As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
Come on dude, sex isn't allowed in a theater of operations regardless. Catch some gay dudes going at it and they get court martialed for having sex, not for being gay.
And if there's one in the shower he should know to keep his opinions to himself. That's sexual harassment, which is also dealt with.
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote: As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote: As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
All these hypotheticals are great and all until you realise that the rest of the western world has had this for years and guess what, the army came to terms with it. There's no need to make claims about what may or may not happen as a result of it because you're not treading new ground here. This is nothing new, innovative or revolutionary. It's been done, it was fine, when you do it it'll be fine too.
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote: As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
Hmmm. I'm guessing that you weren't too bright in school and had to join the military? Your logic isn't very sound.
ok this will sound stupid because i couldn't give a rats ass about america in general since i don't live there and have no intention to visit but ...
there was a law against homosexuals in the army ? oO the hell ? somebody explain the reasoning behind that to little uninformed me , would you ? it's not like you can't shoot people if you're gay
On September 21 2011 07:15 sanya wrote: ok this will sound stupid because i couldn't give a rats ass about america in general since i don't live there and have no intention to visit but ...
there was a law against homosexuals in the army ? oO the hell ? somebody explain the reasoning behind that to little uninformed me , would you ? it's not like you can't shoot people if you're gay
am i missing something ?
they were scared of gay soldiers doing things to straight soldiers, so rather than lose out on the man power of all their gay buddies, they just stopped asking about sexual orientation, or atleast expected you to lie.
because gay people only rape you when they tell you their gay first, obviously
I'm a former marine, and the reason for the DADT policy, is because it IS the best policy. What does your sexual orientation have to do with combat and comraderie between your platoon? Not a god damn thing is what, and having it be open causes drama that is unnecessary. Keep the shit to yourself, I knew several Staff NCO's that were on the supposed "down low" while i was in, did i still do what they told me to do? yes. Did i give a fuck that they were puffin peters on the weekend? NO, and its not something that should be able to be brought up in the work place or considered. Like said previously, its unnecessary and causes more drama in an already hectic environment.
On September 21 2011 07:23 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm a former marine, and the reason for the DADT policy, is because it IS the best policy. What does your sexual orientation have to do with combat and comraderie between your platoon? Not a god damn thing is what, and having it be open causes drama that is unnecessary. Keep the shit to yourself, I knew several Staff NCO's that were on the supposed "down low" while i was in, did i still do what they told me to do? yes. Did i give a fuck that they were puffin peters on the weekend? NO, and its not something that should be able to be brought up in the work place or considered. Like said previously, its unnecessary and causes more drama in an already hectic environment.
i think the point is more that you can talk about how much you would love to 'give her one' but you cant do the respective if you're gay. noone is saying they want sex to be part of being in the army.
There are dozens of cases of people being outed against their will after adhering to don't ask don't tell and being forced out of the military. People being seen in their private life, having awkward questions asked about them, judgemental neighbours reporting them, you name it. Nobody is advocating deep intimate discussions followed by pillowfights in combat on the front lines. If there is any lapse in professionalism that will be dealt with the same way it was previously, your personal life is still your own business. The difference is that professional servicemen who have volunteered to give their life for their country will no longer be told they're not wanted because of an aspect of their private life which affects nobody but them.
At the very least you have to realise how wasteful it is to invest in soldiers and train them up only to discard them because someone heard they might be gay.
On September 21 2011 07:11 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: I wonder how the military is going to organize who rooms with who.
You realize that the repealing of DADT isn't actually turning a 100% straight military partially gay, right?
Straight guys slept alongside gay guys just fine before the repealing, and they'll continue to do so. As proven by the plenty of other countries that allow this.
The misinformation in this thread is astounding. DADT means Don't Ask Don't Tell The military, the soldiers themselves, and everyone else knew it employed gay soldiers. As long as said soldiers kept it too themselves, no one cared. That means gay and straight soldiers showered together, slept together, etc etc. Guess what? If a gay guy makes a move on his straight comrade, he's going to be treated the same way a straight guy would if he makes a move on a female comrade. Jesus people, no ones joining the military because they want to fuck their fellow soldiers. (At least I hope not, because thats just really stupid.) That includes straight, gay, transgender, blue, red, and turqoise people. You're far more likely to "shower" with a gay guy at your local gym then in the military anyways.
On September 21 2011 07:23 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm a former marine, and the reason for the DADT policy, is because it IS the best policy. What does your sexual orientation have to do with combat and comraderie between your platoon? Not a god damn thing is what, and having it be open causes drama that is unnecessary. Keep the shit to yourself, I knew several Staff NCO's that were on the supposed "down low" while i was in, did i still do what they told me to do? yes. Did i give a fuck that they were puffin peters on the weekend? NO, and its not something that should be able to be brought up in the work place or considered. Like said previously, its unnecessary and causes more drama in an already hectic environment.
lol, the new policy isn't like people have to carry a sign around saying that they're gay. in fact dadt was only a bandaid. the new law repeals the main problem, which is that they weren't allowed to serve if they were outed. dadt going away is like taking off the bandaid because the wound isn't there anymore.
On September 21 2011 07:23 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm a former marine, and the reason for the DADT policy, is because it IS the best policy. What does your sexual orientation have to do with combat and comraderie between your platoon? Not a god damn thing is what, and having it be open causes drama that is unnecessary. Keep the shit to yourself, I knew several Staff NCO's that were on the supposed "down low" while i was in, did i still do what they told me to do? yes. Did i give a fuck that they were puffin peters on the weekend? NO, and its not something that should be able to be brought up in the work place or considered. Like said previously, its unnecessary and causes more drama in an already hectic environment.
i think the point is more that you can talk about how much you would love to 'give her one' but you cant do the respective if you're gay. noone is saying they want sex to be part of being in the army.
That's not the point at all, and who gives a fuck what you can talk about in the workplace anyways? It was actually punishable to talk about sexual relations of any kind at work, as well as just silly. With DADT, now commanders not only have to plan around the best execution of their mission(which should be the only thing on their minds), they now have to worry about silly trivial things such as whos gonna bunk with who. The bottomline, is your personal sexual preference has shit to do with the mission at hand, keep it to yourself. Now further down the line the military will have to worry about scenarios such as fake gay marriages for benefits, once benefits are allowed for same sex couples, and guess who will be paying for it?
On September 21 2011 07:23 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm a former marine, and the reason for the DADT policy, is because it IS the best policy. What does your sexual orientation have to do with combat and comraderie between your platoon? Not a god damn thing is what, and having it be open causes drama that is unnecessary. Keep the shit to yourself, I knew several Staff NCO's that were on the supposed "down low" while i was in, did i still do what they told me to do? yes. Did i give a fuck that they were puffin peters on the weekend? NO, and its not something that should be able to be brought up in the work place or considered. Like said previously, its unnecessary and causes more drama in an already hectic environment.
i think the point is more that you can talk about how much you would love to 'give her one' but you cant do the respective if you're gay. noone is saying they want sex to be part of being in the army.
That's not the point at all, and who gives a fuck what you can talk about in the workplace anyways? It was actually punishable to talk about sexual relations of any kind at work, as well as just silly. With DADT, now commanders not only have to plan around the best execution of their mission(which should be the only thing on their minds), they now have to worry about silly trivial things such as whos gonna bunk with who. The bottomline, is your personal sexual preference has shit to do with the mission at hand, keep it to yourself. Now further down the line the military will have to worry about scenarios such as fake gay marriages for benefits, once benefits are allowed for same sex couples, and guess who will be paying for it?
Man A: That's a nice picture you got there, who is that with you? Man B: My wife. Fin.
Man A: That's a nice picture you got there, who is that with you? Man B: My husband. Man A: DADT. Man B fired. Fin.
Also. Fake gay marriages for benefits? It is possible for people to get fake heterosexual marriages for the same benefits you know.
On September 21 2011 07:23 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm a former marine, and the reason for the DADT policy, is because it IS the best policy. What does your sexual orientation have to do with combat and comraderie between your platoon? Not a god damn thing is what, and having it be open causes drama that is unnecessary. Keep the shit to yourself, I knew several Staff NCO's that were on the supposed "down low" while i was in, did i still do what they told me to do? yes. Did i give a fuck that they were puffin peters on the weekend? NO, and its not something that should be able to be brought up in the work place or considered. Like said previously, its unnecessary and causes more drama in an already hectic environment.
i think the point is more that you can talk about how much you would love to 'give her one' but you cant do the respective if you're gay. noone is saying they want sex to be part of being in the army.
That's not the point at all, and who gives a fuck what you can talk about in the workplace anyways? It was actually punishable to talk about sexual relations of any kind at work, as well as just silly. With DADT, now commanders not only have to plan around the best execution of their mission(which should be the only thing on their minds), they now have to worry about silly trivial things such as whos gonna bunk with who. The bottomline, is your personal sexual preference has shit to do with the mission at hand, keep it to yourself. Now further down the line the military will have to worry about scenarios such as fake gay marriages for benefits, once benefits are allowed for same sex couples, and guess who will be paying for it?
what's the difference between worrying about a fake gay marriage and worrying about a fake straight marriage?
On September 21 2011 07:23 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm a former marine, and the reason for the DADT policy, is because it IS the best policy. What does your sexual orientation have to do with combat and comraderie between your platoon? Not a god damn thing is what, and having it be open causes drama that is unnecessary. Keep the shit to yourself, I knew several Staff NCO's that were on the supposed "down low" while i was in, did i still do what they told me to do? yes. Did i give a fuck that they were puffin peters on the weekend? NO, and its not something that should be able to be brought up in the work place or considered. Like said previously, its unnecessary and causes more drama in an already hectic environment.
i think the point is more that you can talk about how much you would love to 'give her one' but you cant do the respective if you're gay. noone is saying they want sex to be part of being in the army.
That's not the point at all, and who gives a fuck what you can talk about in the workplace anyways? It was actually punishable to talk about sexual relations of any kind at work, as well as just silly. With DADT, now commanders not only have to plan around the best execution of their mission(which should be the only thing on their minds), they now have to worry about silly trivial things such as whos gonna bunk with who. The bottomline, is your personal sexual preference has shit to do with the mission at hand, keep it to yourself. Now further down the line the military will have to worry about scenarios such as fake gay marriages for benefits, once benefits are allowed for same sex couples, and guess who will be paying for it?
Probably the same people who are paying for fake straight marriages.
Stop with the slippery slope. DADT doesn't force gays to talk about how they're gay. It only makes it so they won't get kicked out of the military for being recognized as gay.
They aren't bringing up any extra drama, because they aren't showing off sexual promiscuity. Relax. The same rules apply between straights and gays as far as that's concerned.
it is my concern, that more troops will opt to fake a gay marriage, i know it sounds crazy, but its a legitmate concern, i have served you havent. I know what dirtbags like to do when they get in, and thats find some way to get a free ride. Now John and Bill, can fake their marraige, have all the benefits, move out into town, all while actually having girlfriends and not having to worry about if their girlfriends leave them. It can and will happen. And no..thats not how we went after gays either while i was in, even if someone was blatantly in flames, nothing was said or mentioned, maybe amoungst eachother, but he was a brother to us just like any other. Noone would ever think about being a little troll and outing someone, thats a piss poor thing to do. Not to mention it would not be heavily pursued as noone really cared.
On September 21 2011 05:32 FabledIntegral wrote: I hear a lot of comments by people saying that marriage incentives are usually given out to benefit people who have kids, and that's why homosexual marriages shouldn't receive the incentives... I don't get why we don't just change the incentives to "those who are married and are raising kids" (I use the term "raising" so that it doesn't include those who give up their children for adoption, but does include parents who decide to adopt).
It's just a rationalization. We let couples get married where both partners are over the age of 50; they won't be having any kids.
Besides that, the "financial incentive" for having kids is bring able to claim them as dependents on tax returns or to itemize expenses on them such as education or daycare (I think?). Difficult to argue that hospital visitation rights for your partner or joint filing status should be dependent on having children.
I wasn't attempting to argue, nor is almost anyone arguing, against certain rights such as hospitalization visitation rights.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
User was warned for this post
No idea why this poster was warned for stating his opinion. I am personally not opposed to gay marriage, but different opinions are perfectly legitimate and should not be supressed.
On September 21 2011 08:03 ChampionZerg wrote: it is my concern, that more troops will opt to fake a gay marriage, i know it sounds crazy, but its a legitmate concern, i have served you havent. I know what dirtbags like to do when they get in, and thats find some way to get a free ride. Now John and Bill, can fake their marraige, have all the benefits, move out into town, all while actually having girlfriends and not having to worry about if their girlfriends leave them. It can and will happen. And no..thats not how we went after gays either while i was in, even if someone was blatantly in flames, nothing was said or mentioned, maybe amoungst eachother, but he was a brother to us just like any other. Noone would ever think about being a little troll and outing someone, thats a piss poor thing to do. Not to mention it would not be heavily pursued as noone really cared.
That's fine for your case, but DADT has definitely been used to get people fired. So if you are all cool with it and don't actually make use of the rule then why does it need to be in place?
You seem to keep saying that personal sexual stuff shouldn't come up at all as it effects the mission. Then how about a UDADT (Ultra Don't Ask Don't Tell). You talk about any heterosexual stuff you can get fired if someone brings it up to your superiors. Can't talk about your girlfriend, or wife, or anyone you find attractive, ever.
On September 21 2011 07:23 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm a former marine, and the reason for the DADT policy, is because it IS the best policy. What does your sexual orientation have to do with combat and comraderie between your platoon? Not a god damn thing is what, and having it be open causes drama that is unnecessary. Keep the shit to yourself, I knew several Staff NCO's that were on the supposed "down low" while i was in, did i still do what they told me to do? yes. Did i give a fuck that they were puffin peters on the weekend? NO, and its not something that should be able to be brought up in the work place or considered. Like said previously, its unnecessary and causes more drama in an already hectic environment.
i think the point is more that you can talk about how much you would love to 'give her one' but you cant do the respective if you're gay. noone is saying they want sex to be part of being in the army.
That's not the point at all, and who gives a fuck what you can talk about in the workplace anyways? It was actually punishable to talk about sexual relations of any kind at work, as well as just silly. With DADT, now commanders not only have to plan around the best execution of their mission(which should be the only thing on their minds), they now have to worry about silly trivial things such as whos gonna bunk with who. The bottomline, is your personal sexual preference has shit to do with the mission at hand, keep it to yourself. Now further down the line the military will have to worry about scenarios such as fake gay marriages for benefits, once benefits are allowed for same sex couples, and guess who will be paying for it?
They shouldn't. If someone has a problem bunking with a homosexual, then they can GTFO out of the military. I'd rather kick out the homophobe than kick out the homosexual.
On September 21 2011 07:23 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm a former marine, and the reason for the DADT policy, is because it IS the best policy. What does your sexual orientation have to do with combat and comraderie between your platoon? Not a god damn thing is what, and having it be open causes drama that is unnecessary. Keep the shit to yourself, I knew several Staff NCO's that were on the supposed "down low" while i was in, did i still do what they told me to do? yes. Did i give a fuck that they were puffin peters on the weekend? NO, and its not something that should be able to be brought up in the work place or considered. Like said previously, its unnecessary and causes more drama in an already hectic environment.
i think the point is more that you can talk about how much you would love to 'give her one' but you cant do the respective if you're gay. noone is saying they want sex to be part of being in the army.
That's not the point at all, and who gives a fuck what you can talk about in the workplace anyways? It was actually punishable to talk about sexual relations of any kind at work, as well as just silly. With DADT, now commanders not only have to plan around the best execution of their mission(which should be the only thing on their minds), they now have to worry about silly trivial things such as whos gonna bunk with who. The bottomline, is your personal sexual preference has shit to do with the mission at hand, keep it to yourself. Now further down the line the military will have to worry about scenarios such as fake gay marriages for benefits, once benefits are allowed for same sex couples, and guess who will be paying for it?
They shouldn't. If someone has a problem bunking with a homosexual, then they can GTFO out of the military. I'd rather kick out the homophobe than kick out the homosexual.
Agreed. Plus, the straight guys were bunking with the gay guys before anyway -.-' Repealing DADT doesn't turn your roommate gay.
And if you already knew about certain guys being gay and didn't out them beforehand... congratulations, now you don't have to worry about keeping secrets! It's just easier and fairer.
On September 21 2011 08:03 ChampionZerg wrote: it is my concern, that more troops will opt to fake a gay marriage, i know it sounds crazy, but its a legitmate concern, i have served you havent. I know what dirtbags like to do when they get in, and thats find some way to get a free ride. Now John and Bill, can fake their marraige, have all the benefits, move out into town, all while actually having girlfriends and not having to worry about if their girlfriends leave them. It can and will happen. And no..thats not how we went after gays either while i was in, even if someone was blatantly in flames, nothing was said or mentioned, maybe amoungst eachother, but he was a brother to us just like any other. Noone would ever think about being a little troll and outing someone, thats a piss poor thing to do. Not to mention it would not be heavily pursued as noone really cared.
That's fine for your case, but DADT has definitely been used to get people fired. So if you are all cool with it and don't actually make use of the rule then why does it need to be in place?
You seem to keep saying that personal sexual stuff shouldn't come up at all as it effects the mission. Then how about a UDADT (Ultra Don't Ask Don't Tell). You talk about any heterosexual stuff you can get fired if someone brings it up to your superiors. Can't talk about your girlfriend, or wife, or anyone you find attractive, ever.
You're straw manning me with skewed logic and not truly interpreting what im writing. And sure thats fine with me, b/c i dont give a fuck what anyone finds attractive when im being rocket attacked in southern afghanistan. Thats the point im tryin to make. I was a sergeant, and i never dealt with someones girlfriend problems while im tryin to make sure we dont die. Its silly and childish, most of all irrelevant. If i did happen to have a gay marine, and he was suicidal over a relationship with his partner, i would treat it with the same sympathy as a straight one, as long as he wasnt causing drama within our platoon. The thing is, you guys don't know what its like to have camraderie and tight unit cohesion when youre being shot at for every day for 7 months straight, so while i value your opinion, your lack of experience causes me to stand by my opinion. Nothing can be introduced to take away the integrity of your platoon.
On September 21 2011 08:03 ChampionZerg wrote: it is my concern, that more troops will opt to fake a gay marriage, i know it sounds crazy, but its a legitmate concern, i have served you havent. I know what dirtbags like to do when they get in, and thats find some way to get a free ride. Now John and Bill, can fake their marraige, have all the benefits, move out into town, all while actually having girlfriends and not having to worry about if their girlfriends leave them. It can and will happen. And no..thats not how we went after gays either while i was in, even if someone was blatantly in flames, nothing was said or mentioned, maybe amoungst eachother, but he was a brother to us just like any other. Noone would ever think about being a little troll and outing someone, thats a piss poor thing to do. Not to mention it would not be heavily pursued as noone really cared.
Except that people getting kicked out because of accidental outings happened quite often. It's easy to set up scarecrows and chase after red herrings.
If i did happen to have a gay marine, and he was suicidal over a relationship with his partner, i would treat it with the same sympathy as a straight one, as long as he wasnt causing drama within our platoon. The thing is, you guys don't know what its like to have camraderie and tight unit cohesion
So what's the problem, exactly? It's like you're appealing to the idea that most marines wouldn't accept a homosexual the same way as you supposedly would. If the military has to kowtow to the stupidity of the general soldier, then there's a greater issue at the basis of all this.
On September 21 2011 08:03 ChampionZerg wrote: it is my concern, that more troops will opt to fake a gay marriage, i know it sounds crazy, but its a legitmate concern, i have served you havent. I know what dirtbags like to do when they get in, and thats find some way to get a free ride. Now John and Bill, can fake their marraige, have all the benefits, move out into town, all while actually having girlfriends and not having to worry about if their girlfriends leave them. It can and will happen. And no..thats not how we went after gays either while i was in, even if someone was blatantly in flames, nothing was said or mentioned, maybe amoungst eachother, but he was a brother to us just like any other. Noone would ever think about being a little troll and outing someone, thats a piss poor thing to do. Not to mention it would not be heavily pursued as noone really cared.
That's fine for your case, but DADT has definitely been used to get people fired. So if you are all cool with it and don't actually make use of the rule then why does it need to be in place?
You seem to keep saying that personal sexual stuff shouldn't come up at all as it effects the mission. Then how about a UDADT (Ultra Don't Ask Don't Tell). You talk about any heterosexual stuff you can get fired if someone brings it up to your superiors. Can't talk about your girlfriend, or wife, or anyone you find attractive, ever.
You're straw manning me with skewed logic and not truly interpreting what im writing. And sure thats fine with me, b/c i dont give a fuck what anyone finds attractive when im being rocket attacked in southern afghanistan. Thats the point im tryin to make. I was a sergeant, and i never dealt with someones girlfriend problems while im tryin to make sure we dont die. Its silly and childish, most of all irrelevant. If i did happen to have a gay marine, and he was suicidal over a relationship with his partner, i would treat it with the same sympathy as a straight one, as long as he wasnt causing drama within our platoon. The thing is, you guys don't know what its like to have camraderie and tight unit cohesion when youre being shot at for every day for 7 months straight, so while i value your opinion, your lack of experience causes me to stand by my opinion. Nothing can be introduced to take away the integrity of your platoon.
My god no one is talking about when you're in the heat of battle. It can happen ANYWHERE. Jesus Christ man. You keep bringing up these extreme situations where no one is even TRYING to insinuate relationship talk is appropriate, or someone is going off about their significant other. But rather, say you sent an e-mail home to your boyfriend that someone read over your shoulder. You can get kicked out for something like THAT.
I also don't really care about your personal experience in the military, as the military itself can, and will, change. I bet you a ton of white people felt unsafe when they had black units in their squad when there was first integration. I bet you they didn't trust each other as much. Guess what? We adapted.
If i did happen to have a gay marine, and he was suicidal over a relationship with his partner, i would treat it with the same sympathy as a straight one, as long as he wasnt causing drama within our platoon. The thing is, you guys don't know what its like to have camraderie and tight unit cohesion
So what's the problem, exactly? It's like you're appealing to the idea that most marines wouldn't accept a homosexual the same way as you supposedly would. If the military has to kowtow to the stupidity of the general soldier, then there's a greater issue at the basis of all this.
Trust me when i say this, the corps is comprised of 80% fuckin tards. They will NOT be accepting of gays in a combat infantry platoon, their little insecure brains cant process it. Its hard enough to keep the fuckers from killing themselves on the weekend. I'm different b/c i realize ppl are different and have different backgrounds and are going to do as they please regardless, this is not the same for the most of the corps. This policy will be regretted in the coming years, mark my words.
On September 21 2011 08:03 ChampionZerg wrote: it is my concern, that more troops will opt to fake a gay marriage, i know it sounds crazy, but its a legitmate concern, i have served you havent. I know what dirtbags like to do when they get in, and thats find some way to get a free ride. Now John and Bill, can fake their marraige, have all the benefits, move out into town, all while actually having girlfriends and not having to worry about if their girlfriends leave them. It can and will happen. And no..thats not how we went after gays either while i was in, even if someone was blatantly in flames, nothing was said or mentioned, maybe amoungst eachother, but he was a brother to us just like any other. Noone would ever think about being a little troll and outing someone, thats a piss poor thing to do. Not to mention it would not be heavily pursued as noone really cared.
That's fine for your case, but DADT has definitely been used to get people fired. So if you are all cool with it and don't actually make use of the rule then why does it need to be in place?
You seem to keep saying that personal sexual stuff shouldn't come up at all as it effects the mission. Then how about a UDADT (Ultra Don't Ask Don't Tell). You talk about any heterosexual stuff you can get fired if someone brings it up to your superiors. Can't talk about your girlfriend, or wife, or anyone you find attractive, ever.
You're straw manning me with skewed logic and not truly interpreting what im writing. And sure thats fine with me, b/c i dont give a fuck what anyone finds attractive when im being rocket attacked in southern afghanistan. Thats the point im tryin to make. I was a sergeant, and i never dealt with someones girlfriend problems while im tryin to make sure we dont die. Its silly and childish, most of all irrelevant. If i did happen to have a gay marine, and he was suicidal over a relationship with his partner, i would treat it with the same sympathy as a straight one, as long as he wasnt causing drama within our platoon. The thing is, you guys don't know what its like to have camraderie and tight unit cohesion when youre being shot at for every day for 7 months straight, so while i value your opinion, your lack of experience causes me to stand by my opinion. Nothing can be introduced to take away the integrity of your platoon.
If one of your marines is going out of his way to cause problems for another one of your marines (whether it's because of the latter's race, religion, sexual orientation, build, or anything else), I find it hard to swallow that you would rather end the problem with the bully in your platoon than end the problem with the other soldier who isn't going out of his way to cause problems.
Homophobes are the only ones causing problems with unit cohesion when it comes down to interacting with gays... not the gays themselves. Gay and lesbian soldiers simply want to serve in the military with the dignity and respect they deserve, which is the same level that straight soldiers automatically receive for being the majority. It's been accomplished with blacks. It's been accomplished with women. It's once again time to promote civil rights by integration. They deserve it as much as anyone else, and they shouldn't have to hide their identity.
If i did happen to have a gay marine, and he was suicidal over a relationship with his partner, i would treat it with the same sympathy as a straight one, as long as he wasnt causing drama within our platoon. The thing is, you guys don't know what its like to have camraderie and tight unit cohesion
So what's the problem, exactly? It's like you're appealing to the idea that most marines wouldn't accept a homosexual the same way as you supposedly would. If the military has to kowtow to the stupidity of the general soldier, then there's a greater issue at the basis of all this.
Trust me when i say this, the corps is comprised of 80% fuckin tards. They will NOT be accepting of gays in a combat infantry platoon, their little insecure brains cant process it. Its hard enough to keep the fuckers from killing themselves on the weekend. I'm different b/c i realize ppl are different and have different backgrounds and are going to do as they please regardless, this is not the same for the most of the corps. This policy will be regretted in the coming years, mark my words.
Because, you know, it's failed in every other country that's tried it. If it doesn't work for us because we have more stupid/ignorant/intolerant personnel than other countries, then maybe we should cut a lot of the stupid people out while simultaneously cutting out budget.
In fact, let's downsize military spending overall. Good idea .
On September 21 2011 08:03 ChampionZerg wrote: it is my concern, that more troops will opt to fake a gay marriage, i know it sounds crazy, but its a legitmate concern, i have served you havent. I know what dirtbags like to do when they get in, and thats find some way to get a free ride. Now John and Bill, can fake their marraige, have all the benefits, move out into town, all while actually having girlfriends and not having to worry about if their girlfriends leave them. It can and will happen. And no..thats not how we went after gays either while i was in, even if someone was blatantly in flames, nothing was said or mentioned, maybe amoungst eachother, but he was a brother to us just like any other. Noone would ever think about being a little troll and outing someone, thats a piss poor thing to do. Not to mention it would not be heavily pursued as noone really cared.
That's fine for your case, but DADT has definitely been used to get people fired. So if you are all cool with it and don't actually make use of the rule then why does it need to be in place?
You seem to keep saying that personal sexual stuff shouldn't come up at all as it effects the mission. Then how about a UDADT (Ultra Don't Ask Don't Tell). You talk about any heterosexual stuff you can get fired if someone brings it up to your superiors. Can't talk about your girlfriend, or wife, or anyone you find attractive, ever.
You're straw manning me with skewed logic and not truly interpreting what im writing. And sure thats fine with me, b/c i dont give a fuck what anyone finds attractive when im being rocket attacked in southern afghanistan. Thats the point im tryin to make. I was a sergeant, and i never dealt with someones girlfriend problems while im tryin to make sure we dont die. Its silly and childish, most of all irrelevant. If i did happen to have a gay marine, and he was suicidal over a relationship with his partner, i would treat it with the same sympathy as a straight one, as long as he wasnt causing drama within our platoon. The thing is, you guys don't know what its like to have camraderie and tight unit cohesion when youre being shot at for every day for 7 months straight, so while i value your opinion, your lack of experience causes me to stand by my opinion. Nothing can be introduced to take away the integrity of your platoon.
My god no one is talking about when you're in the heat of battle. It can happen ANYWHERE. Jesus Christ man. You keep bringing up these extreme situations where no one is even TRYING to insinuate relationship talk is appropriate, or someone is going off about their significant other. But rather, say you sent an e-mail home to your boyfriend that someone read over your shoulder. You can get kicked out for something like THAT.
I also don't really care about your personal experience in the military, as the military itself can, and will, change. I bet you a ton of white people felt unsafe when they had black units in their squad when there was first integration. I bet you they didn't trust each other as much. Guess what? We adapted.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHEN YOURE IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE! THAT'S WHAT IM TRYING TO GET YOU TO UNDERSTAND! YES IM TYPING IN CAPS!THE MILITARY IS NOT A PLACE TO MEET AND HANG OUT FOR FOUR YEARS! IT IS A PLACE WHERE YOU ARE TRAINED TO KILL THE ENEMY, NOT WORRY ABOUT JOHN AND BILLS WEEKENDS TOGETHER! DONT ASK DONT TELL DID EVERYTHING IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO!
If i did happen to have a gay marine, and he was suicidal over a relationship with his partner, i would treat it with the same sympathy as a straight one, as long as he wasnt causing drama within our platoon. The thing is, you guys don't know what its like to have camraderie and tight unit cohesion
So what's the problem, exactly? It's like you're appealing to the idea that most marines wouldn't accept a homosexual the same way as you supposedly would. If the military has to kowtow to the stupidity of the general soldier, then there's a greater issue at the basis of all this.
Trust me when i say this, the corps is comprised of 80% fuckin tards. They will NOT be accepting of gays in a combat infantry platoon, their little insecure brains cant process it. Its hard enough to keep the fuckers from killing themselves on the weekend. I'm different b/c i realize ppl are different and have different backgrounds and are going to do as they please regardless, this is not the same for the most of the corps. This policy will be regretted in the coming years, mark my words.
Because, you know, it's failed in every other country that's tried it. If it doesn't work for us because we have more stupid/ignorant/intolerant personnel than other countries, then maybe we should cut a lot of the stupid people out while simultaneously cutting out budget.
In fact, let's downsize military spending overall. Good idea .
yes i completely agree with downsizing the military and the full retirement benefits. I knew too many turds that had never deployed and even ducked deployments, retiring with full benefits.
If the American society, along with its military, can't learn to deal with something so basic and something that is such a non-problem, then America is just doomed to die. There are far more important military issues than being in a squad with a homosexual (of which there have been many for its entire historical existence).
On September 21 2011 08:03 ChampionZerg wrote: it is my concern, that more troops will opt to fake a gay marriage, i know it sounds crazy, but its a legitmate concern, i have served you havent. I know what dirtbags like to do when they get in, and thats find some way to get a free ride. Now John and Bill, can fake their marraige, have all the benefits, move out into town, all while actually having girlfriends and not having to worry about if their girlfriends leave them. It can and will happen. And no..thats not how we went after gays either while i was in, even if someone was blatantly in flames, nothing was said or mentioned, maybe amoungst eachother, but he was a brother to us just like any other. Noone would ever think about being a little troll and outing someone, thats a piss poor thing to do. Not to mention it would not be heavily pursued as noone really cared.
That's fine for your case, but DADT has definitely been used to get people fired. So if you are all cool with it and don't actually make use of the rule then why does it need to be in place?
You seem to keep saying that personal sexual stuff shouldn't come up at all as it effects the mission. Then how about a UDADT (Ultra Don't Ask Don't Tell). You talk about any heterosexual stuff you can get fired if someone brings it up to your superiors. Can't talk about your girlfriend, or wife, or anyone you find attractive, ever.
You're straw manning me with skewed logic and not truly interpreting what im writing. And sure thats fine with me, b/c i dont give a fuck what anyone finds attractive when im being rocket attacked in southern afghanistan. Thats the point im tryin to make. I was a sergeant, and i never dealt with someones girlfriend problems while im tryin to make sure we dont die. Its silly and childish, most of all irrelevant. If i did happen to have a gay marine, and he was suicidal over a relationship with his partner, i would treat it with the same sympathy as a straight one, as long as he wasnt causing drama within our platoon. The thing is, you guys don't know what its like to have camraderie and tight unit cohesion when youre being shot at for every day for 7 months straight, so while i value your opinion, your lack of experience causes me to stand by my opinion. Nothing can be introduced to take away the integrity of your platoon.
My god no one is talking about when you're in the heat of battle. It can happen ANYWHERE. Jesus Christ man. You keep bringing up these extreme situations where no one is even TRYING to insinuate relationship talk is appropriate, or someone is going off about their significant other. But rather, say you sent an e-mail home to your boyfriend that someone read over your shoulder. You can get kicked out for something like THAT.
I also don't really care about your personal experience in the military, as the military itself can, and will, change. I bet you a ton of white people felt unsafe when they had black units in their squad when there was first integration. I bet you they didn't trust each other as much. Guess what? We adapted.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHEN YOURE IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE! THAT'S WHAT IM TRYING TO GET YOU TO UNDERSTAND! YES IM TYPING IN CAPS!THE MILITARY IS NOT A PLACE TO MEET AND HANG OUT FOR FOUR YEARS! IT IS A PLACE WHERE YOU ARE TRAINED TO KILL THE ENEMY, NOT WORRY ABOUT JOHN AND BILLS WEEKENDS TOGETHER! DONT ASK DONT TELL DID EVERYTHING IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO!
...That's really all you got out of the previous post? That gays are going to obsess over their boyfriends instead of focus on the mission?
That's like the tenth time you've misconstrued what we've been saying (or derailed the thread with your talks of fake gay marriages and other things).
And please don't type in all caps. We have bold and italics too Underline as well, for effect.
On September 21 2011 08:03 ChampionZerg wrote: it is my concern, that more troops will opt to fake a gay marriage, i know it sounds crazy, but its a legitmate concern, i have served you havent. I know what dirtbags like to do when they get in, and thats find some way to get a free ride. Now John and Bill, can fake their marraige, have all the benefits, move out into town, all while actually having girlfriends and not having to worry about if their girlfriends leave them. It can and will happen. And no..thats not how we went after gays either while i was in, even if someone was blatantly in flames, nothing was said or mentioned, maybe amoungst eachother, but he was a brother to us just like any other. Noone would ever think about being a little troll and outing someone, thats a piss poor thing to do. Not to mention it would not be heavily pursued as noone really cared.
That's fine for your case, but DADT has definitely been used to get people fired. So if you are all cool with it and don't actually make use of the rule then why does it need to be in place?
You seem to keep saying that personal sexual stuff shouldn't come up at all as it effects the mission. Then how about a UDADT (Ultra Don't Ask Don't Tell). You talk about any heterosexual stuff you can get fired if someone brings it up to your superiors. Can't talk about your girlfriend, or wife, or anyone you find attractive, ever.
You're straw manning me with skewed logic and not truly interpreting what im writing. And sure thats fine with me, b/c i dont give a fuck what anyone finds attractive when im being rocket attacked in southern afghanistan. Thats the point im tryin to make. I was a sergeant, and i never dealt with someones girlfriend problems while im tryin to make sure we dont die. Its silly and childish, most of all irrelevant. If i did happen to have a gay marine, and he was suicidal over a relationship with his partner, i would treat it with the same sympathy as a straight one, as long as he wasnt causing drama within our platoon. The thing is, you guys don't know what its like to have camraderie and tight unit cohesion when youre being shot at for every day for 7 months straight, so while i value your opinion, your lack of experience causes me to stand by my opinion. Nothing can be introduced to take away the integrity of your platoon.
My god no one is talking about when you're in the heat of battle. It can happen ANYWHERE. Jesus Christ man. You keep bringing up these extreme situations where no one is even TRYING to insinuate relationship talk is appropriate, or someone is going off about their significant other. But rather, say you sent an e-mail home to your boyfriend that someone read over your shoulder. You can get kicked out for something like THAT.
I also don't really care about your personal experience in the military, as the military itself can, and will, change. I bet you a ton of white people felt unsafe when they had black units in their squad when there was first integration. I bet you they didn't trust each other as much. Guess what? We adapted.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHEN YOURE IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE! THAT'S WHAT IM TRYING TO GET YOU TO UNDERSTAND! YES IM TYPING IN CAPS!THE MILITARY IS NOT A PLACE TO MEET AND HANG OUT FOR FOUR YEARS! IT IS A PLACE WHERE YOU ARE TRAINED TO KILL THE ENEMY, NOT WORRY ABOUT JOHN AND BILLS WEEKENDS TOGETHER! DONT ASK DONT TELL DID EVERYTHING IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO!
You can't be serious. I would suggest re-reading some of the people's posts that you are arguing against after taking a few deep breaths.
I was trying to find out how many people have actually been discharged from the military because of DADT and found this. There is stuff about the history of DADT there and according to their estimates over 14,000 people have been fired.
On September 21 2011 08:36 imallinson wrote: I was trying to find out how many people have actually been discharged from the military because of DADT and found this. There is stuff about the history of DADT there and according to their estimates over 14,000 people have been fired.
So, they obviously violated the policy right? Show me a case where the accused did not out himself, and ill stfu.
On September 21 2011 08:03 ChampionZerg wrote: it is my concern, that more troops will opt to fake a gay marriage, i know it sounds crazy, but its a legitmate concern, i have served you havent. I know what dirtbags like to do when they get in, and thats find some way to get a free ride. Now John and Bill, can fake their marraige, have all the benefits, move out into town, all while actually having girlfriends and not having to worry about if their girlfriends leave them. It can and will happen. And no..thats not how we went after gays either while i was in, even if someone was blatantly in flames, nothing was said or mentioned, maybe amoungst eachother, but he was a brother to us just like any other. Noone would ever think about being a little troll and outing someone, thats a piss poor thing to do. Not to mention it would not be heavily pursued as noone really cared.
That's fine for your case, but DADT has definitely been used to get people fired. So if you are all cool with it and don't actually make use of the rule then why does it need to be in place?
You seem to keep saying that personal sexual stuff shouldn't come up at all as it effects the mission. Then how about a UDADT (Ultra Don't Ask Don't Tell). You talk about any heterosexual stuff you can get fired if someone brings it up to your superiors. Can't talk about your girlfriend, or wife, or anyone you find attractive, ever.
You're straw manning me with skewed logic and not truly interpreting what im writing. And sure thats fine with me, b/c i dont give a fuck what anyone finds attractive when im being rocket attacked in southern afghanistan. Thats the point im tryin to make. I was a sergeant, and i never dealt with someones girlfriend problems while im tryin to make sure we dont die. Its silly and childish, most of all irrelevant. If i did happen to have a gay marine, and he was suicidal over a relationship with his partner, i would treat it with the same sympathy as a straight one, as long as he wasnt causing drama within our platoon. The thing is, you guys don't know what its like to have camraderie and tight unit cohesion when youre being shot at for every day for 7 months straight, so while i value your opinion, your lack of experience causes me to stand by my opinion. Nothing can be introduced to take away the integrity of your platoon.
My god no one is talking about when you're in the heat of battle. It can happen ANYWHERE. Jesus Christ man. You keep bringing up these extreme situations where no one is even TRYING to insinuate relationship talk is appropriate, or someone is going off about their significant other. But rather, say you sent an e-mail home to your boyfriend that someone read over your shoulder. You can get kicked out for something like THAT.
I also don't really care about your personal experience in the military, as the military itself can, and will, change. I bet you a ton of white people felt unsafe when they had black units in their squad when there was first integration. I bet you they didn't trust each other as much. Guess what? We adapted.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHEN YOURE IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE! THAT'S WHAT IM TRYING TO GET YOU TO UNDERSTAND! YES IM TYPING IN CAPS!THE MILITARY IS NOT A PLACE TO MEET AND HANG OUT FOR FOUR YEARS! IT IS A PLACE WHERE YOU ARE TRAINED TO KILL THE ENEMY, NOT WORRY ABOUT JOHN AND BILLS WEEKENDS TOGETHER! DONT ASK DONT TELL DID EVERYTHING IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO!
Eh, if in the heat of battle a soldier's mind is occupied with whether or not he dislikes the fact that his comrade is a homosexual rather than the objectives of his or her mission and the survival of himself or herself and the survival of his or her squad, then that soldier has deeper issues. I don't really see how different the potential dislike a certain soldier may receive due to being homosexual is from the potential dislike a certain soldier may have for being white, black, Asian, atheist, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, etc., besides the fact that modern society has a greater dislike for the homosexual than any other, which will also change with the flow of time as has every other prejudice.
On September 21 2011 08:36 imallinson wrote: I was trying to find out how many people have actually been discharged from the military because of DADT and found this. There is stuff about the history of DADT there and according to their estimates over 14,000 people have been fired.
So, they obviously violated the policy right? Show me a case where the accused did not out himself, and ill stfu.
Why does it matter whether they outed themselves or not, it was still a discriminatory policy that fired over 14,000 people for their sexuality. In any other profession that would be illegal.
Also there you go. I'd tell you to "stfu" but I'm already too late.
On September 21 2011 08:03 ChampionZerg wrote: it is my concern, that more troops will opt to fake a gay marriage, i know it sounds crazy, but its a legitmate concern, i have served you havent. I know what dirtbags like to do when they get in, and thats find some way to get a free ride. Now John and Bill, can fake their marraige, have all the benefits, move out into town, all while actually having girlfriends and not having to worry about if their girlfriends leave them. It can and will happen. And no..thats not how we went after gays either while i was in, even if someone was blatantly in flames, nothing was said or mentioned, maybe amoungst eachother, but he was a brother to us just like any other. Noone would ever think about being a little troll and outing someone, thats a piss poor thing to do. Not to mention it would not be heavily pursued as noone really cared.
That's fine for your case, but DADT has definitely been used to get people fired. So if you are all cool with it and don't actually make use of the rule then why does it need to be in place?
You seem to keep saying that personal sexual stuff shouldn't come up at all as it effects the mission. Then how about a UDADT (Ultra Don't Ask Don't Tell). You talk about any heterosexual stuff you can get fired if someone brings it up to your superiors. Can't talk about your girlfriend, or wife, or anyone you find attractive, ever.
You're straw manning me with skewed logic and not truly interpreting what im writing. And sure thats fine with me, b/c i dont give a fuck what anyone finds attractive when im being rocket attacked in southern afghanistan. Thats the point im tryin to make. I was a sergeant, and i never dealt with someones girlfriend problems while im tryin to make sure we dont die. Its silly and childish, most of all irrelevant. If i did happen to have a gay marine, and he was suicidal over a relationship with his partner, i would treat it with the same sympathy as a straight one, as long as he wasnt causing drama within our platoon. The thing is, you guys don't know what its like to have camraderie and tight unit cohesion when youre being shot at for every day for 7 months straight, so while i value your opinion, your lack of experience causes me to stand by my opinion. Nothing can be introduced to take away the integrity of your platoon.
My god no one is talking about when you're in the heat of battle. It can happen ANYWHERE. Jesus Christ man. You keep bringing up these extreme situations where no one is even TRYING to insinuate relationship talk is appropriate, or someone is going off about their significant other. But rather, say you sent an e-mail home to your boyfriend that someone read over your shoulder. You can get kicked out for something like THAT.
I also don't really care about your personal experience in the military, as the military itself can, and will, change. I bet you a ton of white people felt unsafe when they had black units in their squad when there was first integration. I bet you they didn't trust each other as much. Guess what? We adapted.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHEN YOURE IN THE HEAT OF BATTLE! THAT'S WHAT IM TRYING TO GET YOU TO UNDERSTAND! YES IM TYPING IN CAPS!THE MILITARY IS NOT A PLACE TO MEET AND HANG OUT FOR FOUR YEARS! IT IS A PLACE WHERE YOU ARE TRAINED TO KILL THE ENEMY, NOT WORRY ABOUT JOHN AND BILLS WEEKENDS TOGETHER! DONT ASK DONT TELL DID EVERYTHING IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO!
User was temp banned for this post.
Oh, I forgot you and everyone else in the military has absolutely zero contact with any significant other when they're serving in active duty and that they aren't allowed to do anything else except train to kill the enemy. No longer people, but bloodthirsty savages that only think about killing the enemy.
I'm sure you never called home, once.
I never insinuated it was a place to meet people, or get together on weekends. To be frank, you're wrong, and the majority of America seems to agree with me, not you, on what qualifies as discrimination and what should be done with our military.
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
There is not a single "Christian" on the planet that follows their scripture to the word, because that involves complete self sustenance and absolute selflessness.
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote: As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces, I think that everything you just said was complete and utter prejudice. For every one person that a homosexual might be attracted to, he is still subject to the horrors of seeing some ugly ass people in the showers. Also, just because someone is gay doesn't mean they're attracted to you. That entire idea is just completely stupid. Gay people have standards, too.
Also, where are all these gay people "getting some" in a deployed environment? Have you ever actually seen this happen? No, you haven't, because its against the UCMJ and it will be even after the repeal.
The repeal of DADT isn't some get out of jail free card for gay people to do whatever the fuck they want. They are still subject to the law, and can't break it without being punished. And if some gay guy is going to look at you in the showers after the repeal, he probably was already doing it before.
DADT is not going to change anything except for giving gays some rights that they should have already had. Despite your prejudicial fears, there are not going to be random gay orgys occurring in the military workplace.
On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones.
I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong.
If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage.
Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up
Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out.
I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture?
There is not a single "Christian" on the planet that follows their scripture to the word, because that involves complete self sustenance and absolute selflessness.
Yeah, I also don't follow the religion nor think it's practical to pick and choose. But whatever.
I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote: I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
And I as a christian believe you shouldn't judge others. The reason we(Christians) get such a bad rap is cuz of crap like this. Christianity preaches acceptance, not demonizing someone because of their differences.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
You realize that gay people still don't have to come out if they don't want to... right? The repealing of DADT doesn't require everyone to be honest about their sexual orientation if asked. It simply means that gays can't get kicked out of the military if they want to admit they're gay.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
And they can continue just as they were. There is nothing that makes them go around telling everyone they are gay.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
You realize that gay people still don't have to come out if they don't want to... right? The repealing of DADT doesn't require everyone to be honest about their sexual orientation if asked. It simply means that gays can't get kicked out of the military if they want to admit they're gay.
No i understand this completely, my point is that instead of campaigning for so long to get rid of DADT they should have used that time to do something that will actually make a difference for gay servicemen. The number of servicemen who this actually changes anything for is so tiny its ridiculous.
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote: I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
The United States of America practiced slavery for almost a hundred years after its founding, and the Bible was used to justify it, along with some pretty bad science. We nukes two Japanese cities full of innocent civilians. We threw our young people, against their will via the draft, into the jungles of Vietnam to fight an ideological offensive war. We have overthrown democratically elected leaders. We torture people in places like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib. We launch preemptive invasions of countries under false pretenses, and killed hundreds of thousands of children with sanctions during the '90s. But sure, God was fine with all that as long as no gays were allowed in the military.
The Crusades were fought with "God's blessing" too.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
You realize that gay people still don't have to come out if they don't want to... right? The repealing of DADT doesn't require everyone to be honest about their sexual orientation if asked. It simply means that gays can't get kicked out of the military if they want to admit they're gay.
No i understand this completely, my point is that instead of campaigning for so long to get rid of DADT they should have used that time to do something that will actually make a difference for gay servicemen. The number of servicemen who this actually changes anything for is so tiny its ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure there have been quite a few cases of gay soldiers being discharged for their sexual orientation. Regardless, it's still a civil rights issue. Although I do agree with you that we can always be doing more to try to make things even more equal between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote: I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
If you judge a nation, then you judge every individual that belongs under it. That doesn't even make sense. That's like saying that you can judge a community without judging the individuals that comprise it, which is really just nonsense.
Do you really think homosexuality alone is what will cause the American nation to "lose his blessing"? Americans have broken and condoned going against certain explicit decrees that can be found within the bible, both in secular and religious realms. If you really believe in what you say, then the nation has gone to hell long ago - especially their churches. It's hilarious that you even think America is a blessed nation to begin with, or that God has favourites in the terms of nations. This is frankly idolatrous, and you turn God into a fascist dictator.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote: I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
So you're going to try to enforce YOUR religious beliefs on other people? Classy. Thing is, I'm atheist, and don't give a damn what your Bible says, nor do I believe in these blessings. You might as well force people to be Christian. Intolerance in every which way.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
You realize that gay people still don't have to come out if they don't want to... right? The repealing of DADT doesn't require everyone to be honest about their sexual orientation if asked. It simply means that gays can't get kicked out of the military if they want to admit they're gay.
No i understand this completely, my point is that instead of campaigning for so long to get rid of DADT they should have used that time to do something that will actually make a difference for gay servicemen. The number of servicemen who this actually changes anything for is so tiny its ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure there have been quite a few cases of gay soldiers being discharged for their sexual orientation. Regardless, it's still a civil rights issue. Although I do agree with you that we can always be doing more to try to make things even more equal between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Ya it actually happened to a good friend of mine, although he wasn't too upset about it after serving two tours in Iraq, he was actually pretty happy to be discharged.
also, i want to create an officially recognized religion in which the only marriage allowed is gay marriage, so i can sue for discrimination if a state refuses to grant marriage licenses
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
Ok? So what exactly is the problem? How does this make it dumb? It's a civil rights issue nonetheless. Since when have civil rights become less important because they effect a small minority as opposed to a large minority?
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
i think you are vastly underestimating the professionalism of the armed forces
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
I thought the bigger issue is that with DADT, if you somehow accidentally let out that you were a homosexual or that someone else somehow found out that you were a homosexual, regardless of whatever means, you carried a high risk of being kicked out of the military. I doubt that homosexuals will openly reveal themselves to be homosexual within the military with the repeal of DADT, but in the case that someone else finds out because of a simple mistake or because of malicious snooping the individual will not be kicked out of the military for the simple reason that they are homosexual.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
Ok? So what exactly is the problem? How does this make it dumb? It's a civil rights issue nonetheless. Since when have civil rights become less important because they effect a small minority as opposed to a large minority?
The point is that repealing DADT is in no way a bad thing... just that celebrating this as some huge victory when it barely changes a thing to me is ridiculous. They should have been campaigning for getting same sex couples benefits just like heterosexual couples get, thats something that would actually change the lives of gay servicemen and their families.
i think you are vastly underestimating the professionalism of the armed forces
It has nothing to do with the professionalism of the armed forces, and more of the mentality of the soldiers. Not to say bad things about the soldiers at all, but its not exactly the most welcoming place for homosexuals, regardless of DADT.
Ergo, but this all has to be a step by step process. It wouldn't make any sense at all to ask for same sex couple benefits when revealing that you are a homosexual is enough to make you lose your job.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
Ok? So what exactly is the problem? How does this make it dumb? It's a civil rights issue nonetheless. Since when have civil rights become less important because they effect a small minority as opposed to a large minority?
The point is that repealing DADT is in no way a bad thing... just that celebrating this as some huge victory when it barely changes a thing to me is ridiculous. They should have been campaigning for getting same sex couples benefits just like heterosexual couples get, thats something that would actually change the lives of gay servicemen and their families.
Repealing DADT is a prerequisite to actually giving equal rights to gay servicepeople. How can you offer benefits to people who aren't supposed to knowingly exist in the army?
People are celebrating it because A) it's a good thing and B) it took a shit ton of effort to get it past the homobigots who desperately tried to cling to the policy.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
User was warned for this post
Why was this guy warned? I don't agree with him (at all) but I don't see what he did wrong other than post his opinion
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
User was warned for this post
Why was this guy warned? I don't agree with him (at all) but I don't see what he did wrong other than post his opinion
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
14,000 people have been discharged under DADT, that's substantial enough for me. But whether or not they will come out on their own is up to them, they will no longer have to live in fear of being outed and U.S. official policy should not be discriminatory.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
Ok? So what exactly is the problem? How does this make it dumb? It's a civil rights issue nonetheless. Since when have civil rights become less important because they effect a small minority as opposed to a large minority?
The point is that repealing DADT is in no way a bad thing... just that celebrating this as some huge victory when it barely changes a thing to me is ridiculous. They should have been campaigning for getting same sex couples benefits just like heterosexual couples get, thats something that would actually change the lives of gay servicemen and their families.
Repealing DADT is a prerequisite to actually giving equal rights to gay servicepeople. How can you offer benefits to people who aren't supposed to knowingly exist in the army?
People are celebrating it because A) it's a good thing and B) it took a shit ton of effort to get it past the homobigots who desperately tried to cling to the policy.
While DADT may have started as a homophobic policy or w/e u want to call it, it wasnt kept because of homophobia. It was kept as a way of keeping groups of people who are in high tense situations from feeling different/resentment towards each other, regardless of how wrong it was.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
Ok? So what exactly is the problem? How does this make it dumb? It's a civil rights issue nonetheless. Since when have civil rights become less important because they effect a small minority as opposed to a large minority?
The point is that repealing DADT is in no way a bad thing... just that celebrating this as some huge victory when it barely changes a thing to me is ridiculous. They should have been campaigning for getting same sex couples benefits just like heterosexual couples get, thats something that would actually change the lives of gay servicemen and their families.
Repealing DADT is a prerequisite to actually giving equal rights to gay servicepeople. How can you offer benefits to people who aren't supposed to knowingly exist in the army?
People are celebrating it because A) it's a good thing and B) it took a shit ton of effort to get it past the homobigots who desperately tried to cling to the policy.
While DADT may have started as a homophobic policy or w/e u want to call it, it wasnt kept because of homophobia. It was kept as a way of keeping groups of people who are in high tense situations from feeling different/resentment towards each other, regardless of how wrong it was.
And now we recognize that it's time to tell bigots to get over it Just like when we allowed, accepted, and acknowledged blacks in the military, as well as women. Gays are people too ^^ Integration may be tough for homophobes, but it's their problem, not the gays'.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote: I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
So you're going to try to enforce YOUR religious beliefs on other people? Classy. Thing is, I'm atheist, and don't give a damn what your Bible says, nor do I believe in these blessings. You might as well force people to be Christian. Intolerance in every which way.
No, I said nothing at all about forcing my religious beliefs on other people. I could make the point that you, following the religion of Atheism, force your religion on me by supporting the legalization of acts that are against my religion. Maybe one day when you get over being so pissed all the time and lose a good deal of your self righteousness you'll come to the understanding that people vote their conscience, and calling them bigots and intolerant only makes you an intolerant bigot.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
Ok? So what exactly is the problem? How does this make it dumb? It's a civil rights issue nonetheless. Since when have civil rights become less important because they effect a small minority as opposed to a large minority?
The point is that repealing DADT is in no way a bad thing... just that celebrating this as some huge victory when it barely changes a thing to me is ridiculous. They should have been campaigning for getting same sex couples benefits just like heterosexual couples get, thats something that would actually change the lives of gay servicemen and their families.
Repealing DADT is a prerequisite to actually giving equal rights to gay servicepeople. How can you offer benefits to people who aren't supposed to knowingly exist in the army?
People are celebrating it because A) it's a good thing and B) it took a shit ton of effort to get it past the homobigots who desperately tried to cling to the policy.
While DADT may have started as a homophobic policy or w/e u want to call it, it wasnt kept because of homophobia. It was kept as a way of keeping groups of people who are in high tense situations from feeling different/resentment towards each other, regardless of how wrong it was.
And now we recognize that it's time to tell bigots to get over it Just like when we allowed, accepted, and acknowledged blacks in the military, as well as women. Gays are people too ^^ Integration may be tough for homophobes, but it's their problem, not the gays'.
I agree to a point. The only problem is that you say "its their problem, not the gays", people who have a problem with gay people have historically made it into a problem for those gay people, lol. While DADT was a restriction of civil liberties it was also a means to try and protect gay people in the military in a way... if that makes any sense to you at all lol.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote: I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
So you're going to try to enforce YOUR religious beliefs on other people? Classy. Thing is, I'm atheist, and don't give a damn what your Bible says, nor do I believe in these blessings. You might as well force people to be Christian. Intolerance in every which way.
No, I said nothing at all about forcing my religious beliefs on other people. I could make the point that you, following the religion of Atheism, force your religion on me by supporting the legalization of acts that are against my religion. Maybe one day when you get over being so pissed all the time and lose a good deal of your self righteousness you'll come to the understanding that people vote their conscience, and calling them bigots and intolerant only makes you an intolerant bigot.
1. Atheism isn't a religion 2. Atheism doesn't enforce any beliefs or practices 3. Let's all drop the religious talk before warnings (or thread closings) start happening from the derailment. Please?
On September 21 2011 12:17 koreasilver wrote: American Christians that are so obsessed with the idea of setting up a theocracy in their nation really need to read Luther.
I have no interest in setting up a theocracy, but that in no way means that I can't take my religious beliefs into consideration when I determine my stance on any given matter.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote: I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
So you're going to try to enforce YOUR religious beliefs on other people? Classy. Thing is, I'm atheist, and don't give a damn what your Bible says, nor do I believe in these blessings. You might as well force people to be Christian. Intolerance in every which way.
No, I said nothing at all about forcing my religious beliefs on other people. I could make the point that you, following the religion of Atheism, force your religion on me by supporting the legalization of acts that are against my religion. Maybe one day when you get over being so pissed all the time and lose a good deal of your self righteousness you'll come to the understanding that people vote their conscience, and calling them bigots and intolerant only makes you an intolerant bigot.
1. Atheism isn't a religion 2. Atheism doesn't enforce any beliefs or practices 3. Let's all drop the religious talk before warnings (or thread closings) start happening from the derailment. Please?
1.Lol @ Atheism isn't a religion. 2.Neither does Christianity, otherwise there wouldn't be an issue, Islam enforces beliefs and practices, how close do you think Iran is to allowing gays to serve openly in their military? 3.Now that I've made MY point I'm happy to drop the religious talk.
I want anyone willing to fight fighting for the country. I don't give a shit who they want to fuck, because it means I am less likely to have to enlist. Good job.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote: I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
So you're going to try to enforce YOUR religious beliefs on other people? Classy. Thing is, I'm atheist, and don't give a damn what your Bible says, nor do I believe in these blessings. You might as well force people to be Christian. Intolerance in every which way.
No, I said nothing at all about forcing my religious beliefs on other people. I could make the point that you, following the religion of Atheism, force your religion on me by supporting the legalization of acts that are against my religion. Maybe one day when you get over being so pissed all the time and lose a good deal of your self righteousness you'll come to the understanding that people vote their conscience, and calling them bigots and intolerant only makes you an intolerant bigot.
No, you can't say that at all because you're wrong. I'm not forcing anything upon you by legalizing things you don't believe in and to even attempt to insinuate such is absurd. What you want to do is be a bigot by hindering on other people's rights. Me wanting to legalize gay marriage does not in ANY way infringe upon your rights. You voting with your conscience does not make you not a bigot because, as much as you want to deny it, you are one.
bigot: n a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
Tolerance is completely different than accepting. You can tolerate homosexual marriage without personally accepting it as legitimate. I am in fact tolerant of your right to have your own personal opinions, but I will never accept them. You aren't just not accepting gay marriage, but are apparently intolerant of it. You wish to use your personal vote to be intolerant of other people's personal freedoms because of your own selfish beliefs.
Unless you think people shouldn't get married if they're homosexual (or quite frankly, shouldn't participate in any homosexual acts in the first place), and that's fine, but will support their right to make their own choices. Then I would have misinterpreted you.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote: I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
So you're going to try to enforce YOUR religious beliefs on other people? Classy. Thing is, I'm atheist, and don't give a damn what your Bible says, nor do I believe in these blessings. You might as well force people to be Christian. Intolerance in every which way.
No, I said nothing at all about forcing my religious beliefs on other people. I could make the point that you, following the religion of Atheism, force your religion on me by supporting the legalization of acts that are against my religion. Maybe one day when you get over being so pissed all the time and lose a good deal of your self righteousness you'll come to the understanding that people vote their conscience, and calling them bigots and intolerant only makes you an intolerant bigot.
1. Atheism isn't a religion 2. Atheism doesn't enforce any beliefs or practices 3. Let's all drop the religious talk before warnings (or thread closings) start happening from the derailment. Please?
So, about DADT getting repealed... ^^
It's not really a religious talk I don't believe, but rather a talk on tolerance, which is 100% on topic. If what I posted actually is considered to be religious talk (I don't mean to, it's unintentional if I am and will make a mental note to stay away from it in future posts), I apologize. It wasn't meant as an attack on Christianity, but rather an attack on people who use their religious beliefs to try to restrict other people's freedoms, which is the tolerance issue.
On September 21 2011 12:17 koreasilver wrote: American Christians that are so obsessed with the idea of setting up a theocracy in their nation really need to read Luther.
I have no interest in setting up a theocracy, but that in no way means that I can't take my religious beliefs into consideration when I determine my stance on any given matter.
Whatever the state puts out by law should have little effect on what you do personally. Your argument is vapid because whatever the state decides on how to approach homosexuality does nothing to how the church decides to approach homosexuality, etc. etc. and this goes on.
The separation of the church with the state, faith with the aesthetic, God with the world, precedes Luther, Kierkegaard, and Barth all the way to Christ; "render unto Caesar...".
American Christianity is so fucking moronic. It's blind, deaf, and idolatrous. Korean Christianity is little different. It's little wonder that the Europeans have said since long ago that America has lost her ability and right to read scripture.
On September 21 2011 12:17 koreasilver wrote: American Christians that are so obsessed with the idea of setting up a theocracy in their nation really need to read Luther.
I have no interest in setting up a theocracy, but that in no way means that I can't take my religious beliefs into consideration when I determine my stance on any given matter.
Whatever the state puts out by law should have little effect on what you do personally. Your argument is vapid because whatever the state decides on how to approach homosexuality does nothing to how the church decides to approach homosexuality, etc. etc. and this goes on.
The separation of the church with the state, faith with the aesthetic, God with the world, precedes Luther, Kierkegaard, and Barth all the way to Christ; "render unto Caesar...".
American Christianity is so fucking moronic. It's blind, deaf, and idolatrous. Korean Christianity is little different. It's little wonder that the Europeans have said since long ago that America has lost her ability and right to read scripture.
Some pretty ridiculous and insulting comments in here. Just because you see idiots on tv preaching a bunch of BS doesn't mean that represents "American Christianity"..... theyre just a bunch of idiots preaching shit on TV.
On September 21 2011 12:17 koreasilver wrote: American Christians that are so obsessed with the idea of setting up a theocracy in their nation really need to read Luther.
I have no interest in setting up a theocracy, but that in no way means that I can't take my religious beliefs into consideration when I determine my stance on any given matter.
Whatever the state puts out by law should have little effect on what you do personally. Your argument is vapid because whatever the state decides on how to approach homosexuality does nothing to how the church decides to approach homosexuality, etc. etc. and this goes on.
The separation of the church with the state, faith with the aesthetic, God with the world, precedes Luther, Kierkegaard, and Barth all the way to Christ; "render unto Caesar...".
American Christianity is so fucking moronic. It's blind, deaf, and idolatrous. Korean Christianity is little different. It's little wonder that the Europeans have said since long ago that America has lost her ability and right to read scripture.
Some pretty ridiculous and insulting comments in here. Just because you see idiots on tv preaching a bunch of BS doesn't mean that represents "American Christianity"..... theyre just a bunch of idiots preaching shit on TV.
We are talking about a nation that has imported all of their fruitful Christian thought from Europe and in turn produced from their own land, Protestant Fundamentalism. I'm not going to say that there hasn't been many great thinkers from America, but when we look at the original thought that was born from within America, it is all extremely dismal.
edit: this is really off-topic, sorry
On September 21 2011 12:42 PHILtheTANK wrote: Saying that "when we look at the original thought that was born from within America, it is all extremely dismal" is literally one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. America is 250 years old and the amount of "original thought" born in America is astronomical. If you want to just talk about religion, after having thousands of years to cement their own "brands" of christianity, very little changes in todays day and age, its not like since America started its own country they should just make up their own religion too? Also Protestant Fundamentalism started in Europe, not America.
I'm only talking about within the context of Christianity, like... the context of the posts that you've been replying to. Seeing as how much radical changes and movements that have occurred within Christianity since the 19th century, anyone who thinks that Christianity has been static in any way simply just doesn't know anything about the history of modern Christianity. Also, no, Protestant Fundamentalism, which was born in the 19th century alongside to the birth and heights of Liberal Protestantism that was born in Germany, was a decisively Anglo phenomenon, most of it focused in America.
On September 21 2011 12:17 koreasilver wrote: American Christians that are so obsessed with the idea of setting up a theocracy in their nation really need to read Luther.
I have no interest in setting up a theocracy, but that in no way means that I can't take my religious beliefs into consideration when I determine my stance on any given matter.
Whatever the state puts out by law should have little effect on what you do personally. Your argument is vapid because whatever the state decides on how to approach homosexuality does nothing to how the church decides to approach homosexuality, etc. etc. and this goes on.
The separation of the church with the state, faith with the aesthetic, God with the world, precedes Luther, Kierkegaard, and Barth all the way to Christ; "render unto Caesar...".
American Christianity is so fucking moronic. It's blind, deaf, and idolatrous. Korean Christianity is little different. It's little wonder that the Europeans have said since long ago that America has lost her ability and right to read scripture.
Some pretty ridiculous and insulting comments in here. Just because you see idiots on tv preaching a bunch of BS doesn't mean that represents "American Christianity"..... theyre just a bunch of idiots preaching shit on TV.
We are talking about a nation that has imported all of their fruitful Christian thought from Europe and in turn produced from their own land, Protestant Fundamentalism. I'm not going to say that there hasn't been many great thinkers from America, but when we look at the original thought that was born from within America, it is all extremely dismal.
Saying that "when we look at the original thought that was born from within America, it is all extremely dismal" is literally one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. America is 250 years old and the amount of "original thought" born in America is astronomical. If you want to just talk about religion, after having thousands of years to cement their own "brands" of christianity, very little changes in todays day and age, its not like since America started its own country they should just make up their own religion too? Also Protestant Fundamentalism started in Europe, not America.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
Ok? So what exactly is the problem? How does this make it dumb? It's a civil rights issue nonetheless. Since when have civil rights become less important because they effect a small minority as opposed to a large minority?
The point is that repealing DADT is in no way a bad thing... just that celebrating this as some huge victory when it barely changes a thing to me is ridiculous. They should have been campaigning for getting same sex couples benefits just like heterosexual couples get, thats something that would actually change the lives of gay servicemen and their families.
Repealing DADT is a prerequisite to actually giving equal rights to gay servicepeople. How can you offer benefits to people who aren't supposed to knowingly exist in the army?
People are celebrating it because A) it's a good thing and B) it took a shit ton of effort to get it past the homobigots who desperately tried to cling to the policy.
While DADT may have started as a homophobic policy or w/e u want to call it, it wasnt kept because of homophobia. It was kept as a way of keeping groups of people who are in high tense situations from feeling different/resentment towards each other, regardless of how wrong it was.
And now we recognize that it's time to tell bigots to get over it Just like when we allowed, accepted, and acknowledged blacks in the military, as well as women. Gays are people too ^^ Integration may be tough for homophobes, but it's their problem, not the gays'.
I agree to a point. The only problem is that you say "its their problem, not the gays", people who have a problem with gay people have historically made it into a problem for those gay people, lol. While DADT was a restriction of civil liberties it was also a means to try and protect gay people in the military in a way... if that makes any sense to you at all lol.
In the military, if anyone discriminates against anyone in any way (emotional, physical, etc.) they often get in a shitton of trouble, obviously depending on the severity. People in the military take that shit VERY SERIOUSLY, and the same applies to homosexual discrimination. Gays don't need protection from the homophobes, because Equal Opportunity Investigators and the UCMJ already does it.
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote: This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote: I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
So you're going to try to enforce YOUR religious beliefs on other people? Classy. Thing is, I'm atheist, and don't give a damn what your Bible says, nor do I believe in these blessings. You might as well force people to be Christian. Intolerance in every which way.
No, I said nothing at all about forcing my religious beliefs on other people. I could make the point that you, following the religion of Atheism, force your religion on me by supporting the legalization of acts that are against my religion. Maybe one day when you get over being so pissed all the time and lose a good deal of your self righteousness you'll come to the understanding that people vote their conscience, and calling them bigots and intolerant only makes you an intolerant bigot.
I'm sorry, but calling Atheism a religion is absolutely wrong and I'm going to have trouble taking anything else you say seriously. Now, on topic:
About damn time. A law like this shouldn't have ever existed in the first place. It was openly discriminatory against homosexuals, so I'm glad this shit finally got repealed.
On September 21 2011 15:44 AdrianHealey wrote: Hurray!
Now gay people can kill, bomb, exterminate and destroy Muslims in Muslim countries too!
:/
Because every single person in the United States Military does that. I love it! I'm out here every day in Muslim-ridden South Dakota finding and killing helpless Muslim elderly, women, and children.
Going offtopic with the religious discussion after this post will net you a 2 day ban at least. Stay on topic please. That especially goes for people feeling the pressing need to get that last word/reply in anyway after this post.
Surprised this hasn't gotten more coverage considering its the 1st day people are allowed to come out of the closet in the military. I wonder how many men and women told their officers they're gay now lol.
My main problem as a whole with the US is how long it takes for us to actually realize the shit we do is stupid and that we should stop it. It's awesome that it's finally gone, but it took WAY too long for this to actually happen.
DADT wasn't a no gays allowed policy. it was as it was called... you don't ask people about their sexual orientation and you dont tell people about your sexual orientation. Technically you could violate DADT if you said you were straight. you could use it to stop people from making sexual orientation remarks. I did this in Basic training cause some dick would harass people all day and loved to call people "gay faggots". I made it clear to him if he continued i would bring it up w/ the chain of command. He stopped for the rest of the time there. One of the Drill sergeants explained DADT as a means to help protect ourselves from disliking people in your unit. example was you don't want someone saying how they are gay and have someone to hesitate jumping in a fox hole w/ them when mortars are hitting. Same time it keeps that person safe from being harassed and singled out for being gay.
Anyways that's the way i perceived DADT on paper. end of the day DADT or no DADT it doesn't really make a difference cause your w/ a tight knit group of people and people are gonna single individuals out or accept them whether there is a policy or not for the most part. for me if ya get the job done and have a good attitude your cool w/ me and thats how most people are that i have worked with are. thats my 2 cents
Seems pretty retarded to me. What is the benefit to being able to state your sexual orientation?
I can see plenty of negative-
If I'm a straight guy in the army, I don't want to dress down or shower with a gay guy. Are they going to put all the gays in separate buildings, showers, units? They should, but that'd be bad right? Everyone would be upset, oh my, the segregation, it's not fair! But wait, there was no segregation before...why is that? Because before, it didn't matter, because no one knew anything, because that's not supposed to matter in the armed forces, because you're there for only one reason, to protect and serve.
Well lordy be, if they aren't going to separate the gays from the straight, by golly, if I was in the force, I would want to bunk and shower with females. Since everyone is equal, this should be changed right along with it, right? Oh wait, that's ridiculous? Yeah, it kinda is.
It's just stupid all around. No guy wants to be worrying about a gay looking at his junk, or fantasizing, or getting drunk and making a pass. It's hilarious they pass this to try to give gays rights, but everyone had the same rights already, keep your mouth shut and do your duty. Didn't matter before, you don't like it, can't handle not talking gay or prancing around, adios. The armed forces isn't for any of that, and if you're there for what it is there for, it sure as hell shouldn't make a difference whether you can put your sexual orientation out there or not.
I can't wait for all the unnecessary drama this will bring. The ones already in the armed forces will probably be smart enough to continue on without saying a word. The dumb ones, or the new ones, will probably get beaten and rejected by the rest, and there'll be 10x more animosity. It won't be fair to straight guys to have to bunk with gays, but I'll bet my last dollar they don't do shit about that, even though the majority of soldiers are straight. Oh, and let's not forget all the "They mistreat me because I'm gay" or "Sarg is homophobic because he made me clean the bunks, he needs to be fired." All this non-sense that should never surface
On September 21 2011 19:02 hasuwar wrote: Seems pretty retarded to me. What is the benefit to being able to state your sexual orientation?
I can see plenty of negative-
If I'm a straight guy in the army, I don't want to dress down or shower with a gay guy. Are they going to put all the gays in separate buildings, showers, units? They should, but that'd be bad right? Everyone would be upset, oh my, the segregation, it's not fair! But wait, there was no segregation before...why is that? Because before, it didn't matter, because no one knew anything, because that's not supposed to matter in the armed forces, because you're there for only one reason, to protect and serve.
Well lordy be, if they aren't going to separate the gays from the straight, by golly, if I was in the force, I would want to bunk and shower with females. Since everyone is equal, this should be changed right along with it, right? Oh wait, that's ridiculous? Yeah, it kinda is.
It's just stupid all around. No guy wants to be worrying about a gay looking at his junk, or fantasizing, or getting drunk and making a pass. It's hilarious they pass this to try to give gays rights, but everyone had the same rights already, keep your mouth shut and do your duty. Didn't matter before, you don't like it, can't handle not talking gay or prancing around, adios. The armed forces isn't for any of that, and if you're there for what it is there for, it sure as hell shouldn't make a difference whether you can put your sexual orientation out there or not.
I can't wait for all the unnecessary drama this will bring. The ones already in the armed forces will probably be smart enough to continue on without saying a word. The dumb ones, or the new ones, will probably get beaten and rejected by the rest, and there'll be 10x more animosity. It won't be fair to straight guys to have to bunk with gays, but I'll bet my last dollar they don't do shit about that, even though the majority of soldiers are straight. Oh, and let's not forget all the "They mistreat me because I'm gay" or "Sarg is homophobic because he made me clean the bunks, he needs to be fired." All this non-sense that should never surface
RepealingDADT won't change anything. Like you said before homosexuals were alrdy in the military they simply didn't out themselves out of fear of getting kicked out. DADT being repealed isn't going to make them come out of the closet, nothing is going to change. They simply have rights to protect the country if for some reason it is known they are gay and they can't be discharged.
Just do your duty and try to enjoy yourself while you protect your country. If you wanna out yourself to a buncha straight guys who you shower with go ahead, but be prepared to be singled out a little bit at times. It's the same thing in the real world.
Like I said before repealing DADT is a good thing and protects peoples rights to serve in the military if they are gay.
On September 21 2011 19:02 hasuwar wrote: Seems pretty retarded to me. What is the benefit to being able to state your sexual orientation?
I can see plenty of negative-
If I'm a straight guy in the army, I don't want to dress down or shower with a gay guy. Are they going to put all the gays in separate buildings, showers, units? They should, but that'd be bad right? Everyone would be upset, oh my, the segregation, it's not fair! But wait, there was no segregation before...why is that? Because before, it didn't matter, because no one knew anything, because that's not supposed to matter in the armed forces, because you're there for only one reason, to protect and serve.
Well lordy be, if they aren't going to separate the gays from the straight, by golly, if I was in the force, I would want to bunk and shower with females. Since everyone is equal, this should be changed right along with it, right? Oh wait, that's ridiculous? Yeah, it kinda is.
It's just stupid all around. No guy wants to be worrying about a gay looking at his junk, or fantasizing, or getting drunk and making a pass. It's hilarious they pass this to try to give gays rights, but everyone had the same rights already, keep your mouth shut and do your duty. Didn't matter before, you don't like it, can't handle not talking gay or prancing around, adios. The armed forces isn't for any of that, and if you're there for what it is there for, it sure as hell shouldn't make a difference whether you can put your sexual orientation out there or not.
I can't wait for all the unnecessary drama this will bring. The ones already in the armed forces will probably be smart enough to continue on without saying a word. The dumb ones, or the new ones, will probably get beaten and rejected by the rest, and there'll be 10x more animosity. It won't be fair to straight guys to have to bunk with gays, but I'll bet my last dollar they don't do shit about that, even though the majority of soldiers are straight. Oh, and let's not forget all the "They mistreat me because I'm gay" or "Sarg is homophobic because he made me clean the bunks, he needs to be fired." All this non-sense that should never surface
I don't think you get it. Gay people aren't sexual predators just waiting for the chance to hit on their fellow soldiers every chance they get. And if any are, they should gtfo of the military. It has nothing to do with "prancing around and talking gay." Before they repealed this you weren't even allowed to MENTION your boyfriend/husband. Could you imagine being a married straight man and accidentally mentioning your wife? GG you're kicked out for good.
I agree with you Odal, but on the other hand, why aren't there unisex showers etc. then? Men in general are not sexual predators just waiting to hit on their fellow female soldiers every chance they get. I think it simply has to do a lot with psychology. Regardless, I want to add that simply because DADT was repelled it does not mean that suddenly every gay member of the forces will come out and tell every cooleague that he is gay, I think we will really have to wait and see what time will bring.
On September 21 2011 20:31 Xedat wrote: I agree with you Odal, but on the other hand, why aren't there unisex showers etc. then? Men in general are not sexual predators just waiting to hit on their fellow female soldiers every chance they get. I think it simply has to do a lot of psychology. Regardless, I want to add that simply because DADT was repelled it does not mean that suddenly every gay member of the forces will come out and tell every cooleague that he is gay, I think we will really have to wait and see what time will bring.
Showers are in bathrooms.
Bathrooms are separated by gender because different sexes have different sexual organs. Urinals are useless for women, and men don't want to wait forty minutes to take a piss.
Not evry shower also contains urinals, and this is not the point. It would be far more efficient to have one big bathrooms with normal toilets than two bathrooms, the genders are separated because it is required by law and because it would make a lot of people uneasy.
On September 21 2011 20:31 Xedat wrote: I agree with you Odal, but on the other hand, why aren't there unisex showers etc. then? Men in general are not sexual predators just waiting to hit on their fellow female soldiers every chance they get. I think it simply has to do a lot with psychology. Regardless, I want to add that simply because DADT was repelled it does not mean that suddenly every gay member of the forces will come out and tell every cooleague that he is gay, I think we will really have to wait and see what time will bring.
I agree we aren't sexual predators but showing in a big open are with women likely might cause me to get aroused simply because I am seeing naked women. This could cause me to be embarrassed and make them feel uncomfortable.
While I was in the military (mainly basic) you didn't have time in showers to really focus on anything besides getting clean asap. If some gay guy had the time to ever check me out I do not know but neither did I care really.
On September 21 2011 20:31 Xedat wrote: I agree with you Odal, but on the other hand, why aren't there unisex showers etc. then? Men in general are not sexual predators just waiting to hit on their fellow female soldiers every chance they get. I think it simply has to do a lot with psychology. Regardless, I want to add that simply because DADT was repelled it does not mean that suddenly every gay member of the forces will come out and tell every cooleague that he is gay, I think we will really have to wait and see what time will bring.
I agree we aren't sexual predators but showing in a big open are with women likely might cause me to get aroused simply because I am seeing naked women. This could cause me to be embarrassed and make them feel uncomfortable.
While I was in the military (mainly basic) you didn't have time in showers to really focus on anything besides getting clean asap. If some gay guy had the time to ever check me out I do not know but neither did I care really.
I agree completly with you, but I want to add that a gay man could as easily get aroused by seeing naked man than a heterosexual man by seeing women. Still, only because men can now openly say that they are gay does not mean that suddenly in every shower there will be a few guys with raging boners.
On September 21 2011 21:22 Xedat wrote: Not evry shower also contains urinals, and this is not the point. It would be far more efficient to have one big bathrooms with normal toilets than two bathrooms, the genders are separated because it is required by law and because it would make a lot of people uneasy.
Yes, and since showers and locker rooms are generally located in bathroom areas, I don't see the need for the military to go out of their way to create unisex showers outside of bathroom areas o.O Do you wish to knock down all the already-existing gender-split bathrooms just to create unisex bathrooms? I doubt it will ever happen just because we already have working bathrooms. It just seems... unnecessary.
My line regarding women taking forever in the bathroom was admittedly a bit tongue-in-cheek, but my first point was that it would be inefficient to have showers in a different location than bathroom areas, because old (and possibly outdated) laws have already allowed the creation of useful facilities. This is an important difference between why it's unnecessary to worry about re-creating unisex bathrooms (if working bathrooms already exist), but it's fine to allow all men (regardless of sexual orientation) to share a bathroom. No one sane is going to argue that gay men are busy checking out other guys instead of washing or going to the bathroom... and that straight men should have that same "right" with women.
On September 21 2011 19:02 hasuwar wrote: Seems pretty retarded to me. What is the benefit to being able to state your sexual orientation?
I can see plenty of negative-
If I'm a straight guy in the army, I don't want to dress down or shower with a gay guy. Are they going to put all the gays in separate buildings, showers, units? They should, but that'd be bad right? Everyone would be upset, oh my, the segregation, it's not fair! But wait, there was no segregation before...why is that? Because before, it didn't matter, because no one knew anything, because that's not supposed to matter in the armed forces, because you're there for only one reason, to protect and serve.
Well lordy be, if they aren't going to separate the gays from the straight, by golly, if I was in the force, I would want to bunk and shower with females. Since everyone is equal, this should be changed right along with it, right? Oh wait, that's ridiculous? Yeah, it kinda is.
It's just stupid all around. No guy wants to be worrying about a gay looking at his junk, or fantasizing, or getting drunk and making a pass. It's hilarious they pass this to try to give gays rights, but everyone had the same rights already, keep your mouth shut and do your duty. Didn't matter before, you don't like it, can't handle not talking gay or prancing around, adios. The armed forces isn't for any of that, and if you're there for what it is there for, it sure as hell shouldn't make a difference whether you can put your sexual orientation out there or not.
I can't wait for all the unnecessary drama this will bring. The ones already in the armed forces will probably be smart enough to continue on without saying a word. The dumb ones, or the new ones, will probably get beaten and rejected by the rest, and there'll be 10x more animosity. It won't be fair to straight guys to have to bunk with gays, but I'll bet my last dollar they don't do shit about that, even though the majority of soldiers are straight. Oh, and let's not forget all the "They mistreat me because I'm gay" or "Sarg is homophobic because he made me clean the bunks, he needs to be fired." All this non-sense that should never surface
Just because you're insecure with your sexuality doesn't mean homosexuals shouldn't serve. I'm sure any homosexual who joins the military isn't joining to "stare at your junk." If these are your main concerns, well that is fucking pathetic. The only reasons you state are your own personal issues that make you uncomfortable.
I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
...Are ...you ...serious?
What about women? What about certain ethnicities?
If you can complete military training, then you're fine.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
Yeah, we shouldn't let fags into the military. They should all be proper men. Manly men. Big, strong men with chest hair and muscles, all sweaty from exercise heading into the showers together like you see at the gym. Strong muscular men cleaning each other's rifles. Powerful, assertive men who just take what they want and.... sorry, I lost my train of thought there.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
Yeah, we shouldn't let fags into the military. They should all be proper men. Manly men. Big, strong men with chest hair and muscles, all sweaty from exercise heading into the showers together like you see at the gym. Strong muscular men cleaning each other's rifles. Powerful, assertive men who just take what they want and.... sorry, I lost my train of thought there.
Haha KwarK!
Why does it seem like 1/3 of the people who have posted in this thread think that, just because DADT has been repealed, suddenly all gay soldiers are going to be walking around with pink glittered camo uniforms, sneak into their bunks at night to cuddle with them, and/or stare at their junk in the showers?
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
rofl, yes, because all straight men are rambo lookin motherfuckers, and all gay men are little thin prancing fairies like richard simmons.
It must be nice to see the world in such black and white clarity as you do.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
rofl, yes, because all straight men are rambo lookin motherfuckers, and all gay men are little thin prancing fairies like richard simmons.
It must be nice to see the world in such black and white clarity as you do.
I could see Richard Simmons ending the war on terror with jazzercise.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
Yeah, we shouldn't let fags into the military. They should all be proper men. Manly men. Big, strong men with chest hair and muscles, all sweaty from exercise heading into the showers together like you see at the gym. Strong muscular men cleaning each other's rifles. Powerful, assertive men who just take what they want and.... sorry, I lost my train of thought there.
I'm so undecided on how I feel about this. My roommate is gay. He doesn't care one way or another because he's not in the military. I'd like to think that if I was in the military that I'd accept being naked around a homosexual male (showers) and that we were just there for work, but I know I might be a little uncomfortable in certain situations. I look at it this way, if he's willing to die for me, it doesn't matter who gender, sexuality, color or creed you are.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
*Taliban Commander*
Oh no!, the US Army is coming, they have tanks, missiles and stealth bombers, we can't beat them!
*Random soldier*
But sir, didn't you hear?, some of their soldiers are gay.
*T.C.*
HA!, losers, let's go kick their asses with our AK-47s and RPGs.
Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote: Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
so what your saying is that female soldiers are bad because they might want to have sex with you at any moment! or that gay men who have worked along side you just fine up until now without telling you they were gay, will suddenly get all up in 'your junk' now you know they are gay? sounds to me like you have the problem, not the gay soldier next to you whos been doing his job for the last 3 years without you knowing about it.
On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote: Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
Sorry you're going to have to be more specific. What is it that the gay guy who is now legally allowed to say he's gay while still being subject to the same rules regarding conduct and professionalism in the armed services doing now when he gets the special feeling that he wasn't before while being not allowed to say he was gay but still subject to the same rules.
On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote: Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
So, you can handle being on a ship for 6 months (you're so tough!), and you can handle the involvement of being in a war, but the possibility of a guy being attracted to you will cause things to "get tough".
On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote: Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
Then kick the 5% out of the military that have serious issues. I'd bet money there's still some soldiers that would feel uncomfortable serving alongside black soldiers, but that doesn't mean we should discriminate against blacks, should we?
On September 22 2011 04:09 PanN wrote: So, you can handle being on a ship for 6 months (you're so tough!), and you can handle the involvement of being in a war, but the possibility of a guy being attracted to you will cause things to "get tough".
Pathetic.
To be fair, working with someone who may or may not be attracted to you on a day to day basis can probably lead to some awkward/uncomfortable situations.
On September 22 2011 04:09 PanN wrote: So, you can handle being on a ship for 6 months (you're so tough!), and you can handle the involvement of being in a war, but the possibility of a guy being attracted to you will cause things to "get tough".
Pathetic.
To be fair, working with someone who may or may not be attracted to you on a day to day basis can probably lead to some awkward/uncomfortable situations.
First of all, not all gay guys want to have sex with you. Secondly, if they aren't professional enough to overcome sexual tension they're gonna have serious problems once bullets start flying. Thirdly, they were already gay. It's just now they don't live under constant threat of being discovered and dismissed as unworthy of serving the country they signed up to die for.
Just because people want equal rights for gays does not mean this is a good military policy. Knowing people who are in the military, this is probably unwise. But I don't think the homosexual lobby really cares about good military policy.
On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote: Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
Sorry you're going to have to be more specific. What is it that the gay guy who is now legally allowed to say he's gay while still being subject to the same rules regarding conduct and professionalism in the armed services doing now when he gets the special feeling that he wasn't before while being not allowed to say he was gay but still subject to the same rules.
I think that's his point. What ARE the exact policy changes for these situations? - nobody knows, they only knew that this had to be done and did it.
On September 22 2011 04:09 PanN wrote: So, you can handle being on a ship for 6 months (you're so tough!), and you can handle the involvement of being in a war, but the possibility of a guy being attracted to you will cause things to "get tough".
Pathetic.
To be fair, working with someone who may or may not be attracted to you on a day to day basis can probably lead to some awkward/uncomfortable situations.
First of all, not all gay guys want to have sex with you. Secondly, if they aren't professional enough to overcome sexual tension they're gonna have serious problems once bullets start flying. Thirdly, they were already gay. It's just now they don't live under constant threat of being discovered and dismissed as unworthy of serving the country they signed up to die for.
I agree.
I'm not saying soldiers shouldn't suck it up or that gay servicemen are going to be a pandemic in the military, but you have to admit that there are plenty who will still feel a little uncomfortable, despite whatever rationale they might repeat to themselves.
It's not a bad thing or a good thing, it's just how it is.
On September 22 2011 04:15 0neder wrote: Just because people want equal rights for gays does not mean this is a good military policy. Knowing people who are in the military, this is probably unwise. But I don't think the homosexual lobby really cares about good military policy.
the british army doesnt have dadt and we still seem to be able to invade small poor oil countries as well as you, just sayin
On September 22 2011 04:15 0neder wrote: Just because people want equal rights for gays does not mean this is a good military policy. Knowing people who are in the military, this is probably unwise. But I don't think the homosexual lobby really cares about good military policy.
the british army doesnt have dadt and we still seem to be able to invade small poor oil countries as well as you, just sayin
On September 21 2011 21:22 Xedat wrote: Not evry shower also contains urinals, and this is not the point. It would be far more efficient to have one big bathrooms with normal toilets than two bathrooms, the genders are separated because it is required by law and because it would make a lot of people uneasy.
Yes, and since showers and locker rooms are generally located in bathroom areas, I don't see the need for the military to go out of their way to create unisex showers outside of bathroom areas o.O Do you wish to knock down all the already-existing gender-split bathrooms just to create unisex bathrooms? I doubt it will ever happen just because we already have working bathrooms. It just seems... unnecessary.
My line regarding women taking forever in the bathroom was admittedly a bit tongue-in-cheek, but my first point was that it would be inefficient to have showers in a different location than bathroom areas, because old (and possibly outdated) laws have already allowed the creation of useful facilities. This is an important difference between why it's unnecessary to worry about re-creating unisex bathrooms (if working bathrooms already exist), but it's fine to allow all men (regardless of sexual orientation) to share a bathroom. No one sane is going to argue that gay men are busy checking out other guys instead of washing or going to the bathroom... and that straight men should have that same "right" with women.
You might have misunderstood me there, I am not saying that men and women should share baathrooms, my general statement is that gay men should be allowed to say that they are gay, but Ialso udnerstand that some men might feel a bit uneasy if they shower with a guy who they know is gay, much like a women showering with a man, and that I understand the feeling of those men too.
On September 22 2011 04:09 PanN wrote: So, you can handle being on a ship for 6 months (you're so tough!), and you can handle the involvement of being in a war, but the possibility of a guy being attracted to you will cause things to "get tough".
Pathetic.
To be fair, working with someone who may or may not be attracted to you on a day to day basis can probably lead to some awkward/uncomfortable situations.
First of all, not all gay guys want to have sex with you. Secondly, if they aren't professional enough to overcome sexual tension they're gonna have serious problems once bullets start flying. Thirdly, they were already gay. It's just now they don't live under constant threat of being discovered and dismissed as unworthy of serving the country they signed up to die for.
I agree.
I'm not saying soldiers shouldn't suck it up or that gay servicemen are going to be a pandemic in the military, but you have to admit that there are plenty who will still feel a little uncomfortable, despite whatever rationale they might repeat to themselves.
It's not a bad thing or a good thing, it's just how it is.
Ok, those people who feel uncomfortable need to get over it. That's all there is to it. Just, as I've said before, most people have gotten over the uncomfortable feelings of racial integration. You think the lots of whites in the military were super excited to be bunking with blacks? I doubt it. Being "uncomfortable" is a terrible excuse. If they're that uncomfortable, then I'd rather htem not join the military.
On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote: Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
Sorry you're going to have to be more specific. What is it that the gay guy who is now legally allowed to say he's gay while still being subject to the same rules regarding conduct and professionalism in the armed services doing now when he gets the special feeling that he wasn't before while being not allowed to say he was gay but still subject to the same rules.
I think that's his point. What ARE the exact policy changes for these situations? - nobody knows, they only knew that this had to be done and did it.
I think it's pretty simple. I'll illustrate in a series of before and after sketches.
Before: *in combat* Gay soldier does his duty in a competent and professional manner without bringing up his personal life. After: *in combat* Gay soldier does his duty in a competent and professional manner without bringing up his personal life.
Before: *in shower* Gay soldier goes in, gets clean, gets out, gets dry, continues about his duties. After: *in shower* Gay soldier goes in, gets clean, gets out, gets dry, continues about his duties.
Before: *in barracks in free time* Gay soldier struggles to participate in sexual banter and feels different, pressured to fit in and under constant scrutiny. Is afraid for his job security, his career, his pension, his friends, can lose everything he holds dear at a moments notice. After: *in barracks in free time* Gay soldier can participate in discussions of personal business without having to live a lie.
On September 22 2011 03:58 MarcoPol0 wrote: Coming from three straight years of being onboard a Navy ship with only men, I am VERY skeptical about the repeal of DADT. Though I also do not have a problem with gays out in public, in a work environment such as a navy ship, things are different, things are more personal and you develop closer relationships with the ones you work with. Not only do you work with everyone, you also sleep next to them, go to the bathroom, brush your teeth, basically do EVERYTHING together. The line has to be drawn somewhere in order for the job to be done most effectively. sure, 95% of people dont care who is gay and who isnt, but there is that 5% who have a SERIOUS problem with this, and will go out of their way to make things for that gay person as miserable as possible.
Basically what I'm saying is, its much easier to say you accept the repeal of DADT, but once your out there, in the middle of the ocean, for over 6 months, and the gay guy sleeping a foot away from you gets that special feeling, its going to get tough.
Sorry you're going to have to be more specific. What is it that the gay guy who is now legally allowed to say he's gay while still being subject to the same rules regarding conduct and professionalism in the armed services doing now when he gets the special feeling that he wasn't before while being not allowed to say he was gay but still subject to the same rules.
I think that's his point. What ARE the exact policy changes for these situations? - nobody knows, they only knew that this had to be done and did it.
I think it's pretty simple. I'll illustrate in a series of before and after sketches.
Before: *in combat* Gay soldier does his duty in a competent and professional manner without bringing up his personal life. After: *in combat* Gay soldier does his duty in a competent and professional manner without bringing up his personal life.
Before: *in shower* Gay soldier goes in, gets clean, gets out, gets dry, continues about his duties. After: *in shower* Gay soldier goes in, gets clean, gets out, gets dry, continues about his duties.
Before: *in barracks in free time* Gay soldier struggles to participate in sexual banter and feels different, pressured to fit in and under constant scrutiny. Is afraid for his job security, his career, his pension, his friends, can lose everything he holds dear at a moments notice. After: *in barracks in free time* Gay soldier can participate in discussions of personal business without having to live a lie.
Not just that. Most likely even your third scenario won't exist, as most won't come out anyways. A huge thing is something like writing a letter to home to a significant other, and someone glancing over your shoulder, and seeing
"Hey Tom, Currently stationed out here in .............
....
....
....
Miss you a lot, can't wait until I can see you again and be in your arms.
Love,
Joe"
If it had said Sarah instead, no biggie.
On September 22 2011 04:29 Paperplane wrote: Reminds me of
Calm down everypony. This isn't the end of the world
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
when your military is 10x stronger than every other military force _combined_ it really doesn't matter if they're intimidated or not. your logic makes me fucking head hurt.
On September 21 2011 19:02 hasuwar wrote: Seems pretty retarded to me. What is the benefit to being able to state your sexual orientation?
I can see plenty of negative-
If I'm a straight guy in the army, I don't want to dress down or shower with a gay guy. Are they going to put all the gays in separate buildings, showers, units? They should, but that'd be bad right? Everyone would be upset, oh my, the segregation, it's not fair! But wait, there was no segregation before...why is that? Because before, it didn't matter, because no one knew anything, because that's not supposed to matter in the armed forces, because you're there for only one reason, to protect and serve.
Well lordy be, if they aren't going to separate the gays from the straight, by golly, if I was in the force, I would want to bunk and shower with females. Since everyone is equal, this should be changed right along with it, right? Oh wait, that's ridiculous? Yeah, it kinda is.
It's just stupid all around. No guy wants to be worrying about a gay looking at his junk, or fantasizing, or getting drunk and making a pass. It's hilarious they pass this to try to give gays rights, but everyone had the same rights already, keep your mouth shut and do your duty. Didn't matter before, you don't like it, can't handle not talking gay or prancing around, adios. The armed forces isn't for any of that, and if you're there for what it is there for, it sure as hell shouldn't make a difference whether you can put your sexual orientation out there or not.
I can't wait for all the unnecessary drama this will bring. The ones already in the armed forces will probably be smart enough to continue on without saying a word. The dumb ones, or the new ones, will probably get beaten and rejected by the rest, and there'll be 10x more animosity. It won't be fair to straight guys to have to bunk with gays, but I'll bet my last dollar they don't do shit about that, even though the majority of soldiers are straight. Oh, and let's not forget all the "They mistreat me because I'm gay" or "Sarg is homophobic because he made me clean the bunks, he needs to be fired." All this non-sense that should never surface
Have you ever used a change room in a gym? Do you carry the fear that someone will look at your junk in a change room in a gym?
On September 22 2011 04:15 0neder wrote: Just because people want equal rights for gays does not mean this is a good military policy. Knowing people who are in the military, this is probably unwise. But I don't think the homosexual lobby really cares about good military policy.
On September 22 2011 04:15 0neder's 1950 equivalent wrote: Just because people want equal rights for blacks does not mean racial integration is a good military policy. Knowing people who are in the military, this is probably unwise. But I don't think the black lobby really cares about good military policy.
On September 22 2011 02:50 SarR wrote: I dont have a problem with gays wanting equal treatment and all that jazz but I think in this case an exception should be made. The military is an organization which provides a threat of force in order to achieve goals. Part of the military's character would have an element of intimidation involved. I dont know about you, but I think having gays there is a bad idea and can undermine its purpose. I mean seriously, if a military was threatening invasion of your country and you see a Boy George or a Clay Aiken looking kid armed with a rifle in their military, would you actually take them seriously ? Shit...that'll encourage me to resist if anything. I mean come on.
You see some rambo lookin motherfucker with chest hairs armed with an M60 and you'd shit your pants.
*Taliban Commander*
Oh no!, the US Army is coming, they have tanks, missiles and stealth bombers, we can't beat them!
*Random soldier*
But sir, didn't you hear?, some of their soldiers are gay.
*T.C.*
HA!, losers, let's go kick their asses with our AK-47s and RPGs.
Well you have a good point here. America goes mech instead of bio in its most intense conflicts so i guess this change wouldnt have much of an effect.
On September 22 2011 08:13 Subversion wrote: Glad this is going through since, I never really understood the point of it in the 1st place.
Only foreseeable problem is openly gay men getting abused in the military, I can imagine a very bigoted attitude towards them.
Honestly I see it the opposite. I think that people outside the military have more of a problem with gays than do those in the military. I don't think they give a shit who has their back as long as at the end of the day they are all alive and well. Or so I've heard from my navy and army buddies.
On September 22 2011 04:14 KwarK wrote: First of all, not all gay guys want to have sex with you.
No if you're considered by most to be good looking. I get this problem all the time with fags, it is unbelievably annoying because you just want to let them down easy and they still keep fuckin trying. They change their tactics and approach in the hopes that they can convince you to "see the light" so to speak.
Every time I meet one of these folks through a girl friend or something while hanging out or partying, the minute she leaves, they move in. Subtle at first as if to test the waters and because of my stupid polite nature I dont tell them to "fuck off". Instead, i say in a very polite manner, "I dont swing that way". Thats when it gets real interesting. They start offering to take care of me and just all types of shit just to get me to budge.
Ive never once met a gay person who wasnt interested. Not once. I could never work alongside them in the military.
On September 22 2011 04:14 KwarK wrote: First of all, not all gay guys want to have sex with you.
No if you're considered by most to be good looking. I get this problem all the time with fags, it is unbelievably annoying because you just want to let them down easy and they still keep fuckin trying. They change their tactics and approach in the hopes that they can convince you to "see the light" so to speak.
Every time I meet one of these folks through a girl friend or something while hanging out or partying, the minute she leaves, they move in. Subtle at first as if to test the waters and because of my stupid polite nature I dont tell them to "fuck off". Instead, i say in a very polite manner, "I dont swing that way". Thats when it gets real interesting. They start offering to take care of me and just all types of shit just to get me to budge.
Ive never once met a gay person who wasnt interested. Not once. I could never work alongside them in the military.
You do realise all the gay guys you have met that don't want to have sex with you, probably haven't made it that obvious that they were gay and you probably didn't think they were gay. It's only if they are actually flirting with you that you might realise it because the default is to assume people are straight and there aren't that many gay people who fit the stereotype of walking round saying "I'm feeling so gay tonight."
On September 22 2011 04:14 KwarK wrote: First of all, not all gay guys want to have sex with you.
No if you're considered by most to be good looking. I get this problem all the time with fags, it is unbelievably annoying because you just want to let them down easy and they still keep fuckin trying. They change their tactics and approach in the hopes that they can convince you to "see the light" so to speak.
Every time I meet one of these folks through a girl friend or something while hanging out or partying, the minute she leaves, they move in. Subtle at first as if to test the waters and because of my stupid polite nature I dont tell them to "fuck off". Instead, i say in a very polite manner, "I dont swing that way". Thats when it gets real interesting. They start offering to take care of me and just all types of shit just to get me to budge.
Ive never once met a gay person who wasnt interested. Not once. I could never work alongside them in the military.
Am I the only one who checked to see if this guy had a profile pic? I paused for a sec for fear I may be blinded by his beauty but built up the courage and found nothing.
In short, there are VERY attractive people in the world, men and women. I am gay and have been hit on by LOTS of girls and treat them the same as guys I am not interested in. We all have to deal with persistent admirers at some point.
Anyways I find this to be a moot point as the whole premise of your argument against gays in the military is that based off your personal experience gays cant control themselves. I imagine if this is ever the case for anybody it will be treated the same as heterosexual harassment.
Also, I dont know how many times it has to be said. Gays have been in the military since its inception. First illegally and then silently. Yet apart from the bigoted actions of some homophobes it has never been more of a problem an any other personnel issue (at least according to military leadership).
On September 22 2011 04:14 KwarK wrote: First of all, not all gay guys want to have sex with you.
No if you're considered by most to be good looking. I get this problem all the time with fags, it is unbelievably annoying because you just want to let them down easy and they still keep fuckin trying. They change their tactics and approach in the hopes that they can convince you to "see the light" so to speak.
Every time I meet one of these folks through a girl friend or something while hanging out or partying, the minute she leaves, they move in. Subtle at first as if to test the waters and because of my stupid polite nature I dont tell them to "fuck off". Instead, i say in a very polite manner, "I dont swing that way". Thats when it gets real interesting. They start offering to take care of me and just all types of shit just to get me to budge.
Ive never once met a gay person who wasnt interested. Not once. I could never work alongside them in the military.
No, not all gay people want to have sex with you. Whether you're exaggerating or you've just happened to meet a particular crowd or you've met people that you didn't know were gay, I'm not sure. See, the thing is, I've never once met a gay guy who doesn't have the sense to back off when someone asserts their heterosexuality (and that includes myself).
I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences, but that is simply not a reason to legitimate acts of discrimination. Not to mention that the conduct of drunk gay guys at parties is going to be vastly different from their conduct at their job.
On September 22 2011 09:06 imallinson wrote:You do realise all the gay guys you have met that don't want to have sex with you, probably haven't made it that obvious that they were gay and you probably didn't think they were gay. It's only if they are actually flirting with you that you might realise it because the default is to assume people are straight and there aren't that many gay people who fit the stereotype of walking round saying "I'm feeling so gay tonight."
You have a point there. However in some cases ive actually seen these guys around. Some I knew were gay and some, not. Thankfully, they don’t just come up to you and spill their guts to you. What happens is eventually I’ll come around with someone, usually a woman who knows one of them and in a setting like a bar or a club they would greet each other and start talking and introductions are made. This is where it starts to go downhill(for me at least). I always come to find out how long they were watching and attracted to me before we spoke which seriously creeps me the fuck out.
On September 22 2011 09:09 Velocirapture wrote:Am I the only one who checked to see if this guy had a profile pic? I paused for a sec for fear I may be blinded by his beauty but built up the courage and found nothing.
There is no need to be a condescending cunt. First of all, I’d never ever say I was good looking, I said I am considered so. Most importantly, a picture of me wouldn’t mean a thing and in case your narrow mind doesn’t understand why, I’ll explain. What people find attractive is heavily influenced by their own culture and their environment. So what I am really saying is that where I am from, the people from my environment and culture consider me to be quite good-looking. I can’t help that. I can only tell you what I’ve experienced.
The number one reason your kind(for lack of a better word) seems so dead set on trying to “turn” me was because of how good-looking they considered me to be. They have no qualms about saying how extremely attractive they find me and that being their primary driving force. That’s how I know.
Please try to be less of a prick. I don’t make these posts to offend but rather to give a perspective. Ok ? It would be nice if you can give some constructive insight into this issue instead of being a dick. Given that you are one of them, I’m certain you can help me to understand their tenacious attitude and how best to deal with it.
On September 22 2011 09:55 matjlav wrote: No, not all gay people want to have sex with you. Whether you're exaggerating or you've just happened to meet a particular crowd or you've met people that you didn't know were gay, I'm not sure. See, the thing is, I've never once met a gay guy who doesn't have the sense to back off when someone asserts their heterosexuality (and that includes myself).
I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences, but that is simply not a reason to legitimate acts of discrimination. Not to mention that the conduct of drunk gay guys at parties is going to be vastly different from their conduct at their job.
You’re lucky. Unless I get rough or borderline confrontational, they’d never stop trying. To them I’m like something they simply must have. I think my problem is that I’m way too friendly with people and they take that as a weakness they can exploit. It’s like you meet a hot but ditzy girl at a bar who you wanna fuck so bad. We are men so of course we are going to exploit the fact that this girl is not playing with all her marbles. I know I would. It’s the same with gays. They try to play your weaknesses.
On September 22 2011 09:06 imallinson wrote:You do realise all the gay guys you have met that don't want to have sex with you, probably haven't made it that obvious that they were gay and you probably didn't think they were gay. It's only if they are actually flirting with you that you might realise it because the default is to assume people are straight and there aren't that many gay people who fit the stereotype of walking round saying "I'm feeling so gay tonight."
You have a point there. However in some cases ive actually seen these guys around. Some I knew were gay and some, not. Thankfully, they don’t just come up to you and spill their guts to you. What happens is eventually I’ll come around with someone, usually a woman who knows one of them and in a setting like a bar or a club they would greet each other and start talking and introductions are made. This is where it starts to go downhill(for me at least). I always come to find out how long they were watching and attracted to me before we spoke which seriously creeps me the fuck out.
On September 22 2011 09:09 Velocirapture wrote:Am I the only one who checked to see if this guy had a profile pic? I paused for a sec for fear I may be blinded by his beauty but built up the courage and found nothing.
There is no need to be a condescending cunt. First of all, I’d never ever say I was good looking, I said I am considered so. Most importantly, a picture of me wouldn’t mean a thing and in case your narrow mind doesn’t understand why, I’ll explain. What people find attractive is heavily influenced by their own culture and their environment. So what I am really saying is that where I am from, the people from my environment and culture consider me to be quite good-looking. I can’t help that. I can only tell you what I’ve experienced.
The number one reason your kind(for lack of a better word) seems so dead set on trying to “turn” me was because of how good-looking they considered me to be. They have no qualms about saying how extremely attractive they find me and that being their primary driving force. That’s how I know.
Please try to be less of a prick. I don’t make these posts to offend but rather to give a perspective. Ok ? It would be nice if you can give some constructive insight into this issue instead of being a dick. Given that you are one of them, I’m certain you can help me to understand their tenacious attitude and how best to deal with it.
On September 22 2011 09:55 matjlav wrote: No, not all gay people want to have sex with you. Whether you're exaggerating or you've just happened to meet a particular crowd or you've met people that you didn't know were gay, I'm not sure. See, the thing is, I've never once met a gay guy who doesn't have the sense to back off when someone asserts their heterosexuality (and that includes myself).
I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences, but that is simply not a reason to legitimate acts of discrimination. Not to mention that the conduct of drunk gay guys at parties is going to be vastly different from their conduct at their job.
You’re lucky. Unless I get rough or borderline confrontational, they’d never stop trying. To them I’m like something they simply must have.
I think my problem is that I’m way too friendly with people and they take that as a weakness they can exploit. It’s like you meet a hot but ditzy girl at a bar who you wanna fuck so bad. We are men so of course we are going to exploit the fact that this girl is not playing with all her marbles. I know I would. It’s the same with gays. They try to play your weaknesses.
I think you need to get over yourself. Just because a couple gay people hit on you, does not mean that all gays suddenly want to sleep with you. You must just like the attention you get, because for it bothering you so much, you sure don't have a problem going back to the same places you know they're going to be at.
You really have a fucked up view of gay people if you think they are all out to try and trick straight guys into having sex with them.
On September 22 2011 10:14 SarR wrote: You have a point there. However in some cases ive actually seen these guys around. Some I knew were gay and some, not. Thankfully, they don’t just come up to you and spill their guts to you. What happens is eventually I’ll come around with someone, usually a woman who knows one of them and in a setting like a bar or a club they would greet each other and start talking and introductions are made. This is where it starts to go downhill(for me at least). I always come to find out how long they were watching and attracted to me before we spoke which seriously creeps me the fuck out.
Why is that creepy? Have you never looked at and been attracted to a woman before talking to her? It's something people do.
On September 22 2011 10:14 SarR wrote: You’re lucky. Unless I get rough or borderline confrontational, they’d never stop trying. To them I’m like something they simply must have. I think my problem is that I’m way too friendly with people and they take that as a weakness they can exploit. It’s like you meet a hot but ditzy girl at a bar who you wanna fuck so bad.
I'm actually gay. So, not really. That said, stupidity tends to be an immediate turn-off for me for guys.
On September 22 2011 10:14 SarR wrote: We are men so of course we are going to exploit the fact that this girl is not playing with all her marbles. I know I would. It’s the same with gays. They try to play your weaknesses.
Again, I'm sorry that you've had these bad experiences that lead you to make such sweeping generalizations. But the fact is that not all gay guys act this way, and even the gay guys that do act this way while they're drunk at parties will probably not act this way at their job in the military.
The gay people that can act appropriately deserve to be allowed to serve just like everyone else - and "acting appropriately" does not mean that they shouldn't be allowed to tell anyone anything about their sexual orientation without being dishonorably discharged. And these people do indeed exist, despite your assertions to the contrary.
On September 22 2011 10:14 SarR wrote: You have a point there. However in some cases ive actually seen these guys around. Some I knew were gay and some, not. Thankfully, they don’t just come up to you and spill their guts to you. What happens is eventually I’ll come around with someone, usually a woman who knows one of them and in a setting like a bar or a club they would greet each other and start talking and introductions are made. This is where it starts to go downhill(for me at least). I always come to find out how long they were watching and attracted to me before we spoke which seriously creeps me the fuck out.
Why is that creepy? Have you never looked at and been attracted to a woman before talking to her? It's something people do.
I always thought this was just normal in such social situations. I've had a guy check me out while I was sat with my girlfriend. Neither of us cared because we had been had been talking about who was good looking at the same time and he we had decided he was one of the better looking guys there. I think you're just creeped out because it's a guy not a girl checking you out.
On September 22 2011 04:14 KwarK wrote: First of all, not all gay guys want to have sex with you.
No if you're considered by most to be good looking. I get this problem all the time with fags, it is unbelievably annoying because you just want to let them down easy and they still keep fuckin trying. They change their tactics and approach in the hopes that they can convince you to "see the light" so to speak.
Every time I meet one of these folks through a girl friend or something while hanging out or partying, the minute she leaves, they move in. Subtle at first as if to test the waters and because of my stupid polite nature I dont tell them to "fuck off". Instead, i say in a very polite manner, "I dont swing that way". Thats when it gets real interesting. They start offering to take care of me and just all types of shit just to get me to budge.
Ive never once met a gay person who wasnt interested. Not once. I could never work alongside them in the military.
User was warned for this post
Yeah I totally got that from your post. Moron.
-------------------------
This is awesome news, people need to stop getting so hung up on which hole other people insert their penis into. I could see why the rule was enacted, but kinda a pointless law.
NO GAYS ALLOWED (unless you don't tell us when you join)
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
On September 20 2011 08:03 amazingxkcd wrote: Personally, I would not care whether or not there were gay soldiers, but if this leads towards legalization of same-sex marriages, I am completely opposed to that notion.
User was warned for this post
Why was this guy warned?
Because it was off-topic and his opinion was a non sequitur, probably. Derailment ::shrugs::
Ignorant statements and gut reaction from one of the republican presidential candidates, YAY Santorum. You can see how it's all about the sex in his words, demeanor and facial expressions. We're so screwed of someone like this gets to the white house.
Ignorant statements and gut reaction from one of the republican presidential candidates, YAY Santorum. You can see how it's all about the sex in his words, demeanor and facial expressions. We're so screwed of someone like this gets to the white house.
I love the look of horror on his face when he realized what he just got asked. Pander to the extremists now, have it come back during the 2012 election. Approve the repeal of DADT and not make it to the 2012 election at all. He's as spineless as a jellyfish.
Just make sure everyone tries to spread this video when 2012 comes around.
Finally! Very happy to see this really oppressive ban getting repealed. A little ashamed it took so long but at least its over with! Now to just wait for equal marriage rights =] <3
Ignorant statements and gut reaction from one of the republican presidential candidates, YAY Santorum. You can see how it's all about the sex in his words, demeanor and facial expressions. We're so screwed of someone like this gets to the white house.
I love the look of horror on his face when he realized what he just got asked. Pander to the extremists now, have it come back during the 2012 election. Approve the repeal of DADT and not make it to the 2012 election at all. He's as spineless as a jellyfish.
Just make sure everyone tries to spread this video when 2012 comes around.
There's a reason for the first result when you google "Santorum."^^
He is a scumbag and extremely bigoted. (Not that much different from most of the Republican candidates of course, but still Santorum is one of the worst.)
And agreed on the people that booed. The thought that people like that are shaping my country's future (through voting) is scary.
On September 24 2011 14:22 tomtom2234 wrote: Finally! Very happy to see this really oppressive ban getting repealed. A little ashamed it took so long but at least its over with! Now to just wait for equal marriage rights =] <3
I'm having mixed feelings about the repeal. On one side I'm happy that this bigoted law as been repealed and is one step towards equal rights, for Gay men and women. But based on behavior in the states (and some of comments in this thread) over the last few years, i don't think the people are ready to except Homosexuals for who they are, they aren't ready to co-exist with homosexuals. Isn't that reason DADT was enacted in the first place? To allow to Gay men and women to service in the Army, without causing a shit storm of problems. I expect to see a lot of complication, instead of solving the problem.
On September 26 2011 00:25 Retgery wrote: I'm having mixed feelings about the repeal. On one side I'm happy that this bigoted law as been repealed and is one step towards equal rights, for Gay men and women. But based on behavior in the states (and some of comments in this thread) over the last few years, i don't think the people are ready to except Homosexuals for who they are, they aren't ready to co-exist with homosexuals. Isn't that reason DADT was enacted in the first place? To allow to Gay men and women to service in the Army, without causing a shit storm of problems. I expect to see a lot of complication, instead of solving the problem.
Well, if a gay servicemember is worried about the discrimination they may bring upon themselves to remain closeted in the military, then they can do so, and it's their choice. It shouldn't be up to the military to tell them that they have to hide themselves and who they are for their own good or for the good of the bigoted assholes around them.
The whole idea of DADT is that it should be the job of gay people to accommodate the homophobes in the military. People who want to repeal DADT are generally of the opinion that it should be the homophobes' job to get the fuck over it.