PDA

View Full Version : Coming Out



Pages : 1 [2]

1HardDI
09-22-2009, 09:26 PM
Or your husband, Michaep. Would you let your husband shower with a bunch of women?

That sh*t was funny, though. Yeah, I just quoted myself, what of it?

SailorDave
09-22-2009, 09:27 PM
I'd like to take a completely honest poll of the women on this forum...

how many of you, if lesbians were allowed to serve openly, would have an issue showering with known lesbians ??

I'd be willing to bet that the women of the group have a lot less issue with it than males do in the same situation. But I'd still be interested in the outcome.

Michaep
09-22-2009, 09:27 PM
LMAO, I'm just giving you a hard time, dude. You zoomies are so sensitive.

Negative

You Marines are so sensitive.....but I did enjoy seeing Marines present in OUR chow hall during the AF Birthday on the 18th and were surrounded by AF Pride, SNCO's, Generals all asking them to enjoy some cake :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

Variable Wind
09-22-2009, 09:27 PM
Sure, dude, whatever she tells you, just keep believing it.:rolleyes:

Believing is for Marines, KNOWING is for Soldiers. :D

1HardDI
09-22-2009, 09:30 PM
Negative

You Marines are so sensitive.....but I did enjoy seeing Marines present in OUR chow hall during the AF Birthday on the 18th and were surrounded by AF Pride, SNCO's, Generals all asking them to enjoy some cake :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:
What was that, the AF 50th birthday? What a storied history you have.


Believing is for Marines, KNOWING is for Soldiers. :D

Should've known I'd get beat up on in the AF thread. That's alright, you all reek of jealousy.

I've enjoyed it, ladies. Talk to ya later.

Michaep
09-22-2009, 09:31 PM
I'd like to take a completely honest poll of the women on this forum...

how many of you, if lesbians were allowed to serve openly, would have an issue showering with known lesbians ??

I'd be willing to bet that the women of the group have a lot less issue with it than males do in the same situation. But I'd still be interested in the outcome.

allow me to clarify

Womens breasts are already out in the open, their size is known and everyone can see them

In terms of female genitals, theres nothing there, its all tucked inside their body.

Hard to tell during a shower if women are aroused versus a male erection being easy to see by others

women have nothing to "stick" into another women, aside from a finger

You can tell if a man is aroused and a man has something to stick inside someone else

theres a difference

women change in front of other women all the time, because theres nothing to hide

men dont usually feel comfortable flopping their di*ks around while chatting up some other dudes, thats just wrong

Michaep
09-22-2009, 09:32 PM
62nd b day i believe, i could be wrong though, never liked history too much

Variable Wind
09-22-2009, 09:33 PM
What was that, the AF 50th birthday? What a storied history you have.
MUAHAHAHAH!!!! Great response!



Should've known I'd get beat up on in the AF thread. That's alright, you all reek of jealousy.
I've enjoyed it, ladies. Talk to ya later.
After being raised by Marines and earning the EGA on my combat patch, I think I get a little room for ribbing :D.

Later.

Michaep
09-22-2009, 09:33 PM
you claiming credit for what your service did 200 years ago is the same as me taking credit for something my great great grandfathers did 200 years ago, none of that counts

SailorDave
09-22-2009, 09:38 PM
allow me to clarify

Womens breasts are already out in the open, their size is known and everyone can see them

In terms of female genitals, theres nothing there, its all tucked inside their body.

Hard to tell during a shower if women are aroused versus a male erection being easy to see by others

women have nothing to "stick" into another women, aside from a finger

You can tell if a man is aroused and a man has something to stick inside someone else

theres a difference

women change in front of other women all the time, because theres nothing to hide
Clarification not required. I'm quite certain I'm intimately aware of female genitalia. This is to ellicit an emotional response from women. Unless you contain said female genitalia, your response is neither requested nor desired.


men dont usually feel comfortable flopping their di*ks around while chatting up some other dudes, thats just wrong
In the few circumstances where there are communal showers, I don't think very many men hold thoughtful discussions with other men while naked. Are you TRULYconcerned that gay men would come over and try to hit on you in the shower ?

imported_BRAVO10000
09-22-2009, 09:39 PM
Believing is for Marines, KNOWING is for Soldiers. :D


...and CHILLING is for AIRMEN. :D

Michaep
09-22-2009, 09:48 PM
...and CHILLING is for AIRMEN. :D

Some "Airmen", not all

Michaep
09-22-2009, 09:48 PM
and yes sailor dave....i dont want meatgazers in my showers

imported_BRAVO10000
09-22-2009, 10:03 PM
Some "Airmen", not all

Riiiiiiggghhhhttt. In some cases, "Wasting an entire duty day posting baseless opinion-as-fact comments" is for Airmen.

SailorDave
09-22-2009, 10:03 PM
and yes sailor dave....i dont want meatgazers in my showers
I find it amusing this repulsion men have towards gay men. I've never been inclined to be gay, have never desired a gay man's touch, never engaged in a gay relationship. But I'm not afraid of them. If I know there is a gay man in the same communal shower with me, I don't care what he looks at, it has no effect on me whatsover. Frankly, I wouldn't even pay him any attention, because I'm not attracted to him.

imported_Seasons
09-22-2009, 10:28 PM
Are you mad that you cant wear pink panties because someone will see when you change after doing PT? Then dont wear pink panties
Are you mad that you cant have huge gay pride rainbow stickers on your vehicle? I'm sure you could, you'd probably get a lot of sh*t about it outside the military though
Are you mad that you cant paint your fingernails or have "a really fab hairstyle"? Welcome to military regs
Tell me what you'd like? Do you wanna be allowed to wear an "IM GAY" sandwich board and walk up and down the sidewalk?????
Do you wanna be allowed to stare at my genitals during showering? I dont think thats allowed for males or females as its sexual harassment
Did you wanna go to a pride parade in uniform? You cant regardless....its a political function
That would be because rules and regulations are gender-specific.

Not sexuality-specific.


The drool dripping from a gay mans mouth during shower time, WILL happen
You know, these statements make me laugh. Know why? I've been inside the theatre and fashion world because of my wife. Did you know that they change backstage all together? No seperate changing rooms cause there's no time. All in the open.

They really don't care.


They seemed to make it work okay in Starship Troopers.
The concept behind what was depicted in that movie was the idea that a soldier should be so disciplined as to be able to keep themselves to themselves, sexually, when its needed. It also partially desensitizes the soldier to the charms of the opposite sex, making it harder for them to become distracted. Failing the ability to keep control of yourself would in those instances means the soldier may lose control in other situations, in other ways, and is thereby unfit.

Least, that's my interpretation of the concept given.

Bael
09-22-2009, 10:30 PM
[QUOTE=Bael;280931]
If the male homosexual population is more likely to engage in safe sex, how do they account for 71% of all cases of AIDS when they make up just 5-6% of the population? I quoted a very reliable source in my post. You quoted...nursing school? Nothing in your response refutes my post. 71% of all cases in the US wile only making up 5-6% of the population. What's bad about that, you ask?

I have attempted to be civil, but try taking off your smokey hat when you read. It's obscuring your view. I said THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you seem to think I said. Male homosexuals are MORE LIKELY to engage in risky behavior, which seems to account, at least in part, for the prevalence of HIV in that group. Would you like me to issue you some crayons so you can draw a picture?

Also, I didn't dispute your statistics. I offered a possible reason for them. I didn't, in fact, even attempt to refute them. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but having a debate is a lot more than trying to prove the other guy wrong.

As for your contempt for my "nursing school," I hold a BSN and am currently attending a nurse practitioner program. Sorry if you don't think 6+ years of post high-school education means anything when discussing health policy issues.


At the expense of taxpayers and mission effectiveness, and 2-3 times more likely to occur in homosexuals. I don't get your "I heard they have safer sex" argument.

I don't get your seeming illiteracy. Again, I said nothing to attempt to refute your statistics, and nowhere did I say that homosexuals have "safer sex" than the heterosexual population.



So you think that these statistics are purely coincidental? Come on, dude? Really?

I did not use the word "coincidental." Putting words in my mouth is a cheap tactic that conveniently ignores what I actually said.



I presented you with solid numbers, from the CDC.

What you did was throw up a bunch of scary-sounding numbers, and what I did was point out that merely throwing numbers around is a logically fallacious tactic used by amateur debaters.


Forget the pedophilia thing because that was a slippery slope in the first place.

Sure, let's forget the weakest, not to mention the most sinister, part of your argument, because you obviously realize it's complete bullshit that you can't support with any actual facts. Cry uncle much?




After seeing the correlation between homosexuals and AIDS and other STD's, you attempt to obfuscate the issue with some random stats about heart disease?

Clearly, I have given you too much benefit of the doubt, and you have demonstrated for the world your inability to read, understand, and respond to what I actually say. Here, I'll bring it down to your level: in your argument, you mentioned disease prevalence in the homosexual community as a public health burden as regards monetary cost to taxpayers (am I going to fast? Need me to slow down?). I responded with a statistic that shows that the magnitude of the public health crisis with which you seemed so concerned, at least as regards cost to taxpayers and overall burden on the economy, was absolutely dwarfed in comparison to the cost of America's number-one killer, heart disease. Thus (and here's the big-boy part...try to put your thinking cap on!), your expressed concern about the menace that is the cost to the public of HIV infection in the homosexual community is misplaced, if your concern is actually the cost, because the much greater cost stems from heart disease.

You get all that?



What happened, you went to the CDC website and realized that I was telling the truth? Couldn't think of anything else to say?

No, I was trying to tactfully point out to you that what you were telling is, exactly, nothing. You gathered a bunch of statistics and presented them without context, sans logical examination, and tried to use them as a battering ram to make a stilted and poorly articulated point about how evil and disgusting homosexuality is.


You really believe the correlation is coincidental...
Wow.

I'd be willing to bet cash money that you have never taken a course in formal logic. Correlation is a phenomenon that is distinct from causation, a fact that is overlooked and abused by unskilled debaters such as yourself. I'm not going to belabor the point, but by your own admission, your "argument," such as it was, contained nothing of substance, because you failed to actually draw a conclusion from your premises, but rather presented your premises as conclusions*, backed up by some scary numbers you thought sounded good.

*This is another logical fallacy I'll be happy to school you on.

imported_kvnhlstd
09-22-2009, 11:09 PM
^^^^^^ Schooled^^^^^^

imported_Gigglendorf
09-22-2009, 11:44 PM
Me, too. I won't ask you your sexual orientation, you don't tell me. If it becomes clear that you're a homosexual, you're in the wrong line of work.

Interesting.

Ad hominem already?

You have that little substance to argue with?

For the record, if you manage to prove that I'm homosexual I think the person most surprised will be me.

imported_Gigglendorf
09-22-2009, 11:48 PM
You do realize that it was a POTUS that implimented DADT right? Way to tank your credibility.

Actually, DADT is codified in US Civil Code. In other words, Congress passed a bill that the POTUS signed.

The POTUS at the time pushed for it but the AFI for Administrative Separation of Airmen actually directly references the USC mandate which is implemented by the procedures for discharging homosexuals.

imported_Gigglendorf
09-22-2009, 11:54 PM
lol its all good

they claim the UCMJ will protect them from all sexual assault

false sense of security

I dont know about you, but id get sick to my stomach if an openly gay man smiled at me while I was showering

Id be in too much shock and utter disgust to hit him

Wow, you really don't read more than one sentence at a time do you?

I acknowledged that things would get ugly, but I can not in good conscious demand new rules be established forcing segregation that has already been eliminated without using the existing rules against those who refuse to be proper community members first.

Every aspect of the behavior people keep saying demands additional protection is ALREADY ILLEGAL.

Forced change is always hard, and there are always casualties when you are forcing change in direct violation of deeply rooted hatred. You don't change hatred by catering to it though.

SailorDave
09-23-2009, 12:00 AM
Actually, DADT is codified in US Civil Code. In other words, Congress passed a bill that the POTUS signed.

The POTUS at the time pushed for it but the AFI for Administrative Separation of Airmen actually directly references the USC mandate which is implemented by the procedures for discharging homosexuals.
10 U.S.C. ยง 654

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000654----000-.html

imported_Gigglendorf
09-23-2009, 12:00 AM
I said THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you seem to think I said.

Actually,you didn't. As somebody who thinks FAR faster than he types, I caught the clear difference between your intent and what you typed, but, you skipped a word.

What word?

Not.

It was obvious to anyone trying to understand your message that it belonged there. He didn't want to understand your message, however, just to prove your words incorrect.

<shrug>

The difference between people who are trying to communicate and those who are tryin gto force their opinions upon others.

1HardDI
09-23-2009, 01:04 AM
[QUOTE]I have attempted to be civil, but try taking off your smokey hat when you read. It's obscuring your view. I said THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you seem to think I said. Male homosexuals are MORE LIKELY to engage in risky behavior, which seems to account, at least in part, for the prevalence of HIV in that group. Would you like me to issue you some crayons so you can draw a picture?
"In nursing school, I learned that the male homosexual population is much more likely to engage in safe sex practices."
This is copied and pasted from your post. Read what you type before you blow up.

Also, I didn't dispute your statistics. I offered a possible reason for them. I didn't, in fact, even attempt to refute them. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but having a debate is a lot more than trying to prove the other guy wrong.

As for your contempt for my "nursing school," I hold a BSN and am currently attending a nurse practitioner program. Sorry if you don't think 6+ years of post high-school education means anything when discussing health policy issues.
"In nursing school, I learned that the male homosexual population is much more likely to engage in safe sex practices."
Again, this is exactly what you typed. Copied and pasted.



I don't get your seeming illiteracy. Again, I said nothing to attempt to refute your statistics, and nowhere did I say that homosexuals have "safer sex" than the heterosexual population.
"In nursing school, I learned that the male homosexual population is much more likely to engage in safe sex practices."
Do I have to say it again?




I did not use the word "coincidental." Putting words in my mouth is a cheap tactic that conveniently ignores what I actually said.
You implied this by saying that if homosexuals had a high risk of diabetes, then I would assume that homosexuality causes diabetes. Again, a logical fallacy to obfuscate the issue at hand. Try to stay on track, please.




What you did was throw up a bunch of scary-sounding numbers, and what I did was point out that merely throwing numbers around is a logically fallacious tactic used by amateur debaters.



Sure, let's forget the weakest, not to mention the most sinister, part of your argument, because you obviously realize it's complete bullshit that you can't support with any actual facts. Cry uncle much?
I even threw you a bone, guess that was too generous.



Clearly, I have given you too much benefit of the doubt, and you have demonstrated for the world your inability to read, understand, and respond to what I actually say. Here, I'll bring it down to your level: in your argument, you mentioned disease prevalence in the homosexual community as a public health burden as regards monetary cost to taxpayers
I think the important thing would be the cost to unit readiness, as taxpayers are already burdened with this. Should we burden them twice by giving military paychecks to ineffective personnel.

(am I going to fast?
Maybe to read what you type.

Need me to slow down?).
Not at all, I'm good.

I responded with a statistic that shows that the magnitude of the public health crisis with which you seemed so concerned, at least as regards cost to taxpayers and overall burden on the economy, was absolutely dwarfed in comparison to the cost of America's number-one killer, heart disease. 3
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. I don't see us recruiting overweight, 50-something year old males (the risk group for heart disease.) We are arguing about recruiting the highest risk group for STD's, though.

Thus (and here's the big-boy part...try to put your thinking cap on!), your expressed concern about the menace that is the cost to the public of HIV infection in the homosexual community is misplaced, if your concern is actually the cost, because the much greater cost stems from heart disease.
Again, try thinking about the cost of unit readiness.


You get all that?
Did you?





No, I was trying to tactfully point out to you that what you were telling is, exactly, nothing. You gathered a bunch of statistics and presented them without context, sans logical examination, and tried to use them as a battering ram to make a stilted and poorly articulated point about how evil and disgusting homosexuality is.
I assumed any servicemember would be able to understand the ramifications. That's what I get for assuming.




I'd be willing to bet cash money that you have never taken a course in formal logic. Correlation is a phenomenon that is distinct from causation, a fact that is overlooked and abused by unskilled debaters such as yourself. I'm not going to belabor the point, but by your own admission, your "argument," such as it was, contained nothing of substance, because you failed to actually draw a conclusion from your premises, but rather presented your premises as conclusions*, backed up by some scary numbers you thought sounded good.
No, I haven't taken a class on formal logic, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.


*This is another logical fallacy I'll be happy to school you on.
I think school's out for the day.

Gunner007
09-23-2009, 03:44 PM
I'll just throw this out and see what happens...
I think homosexuality is morally wrong. To the point that it makes me physically sick to see a homosexual couple together. Physically ill. I have been in the Marines for over 12 years. I have a perfect score on the ASVAB, I have been honor graduate or top 3 of every military school I've attended. I am regularly evaluated by my superiors as the top member of my rank that they have ever evaluated. I joined the military because they have a value system similiar to my own, or at least they used to.
If homosexuals are allowed to openly serve, I will leave the military at the next opportunity, and I will take my experience and high level of performance with me. I will miss the military I used to love, but I will be able to remain true to my core values.
How many others will leave? Will it be worth it?

Bet I get flamed for this one. Go ahead, everyone.

I havent read pages 19-28 yet so this may have already been said, forgive me if it has.

The military needs dedicated soldiers, plain and simple. Whether they let gays run amok or not shouldnt effect your desire to serve. I dont like them being open either but the reasons you give for leaving dont make sense.

Now if you just dont want to be around them in close quarters okay i definitely understand that. but if their being here is a reason to leave you will have problems. Does it sadden me that the morals of the military would be lowered in order to cater to a group of people that % wise doesnt even register as a blip on the total force numbers for the service? Yes! I dont want to see people physically mistreated for any reason like race, color, or sexual preference but i dont think people should be catered to because of it either, especially when the place you are desiring to be catered too doesnt see enough of your proclivity to make it worth the cost of changing. I do believe that if gays are allowed to openly serve there will be a push much like there has been through history for other minorities to promote them and make someone the first gay this or that. And i also believe that it will occur by special preference, as in regardless of scores on tests there will be a few guided to the top fast over and above qualified candidates.

If you however think you will get out and find a job in a company where gays dont openly work you are disillusioned. Civilian companies are forced by law and threat of lawsuit to cater to their every want and need. You will be working with them the only difference is you wont be in close quarters with them. Much like the military they will be given preferencial treatment. I know of no minority that isnt included in the quota system the government sends down to private civilian companies. Unless you too happen to fall in to a minority block you will have to accept that the world as you think of it doesnt exist. Your hard work and dedication wont mean much more than likely.

I would suggest if you feel that strongly you open your own business. Keep the count to less than 50 employees and you can skirt preferencial crap and hire and promote only the truly best qualified people, not who the government tells you is most qualified. Other than that, you will have to accept you are a dinosaur apparently and need to either evolve, die off, or live in a remote place like the loch ness monster and bigfoot!

Gunner007
09-23-2009, 03:49 PM
....

And Smarg - Homosexuality might be a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God. So is killing, and that is what you and I do for a living. Just saying.


Point of note, God didnt say killing was wrong he said murder was wrong. The same God who justified going into a village and killing everything that breathed air and punished his people for sparing, i believe it was a goat.

Jesus is the one who taught and professed love for all mankind and turn the other cheek, not God. God would have you stone the homosexuals and not bat an eye! Jesus would say let those without sin cast the first stone.

If your going to interject religion, please keep it correct.

Gunner007
09-23-2009, 03:54 PM
So I am a bigot because of my morals, because I disagree with a practice condemned by almost every religion?
Are you a bigot against Christians? You seem to hate them for their beliefs (or readily insult them) and hope that they all leave the military.
And I didn't say anything about branch core values, what I meant was my core values. Yes, it's possible for people to still have values.
It's a shame if it would have to come to me leaving the Corps, but at least I could still look at myself in the mirror and know I did what I felt was right.
Too bad it'll take the Corps another 12 years to train my replacement.


In case you havent paid attention to the liberal playbook, the first thing they have to do is discredit the person or people they disagree with. Calling you a bigot erodes your credibility as a person. Calling one group by a nasty moniker makes people shy away from your group, maybe makes less people willing to admit they think like you. Its the same as playing the race card on capital hill everytime someone speaks negatively about President Obama. If people know they will be attacked and called racists they may and in many cases are less likely to speak out against him. This same tactic is applied over and over to Christians in this country every day.

Just like you cant convince me global warming exists because of manmade crud, you cant convince them CHristianity is right. You cant argue logic against a belief system because a belief system is emotional not logical. No amount of logic will ever deter a belief system.

Gunner007
09-23-2009, 04:05 PM
Blinders are a VERY common problem.

I mention this because you keep talking about how things will change once homosexuals are allowed to both serve and admit their preferences publicly.

This suggests, quite storngly, that you are aware that homosexuals are already in uniform today. This menas that they are already in the dormitories, and in the communal showers.

Any problems that are initiated by homosexuals being allowed to admit their preferences publicly are going to be based on the fear and prejudice against them, nto on what they themselves actually do.

After all, since we know they are already in these locations, if homosexuals were going to create this drama, they would already be doing so. The only part missing is open prejudice against speciifc individuals as a daily part of life.

Again, this aggressive prejudice was the major problem when we racially integrated the military, and even when we sexually integrated the military, honestly.

The issues we face will have nothing to do with the behavior of the average military member, whether hetero- or homo- sexual, it will have to do with the aggressively prejudiced. We have tools for dealing with those problem chidlren firmly entrenched in military culture today.

If a convincing cross dresser frequented the ladies gym and used their latrine for years and did so succesfully hiding the fact it was in fact a man in drag, the day the guy came out of drag and admitted he was a guy, would that not cause problems? Do you think all the women who had been showering and changing and using that restroom would just shrug and say, "oh well he's been doing it for a year, guess he has seen it all by now, what the problem?"

Hell no they wouldnt! The guy would be on every TV station in American being called some type of deviant who enjoys spying on women, they would demand his arrest and tar and feather him! Unless... he is gay. Now if he were gay and a cross dresser THEN that would be different, the women wouldnt assume he was weird and trying to spy on them, they would have to embrace him. I mean he is a minority, God forbid those women should be biased and prejudiced, i mean who are they to feel insecure about having been exposed in front of a man who doesnt even want their bodies? How crass could the world be to pick on him then!

The point isnt whether or not he wants to boink that exact hetero in the shower, the point is that every hetero who walks into the shower when he is in there would be uncomfortable with the gay dudes intention. its about privacy rights and personal space! Straight guys would be uncomfortable showering and being in intimate quarters with a gay gay just like women would pitch a fit if they found out some cross dresser had been using their bathroom for the last year.

Gunner007
09-23-2009, 04:21 PM
What dirves the policy changes in that cute little story?

FUD.

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt are the tools of hatred and manipulation, not logic and considered evaluation.

...


If we apply the same rules that we applied when racially integrating the military, the policy changes suggested in that cute piece of propoganda will all be explicitly forbidden before they start.
...

I disagree, i dont NEED to understand something to dislike it. (in relation to my previous posts here explaining my perception of homosexuality) I dont need to understand why joe bob robbed a little ole lady to know i disagree with it. I dont need to know why some guy likes looking at pictures of little girls to know i dont agree with it, etc...

I dont need to know nor understand the reason behind attitudes and actions to to justify why i dont like them. Sometimes you just see things and deep inside you know they arent right.

Sometimes knowing can reinforce my feelings on something but knowing is really a tool for empathy. If i know why joe bob did it then i can feel empathy for his situation and maybe not be so mad at him and maybe try to get him some food stamps so he can feed his kids. I dont care why gays are gay, i dont feel sympathy, i dont need to empathize with them because it doesnt matter to me their reasons. Its wrong, i feel that inside of me and therefore i dont need to delve into it.

Gunner007
09-23-2009, 04:33 PM
Doing drugs is illegal. Homosexuality isnt, you dont even need a perscription.


Prostitution is illegal. Homosexuality is not...unless its homosexual prostitution.
....


Drugs are not always illegal. For instance, should troops in California be allowed to smoke pot with a doctors note? I mean its legal for everyone else to get one...

Prositution isnt illegal everywhere either. I think his point is we know people do it, in say germany or korea. Now the military has made it illegal for certain things based on human trafficking but the point i think he was making is would allowing military members to frequent hookers cause the military problems with readiness? I think the answer would be yes.

He was just pointing out that other than tricare & death benefits what real difference do gays want by being able to be open? If tricare is willing let gays add their "partner" to their tricare policy. So his lover goes to the base hospital. So long as he isnt standing in the lobby yelling "heyyyyyyy, I'm Amn snuffys butt buddy!" Who the hell would know who the guys sponsor is? If he needs to be on the emergency data form make sure they are all kept online so no one in the units can access them, you just get a print out that says, data updated on this date to put in your mobility folder. Then gays can have benefits and stay DADT.

imported_Gigglendorf
09-23-2009, 05:14 PM
I disagree, i dont NEED to understand something to dislike it. (in relation to my previous posts here explaining my perception of homosexuality) I dont need to understand why joe bob robbed a little ole lady to know i disagree with it. I dont need to know why some guy likes looking at pictures of little girls to know i dont agree with it, etc...

I dont need to know nor understand the reason behind attitudes and actions to to justify why i dont like them. Sometimes you just see things and deep inside you know they arent right.

Sometimes knowing can reinforce my feelings on something but knowing is really a tool for empathy. If i know why joe bob did it then i can feel empathy for his situation and maybe not be so mad at him and maybe try to get him some food stamps so he can feed his kids. I dont care why gays are gay, i dont feel sympathy, i dont need to empathize with them because it doesnt matter to me their reasons. Its wrong, i feel that inside of me and therefore i dont need to delve into it.

Hunh?

You disagree that the story is based on the promotion of FUD by demanding that you don't need ot know better to hate?

That's basically the point of what I said. You reinforced my intended message.

You choose to hate, because you feel it is right to do so (or so you claim above).

You acknowledge that more information might provide you a reason not ot hate, so you refuse to accept any other information because you don't want it interfering with your current position.

You are defining yourself as one of the people that I am saying will be the cause of problems.

imported_Gigglendorf
09-23-2009, 05:19 PM
Drugs are not always illegal. For instance, should troops in California be allowed to smoke pot with a doctors note? I mean its legal for everyone else to get one...

It IS, however, a violation of standing written orders, and thus the UCMJ, which applies to troops in California the same way it applies to troops in New Jersey or Korea.

As FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, we are constantly restrained by the Federal rules, regardless of where we happen to be.

Your comparison fails on that one point.

Variable Wind
09-23-2009, 05:22 PM
I disagree, i dont NEED to understand something to dislike it. (in relation to my previous posts here explaining my perception of homosexuality) I dont need to understand why joe bob robbed a little ole lady to know i disagree with it. I dont need to know why some guy likes looking at pictures of little girls to know i dont agree with it, etc...

I dont need to know nor understand the reason behind attitudes and actions to to justify why i dont like them. Sometimes you just see things and deep inside you know they arent right.

Sometimes knowing can reinforce my feelings on something but knowing is really a tool for empathy. If i know why joe bob did it then i can feel empathy for his situation and maybe not be so mad at him and maybe try to get him some food stamps so he can feed his kids. I dont care why gays are gay, i dont feel sympathy, i dont need to empathize with them because it doesnt matter to me their reasons. Its wrong, i feel that inside of me and therefore i dont need to delve into it.


Hunh?

You disagree that the story is based on the promotion of FUD by demanding that you don't need ot know better to hate?

That's basically the point of what I said. You reinforced my intended message.

You choose to hate, because you feel it is right to do so (or so you claim above).

You acknowledge that more information might provide you a reason not ot hate, so you refuse to accept any other information because you don't want it interfering with your current position.

You are defining yourself as one of the people that I am saying will be the cause of problems.

Jump off it Gigglendorf. Read the bolded statements. Are you a veteran? I ask this because anyone who has been to the sandbox and seen our actual enemy understands the difference between not liking something and HATING it. You use this word loosely, with no sense of responsibility to understand what connotations it implies. He says he doesnt approve, he is not saying that he hates people, wants them dead or plans on beating them because of their choice.

I advise you to straighten this crooked line of thinking out if you want to be taken seriously. This isnt the 6th grade lunch table. If you cant understand the difference between distaste and hate, then you are in the wrong profession, and an ignoramous to boot.

But you did do me the favor of discrediting your entire arguement about FUD yourself.

imported_Gigglendorf
09-23-2009, 05:27 PM
I would suggest if you feel that strongly you open your own business. Keep the count to less than 50 employees and you can skirt preferencial crap and hire and promote only the truly best qualified people, not who the government tells you is most qualified. Other than that, you will have to accept you are a dinosaur apparently and need to either evolve, die off, or live in a remote place like the loch ness monster and bigfoot!

Or, perhaps, you might acknowledge that he wants companies to be allowed to conduct their business as they choose.

You'll have to show me where the US Constitution said that the Federal government was supposed to force private entities to provide the same protections ot the populace that it demands the government does. As amatter of fact, the whole point of the limitations that the US Constitution places on the government is to restrict and prevent the government's influence and intervention in private matters.

Then again, our Federal government has ignored this concept and grabbed more and more power and control since (at least) the Great Depression, and pretty much no US citizen alive today actually remembers living as an adult in an America where the Federal government was ACTUALLY restricted in accordance with the US Constitution. And since then, as a nation, we have gone out of our way to teach our children about how much the government is supposed to do for them. By design, the most important thing the government is suppose dot do for them is to stay out of their lives and their way, so that they can attempt to achieve success based on their own capabilities and drive.

If that puts him in the same cateogry as Nessie and Bigfoot, then the American Dream is dead.

imported_Gigglendorf
09-23-2009, 05:33 PM
Jump off it Gigglendorf. Read the bolded statements. Are you a veteran? I ask this because anyone who has been to the sandbox and seen our actual enemy understands the difference between not liking something and HATING it. You use this word loosely, with no sense of responsibility to understand what connotations it implies. He says he doesnt approve, he is not saying that he hates people, wants them dead or plans on beating them because of their choice.

I advise you to straighten this crooked line of thinking out if you want to be taken seriously. This isnt the 6th grade lunch table. If you cant understand the difference between distaste and hate, then you are in the wrong profession, and an ignoramous to boot.

But you did do me the favor of discrediting your entire arguement about FUD yourself.

Really?

I seem to remmeber that noneo fo the slave owners claimed to hate their slaves. Many disucssed how much they depended on them and how well they treated them.

Today they are villified because they were slave owners. Was their perception wrong, or is ours?

How often during the widespread post-slavery segregation of blacks did people refer to thier hatred, and how often did they refer to their distaste? How often did they use the word hate?

Do you want o communicate, and discuss the situation, or do you wan to claim victory because your are too busy being pedantic to consider the message?

After all, what part of the inhrent message did you mention? What part of the inherent messag edid you address? None, that's what part. You are trying to eliminate statements you don't want ot hear because you don't like the words used. That is neither communication nor debate. It is a refusal to consider anything except what you have already decided is true.

imported_Gigglendorf
09-23-2009, 05:38 PM
If a convincing cross dresser frequented the ladies gym and used their latrine for years and did so succesfully hiding the fact it was in fact a man in drag, the day the guy came out of drag and admitted he was a guy, would that not cause problems

Emotiionalisma nd sensationalism will tunr it into a much larger, well advertised, heavily sold problem, yes, I agree.

What's your point?

I already said that things which are already illegal already have penalties to be imposed upon the people who choose to break those rules.

What is your justification for demanding that we can not FIRST give our existing rules (and enforcement of those rules) a chance to stop the stupidity that will happen? Why do you think that a completely new set of rules designed to recreate segregation will actually make a difference?

Or is the only difference you care about the "Not near me" difference?

Variable Wind
09-23-2009, 05:42 PM
Really?
I seem to remmeber that noneo fo the slave owners claimed to hate their slaves. Many disucssed how much they depended on them and how well they treated them.Today they are villified because they were slave owners. Was their perception wrong, or is ours?

Really. I doubt you can remember something that happened before even your grandfather was a twinkle in your great grandfather's eye. But seriously, point out to me where he alludes to the point that gays were put on this planet to serve him or others. A fundamental difference (one of many) that you are missing in your pockmarked rational.


How often during the widespread post-slavery segregation of blacks did people refer to thier hatred, and how often did they refer to their distaste? How often did they use the word hate?
distaste in a persons preference and a distaste in a persons physical characteristics. Another fundamental difference to go along with what I said above.


Do you want o communicate, and discuss the situation, or do you wan to claim victory because your are too busy being pedantic to consider the message?
I dont claim victory over a person not worth the debate. Im not debating with you, Im pointing out the inherent flaws in your arguement. There are other people who are debating that I agree with on BOTH sides. It a bit of a pet peeve of mine when someone like you decides incorrectly that someone else is a biggot because they simply disagree. Its pathetic.


After all, what part of the inhrent message did you mention? What part of the inherent messag edid you address? None, that's what part. You are trying to eliminate statements you don't want ot hear because you don't like the words used. That is neither communication nor debate. It is a refusal to consider anything except what you have already decided is true.
I have come to a rational conclusion that I stick by. You have dilluded yourself with an overemotional victimization fixation to some ridiculous conclusion that all people who dont approve of homosexuality are automatically afraid of it or are biggots. Maybe its because in your narrowminded persona, you cannot comprehend someone being open minded enough to say that they dislike something, as shown by your ease of using the word HATE. Also pathetic. :rolleyes:

imported_Gigglendorf
09-23-2009, 05:54 PM
I dont care why gays are gay, i dont feel sympathy, i dont need to empathize with them because it doesnt matter to me their reasons. Its wrong, i feel that inside of me and therefore i dont need to delve into it.


Jump off it Gigglendorf. Read the bolded statements. Are you a veteran? I ask this because anyone who has been to the sandbox and seen our actual enemy understands the difference between not liking something and HATING it. You use this word loosely, with no sense of responsibility to understand what connotations it implies. He says he doesnt approve, he is not saying that he hates people, wants them dead or plans on beating them because of their choice.

What one word do you apply to describe the quote I left above?


The green skinned people are wrong. I don't care why their skin is green. I don't need to be able to relate to them as people. Green skinned people should not exist. I feel that inside of me and do not need to reconsider it.

This is basically the same statment, right?

Oh, you want to say that "It is wrong" and "They should not exist" are not equivalent? What IS the equivalent statment, then?

He states quite clearly that he believes nobody should ever be wht it is to be a part of Group A, and the he sees no reason why he should ever have to relate to members of Gorup A as people.

Oh, you don't like that phrase, either? Okay, so what does he mean by "I don't care why they are what they are. I do not and will not sympathize or empathize with them." Empathy is the basic connection recognizing that someone else is a person, with the full rights and aspects of a human. Hell, people empathize with their pets. He clearly indicates that he's not willing to consider these people as much as he would his own dog.

What one word would you like to use to summarize that described emotional stance?

I tend to use distaste to relate to things like how I feel about my daughter's friends' clothes.


I advise you to straighten this crooked line of thinking out if you want to be taken seriously

As alread indicated, I recommend that you stop dismissing messages because you choose to refuse a single word. Words can be debated. The message has validity with or without that one word, if you are willing to participate in a discussion.


This isnt the 6th grade lunch table.

No, it isn't. We're discussing issues that will actually break people, putting some into prison for a long period of time, and probably getting others killed. Because whether or not GUNNER007 actually hates homosexuals is pretty minor within th econtext fo the discussion, because we both know there are active duty military members who do. And the thing that drug me into this discussion in any great detail was the discussion of what new rules are required to protect homosexuals from that hatred.


But you did do me the favor of discrediting your entire arguement about FUD yourself.

Not at all. You just refuse to accept the message you don't want to acknowledge. There's a difference.

Variable Wind
09-23-2009, 06:03 PM
What one word do you apply to describe the quote I left above?
Disagreement.


This is basically the same statment, right?
Oh, you want to say that "It is wrong" and "They should not exist" are not equivalent? What IS the equivalent statment, then?
Wrong, and the simple fact that you have to make up your own quote simply blows your arguement away.


He states quite clearly that he believes nobody should ever be wht it is to be a part of Group A, and the he sees no reason why he should ever have to relate to members of Gorup A as people.
Hes also right, he doesnt have to relate to them. Neither do I, and I dont hate gays, and I dont dislike people because they are gay. Im sorry, but your arguement carries no weight or validity.


Oh, you don't like that phrase, either? Okay, so what does he mean by "I don't care why they are what they are. I do not and will not sympathize or empathize with them." Empathy is the basic connection recognizing that someone else is a person, with the full rights and aspects of a human. Hell, people empathize with their pets. He clearly indicates that he's not willing to consider these people as much as he would his own dog.
Did he say that he didnt empathize with them over anything about them because they are gay? Or that he doesnt empathize with their decision to be gay. I guess reading comprehension isnt a requirement in the military based on your stellar deduction :rolleyes:


What one word would you like to use to summarize that described emotional stance?
I tend to use distaste to relate to things like how I feel about my daughter's friends' clothes.
Are you saying that everyone should think like you? How openminded :rolleyes:


As alread indicated, I recommend that you stop dismissing messages because you choose to refuse a single word. Words can be debated. The message has validity with or without that one word, if you are willing to participate in a discussion.
Im dismissing you not because of your word choice, but because of your attitude and hypocritical narrowminded viewpoint. There is no debating people like you...you just cannot accept it.


No, it isn't. We're discussing issues that will actually break people, putting some into prison for a long period of time, and probably getting others killed. Because whether or not GUNNER007 actually hates homosexuals is pretty minor within th econtext fo the discussion, because we both know there are active duty military members who do. And the thing that drug me into this discussion in any great detail was the discussion of what new rules are required to protect homosexuals from that hatred.
You argue that FUD is the PRIMARY drive against repealing DADT. <sarcasm> Then you reinforce that excellently deduced point by accusing Gunner007 of being part of the problem </sarcasm> its like trying to explain pathagorian theorem to a 5 year old.

imported_Gigglendorf
09-23-2009, 06:06 PM
It a bit of a pet peeve of mine when someone like you decides incorrectly that someone else is a biggot because they simply disagree. Its pathetic.

Really?

Where did I call you a bigot, or assign a side to your position?

I said you were declaring victory over me because you are dismissing my entire message as irrelvant, over the use of a single word, instead of actually discussing the message. I never said you claimed a specific side in this discussion.

Does someone who advertises himself as a troll not like to be recognized for trollish behavior?


I have come to a rational conclusion that I stick by. You have dilluded yourself with an overemotional victimization fixation to some ridiculous conclusion that all people who dont approve of homosexuality are automatically afraid of it or are biggots. Maybe its because in your narrowminded persona, you cannot comprehend someone being open minded enough to say that they dislike something, as shown by your ease of using the word HATE. Also pathetic. :rolleyes:

Interesting statement. Also obviously intended to generate an emotional response.

I spent my teen years in an area where looking at another guy "the wrong way" got you beaten on the spot. I should note that "the wrong way" was pretty broadly interpreted. We had race riots in a school one town over a couple of years after I was in the military.

I am fully aware of how close violence and hatred are to the surface on certain issues, especially within certain populations. Military service appeals to a large number of people in these communities.

The area I finished growing up in taught me something about how ugly Americans are to each other, and how they interact with the community about their prejudices. The newspapers have taught me that what I saw wasn't anywhere nearly as bad as it gets in other parts of our country.

I know the hatred exists.

imported_Gigglendorf
09-23-2009, 06:11 PM
Are you saying that everyone should think like you? How openminded :rolleyes:

And this accusation is different than the behavior you are displaying how, exactly?

I can't defend my perspective on word usage, because the only meanings that matter are the ones you assign, right? That's the meanig of what you said, isn't it?

imported_Gigglendorf
09-23-2009, 06:12 PM
You argue that FUD is the PRIMARY drive against repealing DADT.

Hunh?

Uh, no.

FUD is a tool, not a driving force.

Variable Wind
09-23-2009, 06:15 PM
Really?
Where did I call you a bigot, or assign a side to your position?
I said you were declaring victory over me because you are dismissing my entire message as irrelvant, over the use of a single word, instead of actually discussing the message. I never said you claimed a specific side in this discussion.
Does someone who advertises himself as a troll not like to be recognized for trollish behavior?
Its become more than just a single word, it has become the entire basis of your point. By removing that word, you have not point. And you still have no point.



Interesting statement. Also obviously intended to generate an emotional response.
I spent my teen years in an area where looking at another guy "the wrong way" got you beaten on the spot. I should note that "the wrong way" was pretty broadly interpreted. We had race riots in a school one town over a couple of years after I was in the military.
I am fully aware of how close violence and hatred are to the surface on certain issues, especially within certain populations. Military service appeals to a large number of people in these communities.
The area I finished growing up in taught me something about how ugly Americans are to each other, and how they interact with the community about their prejudices. The newspapers have taught me that what I saw wasn't anywhere nearly as bad as it gets in other parts of our country.
I know the hatred exists.
Oh please, spare me the sob story of your childhood. You really are naive arent you? Much as I find amusement in the fact that a lot of things in real life are like high school, I also understand that people realize the boundaries. How many race riots have broken out in the military? Fights can and will happen for a MULTITUDE of reasons. People with a high capacity for hate look for exuses to hate other people. There are isolated cases of violence based on various differences that includes sexual preference, but it isnt limited to the military either. You think in the manner that everything must be like your high school, it isnt, in fact you will find that probably half of the military agrees with repealing DADT and a good portion of those against it, just want to find a plausible logistic solution to the problem of openly gay members coexisting in very intimate living conditions. Whether you agree with that as a problem or not is one thing, but projecting your own mommy issues from your high school days onto rational people just shows how little you have mentally matured.

Variable Wind
09-23-2009, 06:16 PM
And this accusation is different than the behavior you are displaying how, exactly?
I can't defend my perspective on word usage, because the only meanings that matter are the ones you assign, right? That's the meanig of what you said, isn't it?
I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of your arguement. Its rather amusing.

Variable Wind
09-23-2009, 06:17 PM
Hunh?
Uh, no. FUD is a tool, not a driving force.

Yeah, "hunh" is right...This clearly went over your head.

Gunner007
09-23-2009, 07:28 PM
Hunh?

You disagree that the story is based on the promotion of FUD by demanding that you don't need ot know better to hate?

That's basically the point of what I said. You reinforced my intended message.

You choose to hate, because you feel it is right to do so (or so you claim above).

You acknowledge that more information might provide you a reason not ot hate, so you refuse to accept any other information because you don't want it interfering with your current position.

You are defining yourself as one of the people that I am saying will be the cause of problems.

Perhaps i misunderstood your previoud post. What i mean is, i dont necessarily need to understand why the person does something, as in their motivation, to decide its wrong. Like the child predator, i dont care why he thinks its okay to molest little kids, him explaining it to me wont make it right.

It was once said, "insanity is the point of view of the majority over the minority!" Meaning the reason we call people crazy is because they are a minority, if more people acted like them than us they would be the sane ones and we would be the insane ones. Whether or not homosexuality is morally acceptable is based on the majority POV of the era. The reasons why one guy likes chicks and one likes D!$ks is irrelevant. The reasons of why its viewed as right or wrong has nothing to do with WHY they do it.

A few generations ago it was acceptable for women to marry at 14 y/o. Now days thats considered wrong. Why? Because morally people disagree with young women marrying at 14. Now you dont need to know why someone would want to marry at 14, you just deim it wrong. Something inside you says, thats messed up, why should we allow people to marry 14 year olds? Same with me and gays.

However, because society is changing, the majority is slowing becoming the minority. Slowly society is changing its POV regarding gays. In another generation or two people who view it as okay will be the majority.

Much like the marrying young women issue, the majority will change its view and things will change and gays will be mainstream. It wont matter WHY gays are the way they are, the reasons wont matter, it will only matter that society has evolved into something else. Then like polygamy, marrying 14 y/o women, slavery, womens rights, disliking gays; all those things will be a thing of the past.

There really wasnt this so called evidence and logic to show why polygamy should be illegal, it was made illegal based on religious reasons, not factual ones. Women marrying at an early age wasnt necessarily banned because of a truck load of logic, maybe some good ideas but not a mass amount of logic was presented back then. Slavery wasnt abolished based on changing someones mind, it was abolished at the end of a gun barrel during a war. Much like womens rights the black rights movement i dont think was won because of this magic pile of statistics and facts, it was won based on common sense. No one much cared why one side thought people being mistreated was okay, they didnt educate anyone and suddenly *poof* the guy goes, you know your right making him pick cotton was a terrible idea, now i see that, they just said its wrong to mistreat people and it needs to change.

Now in the long run, you are right, over the long haul, the proper amount of education might cause evolution in the thoughts of a given topic, but short term knowing why doesnt matter.

Regarding homosexuals, you are fighting a different battle than blacks rights or womens rights. You cannot argue logic to overcome a belief system, you obviously know that. Logic cant win a battle against a belief. Religion is such a belief and you arent going to win by telling me that being homosexual is okay and acceptable because its no more acceptable to a Christian than being a murdered or bank robber. Its their belief system. Its not like being black or a woman. the Bible doesnt say black people are sinners and should be dealt with as sinners. It doesnt say treat blacks or women badly. Before you hit reply, it also says love thy neighbor (including gays) and to paraphrase, hate the sin, love the sinner. However to Christians openly flaunting homo stuff in public is akin to bragging about sinfulness so they dont want it made public.

Like it or hate it thats the biggest issue you have with trying to win the battle over gay rights. Now i dont care much for statistics and am typically leery of them as i have said many times so take this with a grain of salt. There was a recent poll that i believe CNN ran that said about 80% of Americans identify themselves as religious. That being said even if its wrong by +/- 10% that still creates a problem. There isnt one single religion i know of (doesnt mean one doesnt exist, i just never heard of it) that glorifys gay lifestyles. Every religion i have ever heard of speaks very ill of homo people. So if 80% of people in this country are religious, even if they arent Christians of some make or model, that still presents a very tough sell to convince them gay people are normal and deserve to flaunt it.

I hope this maybe explains the point i was getting at. Maybe i am still confused? I am sure you will let me know LOL.

Gunner007
09-23-2009, 07:41 PM
Or, perhaps, you might acknowledge that he wants companies to be allowed to conduct their business as they choose.

You'll have to show me where the US Constitution said that the Federal government was supposed to force private entities to provide the same protections ot the populace that it demands the government does. As amatter of fact, the whole point of the limitations that the US Constitution places on the government is to restrict and prevent the government's influence and intervention in private matters.

Then again, our Federal government has ignored this concept and grabbed more and more power and control since (at least) the Great Depression, and pretty much no US citizen alive today actually remembers living as an adult in an America where the Federal government was ACTUALLY restricted in accordance with the US Constitution. And since then, as a nation, we have gone out of our way to teach our children about how much the government is supposed to do for them. By design, the most important thing the government is suppose dot do for them is to stay out of their lives and their way, so that they can attempt to achieve success based on their own capabilities and drive.

If that puts him in the same cateogry as Nessie and Bigfoot, then the American Dream is dead.

The Constitution doesnt give the FG the right to intrude it is VERY specific when it says that anything not written in the Constitution is to be mandated and covered by the states, yet here we sit with OSHA and entitlement quotas choking businesses into bankruptcy. I agree with what you said, the FG is a large behemoth that needs to be downsized on a grand scale! The power hungry elites think our freedom is theirs to toy with and they think they have some charter to give and take rights from the people because they feel like it, regardless of whether due process is served. The roman empire faced the same problems. As they become more and more liberal and "intellectual" they desired less and less to fund, train, and emply a proper army. Their people turned into gay loving weirdos and pedophiles and shortly thereafter the empire imploded and was destroyed. They placed more value in perverted art than morals and ethics.

You can see the similiarity i draw from the romans to our own senators and countrymen! This desire to create a painting of the virgin mary from feces, openly allow gays to roam amok, castrating the morals and ethics from our government because they are based on religion and somehow religion is wrong, the desire to eunicize our military and degrade its readiness by cutting funds, undermining the generals that lead it, allowing gays to openly serve...

You go ahead and support "the cause" and like every empire before us, we will fall! Its not a wish or desire its just history repeating itself. The people we call marxist, or socialist, or democrat, who are running this country are the same types of people who were asleep behind the wheel when the Roman Empire fell.

Gunner007
09-23-2009, 07:48 PM
Emotiionalisma nd sensationalism will tunr it into a much larger, well advertised, heavily sold problem, yes, I agree.

What's your point?

I already said that things which are already illegal already have penalties to be imposed upon the people who choose to break those rules.

What is your justification for demanding that we can not FIRST give our existing rules (and enforcement of those rules) a chance to stop the stupidity that will happen? Why do you think that a completely new set of rules designed to recreate segregation will actually make a difference?

Or is the only difference you care about the "Not near me" difference?

The point is that these things ARE illegal, like being openly gay in the military. If you saying because something is openly accepted in one area by one type of people everyone everywhere should accept it and the military should make it legal then the military should make pot and hookers legal across the board. Thats what your saying it seems. because this group says being gay is great, the military should allow it? I mean can the military ban hookers and pot without showing how hookers and pot negatively impact readiness? OMG how dare they!

Measure Man
09-23-2009, 07:59 PM
Wow. Hot topic.

I have openly gay people working for me at this very moment. I am in a NATO position, and they are members of militaries of other nations. Surprise, not one of them has tried to grab my ass or anything. They don't make out at work (nor do the straight people, folks). They do very good work.

I'll admit that when I was younger, this bothered me more. I have just come to realize that...if I am in the showers with a gay dude there, I am probably not the one he is going to be checking out. No, me in all my naked glory has never been a sight that one might call arousing for anyone :-)

I do see some logistic and social issues we would have to overcome...mainly cohabitation issues. We don't want copuples in our dorms, whether same-sex or co-ed. But the shower privacy thing is easy to overcome. No one is going to come and a$$-rape you in their sleep just because they are gay. That thinking is primitive, misguided and predicated on pure fear.

I can't say that I understand it. I love WOMEN. A LOT. But to each his own, as long as he behaves the way an American Fighting Man or Woman should, and puts warheads on foreheads.

You know B...I think this is really what it is going to take...personal experience.

Like you, that was what convinced me that lifting DADT was the right thing to do...having a troop I work with get discharged for it.

That's what changed it, in my mind, from "those other people (gays) to "Gee, Carl really should be able to serve" No one that worked with old Carl..that I know of...does not think he should still be serving.

I'm pretty sure DADT will be lifted in the next few years...and many of you opponents will some day find out that one of the guys you have beer with on Friday is gay...and you will NOT hate him...you will probably NOT shun him...or beat him...it'll just be a part of who he is, just like anything else...as if you just found out he has six toes on each foot...you won't be worried about him being attracted to you anymore than you are worried about your 65 yr old married female commander's secretary hititng on you in the lunch room. Yeah, you might say "oh, so and so is gay, but he is one of the cool ones...he isn't all flamboyant"....sort of the way Archie Bunker referred to Lionel Jefferson. Yes, Archie was a racist, but he didn't have nothing against ol' Lionel...didn't really consider him to be "one of them"...and so it'll go, until most people have personal experience with some gays...and realize all the fear is unfounded.

If i had to to guess...I'd say the majority of gays in the military would remain closeted...or maybe only be open to very few select friends/co-workers (much like most of them do in civilian life)...but would no longer have that Dishonorable Discharge hanging over their head in the event they were inadvertently outed. The vast majority of us...still won't know whether or not our shower buddies are gay or not.

This thing about being "openly gay" seems to have a lot of people think that all the gays want to put rainbow flags in their office and bumper stickers on their cars...I don't believe that's the issue...they simply want to be able to quietly serve without the fear of being discharged if someone finds out.

Diseases? Are you seriously suggesting we screen people out of the military based on their statistical probability of getting a disease because of their demographic? I mean, really? What if...black homosexuals have a much higher chance of getting HIV than white homosexuals? (they do). What about Tay-Sachs II...which is far more debillitating than HIV and is present almost exclusivly in Jews? I mean...do we really want to go down this road? Heart Disease...which is the number one killer of us all...is far more prevalent in Blacks than Whites. 100% of all cases of testicular cancer are in men....100% of cervical cancer in women. What exactly does your statistic prove? (you quoted it incorrectly though...it was 71% of adult male HIV cases were of gay men; 53% of total cases...but don't let the details hold you back) If it were to have any relevance...tell me what are the odds of a healthy gay male of getting HIV...not how many who get HIV are gay males...if there was only 1 HIV case this year, and it was a woman...that's 100% women, is that a significant statistic? Then, factor in the higher than average education of military members...access to health care and information...awareness, etc. etc. Bottom line...no way is this a valid argument in any sense. Would we have an HIV prevention program? Maybe we already should...I dunno. We have suicide prevention...but don't try to keep 18-24 year olds out. Are gays any less likely to catch HIV if they are in the closet? Not to mention that the group LEAST likely to get HIV is homosexual women...what do you wanna do with that?

The whole shower hullaboo...I just find that to be juvenile..sorry. You shower at the base gym? Guess what...DOD civilians can be openly gay...contractors who can use the facility...do you see them hitting on guys in the shower every day? Do you see all the gay signs and banners all over base...or them making out in the food court? Please...this is much ado about nothing.

When gays are open in the military...you will see them about as often as you see them now when you go off-base...almost never, unless you go specifically looking for them at gay bars and pride events.

I don't expect anyone that is "not comfortable with gays" or think "homosexuality is just wrong" will be convinced by my little post...it'll just take personal exposure to some highly professional gay servicemembers...for some, that may never happen...for others it will.

Gunner007
09-23-2009, 08:08 PM
What one word do you apply to describe the quote I left above?



This is basically the same statment, right?

Oh, you want to say that "It is wrong" and "They should not exist" are not equivalent? What IS the equivalent statment, then?

He states quite clearly that he believes nobody should ever be wht it is to be a part of Group A, and the he sees no reason why he should ever have to relate to members of Gorup A as people.

Oh, you don't like that phrase, either? Okay, so what does he mean by "I don't care why they are what they are. I do not and will not sympathize or empathize with them." Empathy is the basic connection recognizing that someone else is a person, with the full rights and aspects of a human. Hell, people empathize with their pets. He clearly indicates that he's not willing to consider these people as much as he would his own dog.

What one word would you like to use to summarize that described emotional stance?

I tend to use distaste to relate to things like how I feel about my daughter's friends' clothes.



As alread indicated, I recommend that you stop dismissing messages because you choose to refuse a single word. Words can be debated. The message has validity with or without that one word, if you are willing to participate in a discussion.



No, it isn't. We're discussing issues that will actually break people, putting some into prison for a long period of time, and probably getting others killed. Because whether or not GUNNER007 actually hates homosexuals is pretty minor within th econtext fo the discussion, because we both know there are active duty military members who do. And the thing that drug me into this discussion in any great detail was the discussion of what new rules are required to protect homosexuals from that hatred.



Not at all. You just refuse to accept the message you don't want to acknowledge. There's a difference.
Nothing really pisses me off quite as much as someone TELLING me what i meant! I am a pretty open book to people who know me. I say what i think/feel and dont mince words all to often. You need a hooked on phonics book apparently.

If you read the statement closely, did i EVER say i HATE a gay man? If you read the words written in that quote, you will note that i never commented i hated gay people. You can twist my words however you wont but the preposition i used was a noun! I dont are with their lifestyle, i have been pretty clear its the fact they boink other people of the same gender, not the fact of the people themselves. Its the ACTION i dislike not the person.

As for empathy, emapthy is not an emotion that i need in order to recongnize someone as human. Maybe you do, but i do not. Empathy is overused. For instance, i dont empathize with homeless or poor people people, because i disagree with their LIFESTYLE CHOICE! I dont need to put myself in their shoes because i view that choice as one they apparently like. If you bring something on yourself, why should i feel bad or empathize with your situation? So i dont need empathy unless i feel sympathy first. If something bad happens to you out of the blue, i would think gee, i feel sorry for you. Then i would Empathize and imagine how it feels to be in your shoes and decide man i should really help that guy. So in the case of gays, i dont feel symapthy for them, they think their lifestyle is great! Why should i empathize with them? I dont care how they feel about this or that because there is no sympathy for them.

ie... since the slavery issue and black rights is being used so extensively to compare to gay rights. Its 1855, i see this black guy being whipped because his owner is a asshole. I would feel sympathy, dang that guy is getting the crap beat out of him! Then i would empathize, i wonder how it would feel to be captured by a fueding tribe, sold to these white people who speak a language i dont understand, take far from my family, handed to this mean A-hole who beats the crap out of me for something i dont even understand because i dont speak his language and doomed to work for him until the day i probably die. Dang, i need to help that guy!

Your trying to compare a lifestyle with a person. Do you see how they dont compare now?

Variable Wind
09-23-2009, 08:09 PM
Now THAT Measure Man, is the way to present an arguement. As per your pseudonym, the voice of reason.

I have a gay family member who is by far one of the coolest people I know, and definitely someone I would want to back me up in a tactical situation. I want them to be able to serve on the same terms that we all do. I just dont want the issue of accomodations to distract us from the mission at hand. Our resources and manpower are very taxed at the moment, we cannot go into this thinking it will just work itself out, it shouldnt be too hard to come up with a solution, we just need to dedicate some people to coming up with one.

imported_Gigglendorf
09-23-2009, 08:16 PM
Its become more than just a single word, it has become the entire basis of your point. By removing that word, you have not point. And you still have no point.

Actually, my starting point, and the position I've wanted to defend, is that if we, as military members, are told to implement an openly gay military, recreating segregation and an entire hierarchy of additional rules and restrictions in addition to the ones that already exist is the wrong path to follow.

Go back and read the posts where I first got involved. You will see that message.

Where the conversation has gone, it has gone because other people are demading that their feelings are the entire issue.

Some people responded to claims that our existing laws already contain punishments for the behaviors they are trying to use to scare people was to accuse me of being homosexual.

Soem people responded to claims that our system already contains the legal protections that they desire by demanding segregation and presenting emotionally charged stories about how mores within the military will disintegrate if we are told to allow openly gay service members.

I guess what you are sayinig, in part, is that instead of trying to address why the emotionally charged story doesn't actually prove anything, I should have ignored it?

At every point along the path peole have told me that my position is untenable and inherently flawed.

My position is that if the military is given orders, then we need to implement those orders, and we need to do so in the fashion that actually changes as little as possible.

After all, if the guy in the chair next to you is gay today, then he will be gay tomorrow. His behavior isn't going to change radically because he is now allowed to admit that his significant other is also male.

Most of the statememnts that I have flet obligated to respond to have been wild rants about how "they" are going to behave and what "they" are going to do. Here's a clue: "They" aren't going to be different people after such an order is given than "they" were before it was given.

Everybody keeps telling me that I'm arguing a different position.

My position is that if we are given a legal order, we must implement it. My epxectation is that we have a fair number of bigotted people (and, no, I don't expect to be able to identify them today) who are going to respond to the order in an illegal fashion, and we will then be required to maintain the discipline of the troops.

Everybody else keeps telling me I'm standing for something else, because they want to argue other points.


Oh please, spare me the sob story of your childhood.

What sob story? I said I was in that environment. I never said I had a problem living in it. I never said I was beaten, or that I was beating on others. I said that was the nature of the environment, and that I got to observe that culture.

All of the emotional baggage that you saw in that description was added by you. You made an assumption about my intent, and thus failed to simply read the words used, and see what they meant on their own.

My intent was to provide a little perspective about why I feel justified to discuss hate as a contributing factor where you want to pretend the word is inapplicable. I have no idea where you took it after you started making assumptions.

imported_Gigglendorf
09-23-2009, 08:25 PM
Your trying to compare a lifestyle with a person. Do you see how they dont compare now?

You can't do anything to a lifestyle. You do it to the people who live that way.

When you can explain how you can stop the lifestyle without punshing the people living it, then I will consider your distinction to have merit.

And, as I already posted, whether the term hate is appropriate for you specifically, or not, it IS appropriate for others in uniform today.

Measure Man
09-23-2009, 08:42 PM
Its the ACTION i dislike not the person.

DADT discharges gay PEOPLE....even if they have taken no ACTION...they merely have to be determined to have a PROPENSITY to commit homosexual acts...not have actually committed them.

BTW...the definition of propensity is a natural inclination or preference...an innate tendency

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propensity

If your position is that no one is naturally gay...then no one should be discharged under DADT.

The should only be charged under UCMJ for actual acts...which of course, then would have to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof...which DADT discharges do not.

Well..that's really just some cute word play...no big point that'll convince you of anything.

Variable Wind
09-23-2009, 08:47 PM
Actually, my starting point, and the position I've wanted to defend, is that if we, as military members, are told to implement an openly gay military, recreating segregation and an entire hierarchy of additional rules and restrictions in addition to the ones that already exist is the wrong path to follow.Go back and read the posts where I first got involved. You will see that message.
This wasnt about your starting point, this was about you saying that Gunner007 was a biggot. Your whole arguement hinged on the fact that people like that would be the "tool" of problems with the removal of DADT. Since you have proven to us that you cannot properly identify a biggot, what does that say about your credibility?


Where the conversation has gone, it has gone because other people are demading that their feelings are the entire issue.
Just letting you know this, feeling are a part of everything that becomes an issue, like your feelings that you are being logical and not emotional...which couldnt be further from the truth.


Some people responded to claims that our existing laws already contain punishments for the behaviors they are trying to use to scare people was to accuse me of being homosexual.
I didnt see any of the SERIOUS posters here accuse you of being gay. Ill assume that came from Micheap. But who cares, its the internet.


I guess what you are sayinig, in part, is that instead of trying to address why the emotionally charged story doesn't actually prove anything, I should have
ignored it?
what I am saying...quite clearly Is...that...you...should...not...blindly...accuse. ..people...of...being...biggots.


At every point along the path peole have told me that my position is untenable and inherently flawed.
They are right.


My position is that if the military is given orders, then we need to implement those orders, and we need to do so in the fashion that actually changes as little as possible.
So how does this jive with another statement you made in the same post:

Soem people responded to claims that our system already contains the legal protections that they desire by demanding segregation and presenting emotionally charged stories about how mores within the military will disintegrate if we are told to allow openly gay service members.
It seems like doublespeak to me, but I think you are just confused.


My position is that if we are given a legal order, we must implement it. My epxectation is that we have a fair number of bigotted people (and, no, I don't expect to be able to identify them today) who are going to respond to the order in an illegal fashion, and we will then be required to maintain the discipline of the troops.
Your position was that Gunner and people like him hated gays and were part of the problem. They arent.


Everybody else keeps telling me I'm standing for something else, because they want to argue other points.
Everything you and I have gone back and forth on has been DIRECTLY related to what you said.



What sob story? I said I was in that environment. I never said I had a problem living in it. I never said I was beaten, or that I was beating on others. I said that was the nature of the environment, and that I got to observe that culture.
All of the emotional baggage that you saw in that description was added by you. You made an assumption about my intent, and thus failed to simply read the words used, and see what they meant on their own.
My intent was to provide a little perspective about why I feel justified to discuss hate as a contributing factor where you want to pretend the word is inapplicable. I have no idea where you took it after you started making assumptions.
*yawn* whatever, that part was dripping with emotional response. I can read between the lines so dont try to insult me by pretending that I cannot.

imported_kvnhlstd
09-23-2009, 09:22 PM
Measureman is the quiet voice of reason in this entire thread.
I had two gay friends that I worked with in the AF, they to this day are my best friends even though we live in different parts of the country now.
My wife has two gays subordinates that work for her in a civilian job. Once you personalize the situation you cannot demonize the position. At my wifes work Xmas party last December we had a great open conversation about whether being gay was by choice or predetermined " nature vs nurture". Chris, openly gay stated... who in their right mind would choose to be hated, vilified, or beaten to a pulp and left tied to a cattle fence by choice, We are who we are". My life experiences have trump my religous beliefs. I have evolved.

Variable Wind
09-23-2009, 09:26 PM
Measureman is the quiet voice of reason in this entire thread.
I had two gay friends that I worked with in the AF, they to this day are my best friends even though we live in different parts of the country now.
My wife has two gays subordinates that work for her in a civilian job. Once you personalize the situation you cannot demonize the position. At my wifes work Xmas party last December we had a great open conversation about whether being gay was by choice or predetermined " nature vs nurture". Chris, openly gay stated... who in their right mind would choose to be hated, vilified, or beaten to a pulp and left tied to a cattle fence by choice, We are who we are". My life experiences have trump my religous beliefs. I have evolved.

I always thought that statement was stupid. Many of the choices we make in life have those potential reactions from people. I choose to be a Christian. I know there are athiests and muslims who hate me because of that choice. I know there are Christians who hate people who become atheists. I am a capitalist by choice, there are people in south america and other places who want to do the same things that you described.

Being gay is NOT a singular choice in life that nobody can relate to. Thats a Barney Frank tactic as I call it.

imported_kvnhlstd
09-23-2009, 09:34 PM
Last fall when the euro scientist posted that he had found the "gay gene" the news was met with excitement and fear in the gay communties. On one hand it is the first proof that a persons sexuality is tied to their gene pool, and not a choice. On the other hand... now science will try and find a way to irradicate it.
A slippery slope. fooling with mother nature.

Gunner007
09-23-2009, 09:35 PM
You can't do anything to a lifestyle. You do it to the people who live that way.

When you can explain how you can stop the lifestyle without punshing the people living it, then I will consider your distinction to have merit.

And, as I already posted, whether the term hate is appropriate for you specifically, or not, it IS appropriate for others in uniform today.


I can have dislike or disgust for the lifestyle without having disgust for the person, as i previously wrote: hate the sin, love the sinner. Some of us accept that people are rightous inside yet still sin, some of us recognize that because a person sins it doesnt mean they arent loved by the same God we worship. I am not without it, i do it, frankly more than i would like, i am not perfect.

Let me put it in a non religious POV. Your a father, your kid does something you are totally against and something that humiliates you and your family name. Does that mean you dislike or hate your child? Or do you dislike the action they committed while still loving them?

You can dislike something being done and still show a interest or love for the person who did it. I have NEVER stated that i think gays should be punished. I have stated over and over, i would just like for them to realize they are a minority when it comes to their proclivity and show the rest of us some respect by not flaunting it in public and making it harder for us to raise small children or in the case of the military keeping it DADT so that good order and discipline can continue unabated without all the privacy issues that would rear their heads if they jumped from the ISU.

I am not anyone ultimate judge, its not for me to decide what the end result is for that person when the day comes, i dont care if they continue their lifestyle and have all the fun they want. I just ask that they respect the fact i have small children who i dont need to confuse and make life harder for. I also ask that they keep their orientation to theirselves in the military so that the military doesnt implode.

If we can figure out how to give their lovers Tricare and death benefits without "outing" them in their careers and they are happy to take those benefits and keep DADT'ing along, i am all for letting them continue to do what they are doing.

I dislike their lifestyle, i dislike the fact they are ramming gay relationship training down a childs throat in California even more. If they want me to be more open to allowing them to edge their way into mainstream America, then they should realize, trying to indoctrinate the children of California with their gay love lifestyle crap that is being force fed to citizens who pay taxes to operate those schools is not the way to convince me giving gays more rope is a good idea. All that type of tactic does is reinforce why i should fight at every opportunity their making any and all advances in mainstream america!

Since i believe it was you who brought up slavery a few times which the rest of us piggy backed on, let me ask you something.

Are you fully educated in the reason the KKK was created? If not a primer, it was created because during the reconstruction era after the civil war ended the north came in and began mandating who would be mayor or run what business, etc... The government began forcing people to accept things they werent ready to accept. It created an atmosphere that led to the KKK being created and then proceeded to give that group an atmosphere in which to create a divide that has haunted our country to this day, ask jimmy carter.

By the state forcing gay crap on people and forcing business and places like that to accept gays they are creating a new resenment. Gay rights have made advances, leaps and bounds since i was in school! People had until now been slowly warming to the idea and if things had continued the way they were going gays probably would have turned this countries thinking around in another generation or two. Instead they began this militant style movement to force mainstream america to accept their lifestlye wholesale! They have been succesful in getting many state governments to agree with their BS thought process and over rule the voice of the majority. They are trying to forcefully integrate their lifestyle into mainstream america. All this will do is create an atmosphere ripe for groups who are anti-gay to prosper. People who might have gone along with their plans thinking, "well they arent hurting anyone and they just want to be able to marry and share some rights" are now going to be thinking, "gee, screw those people, i dont want my kids forced to take some gay love course in school and i dont want my kids forced to read gay books!" These people are now going to be more apt to join those groups who, like the KKK, are likely to answer what they see as force with something that will be unmistakeable as force!

You want to know why the womens rights movement was so prosperous? Its because they eased into mainstream america they didnt try some militant force tactic. They protested, they burned bras, sure, but they waited until their movement had the support of the people before they started demanding laws be passed. Laws require, or use to require anyway, the will of the people. There is a reason why there is less prejudice today against women in the workplace than blacks, i do honestly believe that much of that has to do with the manner in which the different rights movements occurred. One was cunning and sly and one was violent and militant.

As for lifestyle vs. people, if i havent defined the differences, let me know.

Gunner007
09-23-2009, 09:40 PM
DADT discharges gay PEOPLE....even if they have taken no ACTION...they merely have to be determined to have a PROPENSITY to commit homosexual acts...not have actually committed them.

BTW...the definition of propensity is a natural inclination or preference...an innate tendency

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propensity

If your position is that no one is naturally gay...then no one should be discharged under DADT.

The should only be charged under UCMJ for actual acts...which of course, then would have to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof...which DADT discharges do not.

Well..that's really just some cute word play...no big point that'll convince you of anything.

I will agree 100% no one should be discharged unless they have done something. I believe there should be proof just like with any trial. The problem with gays serving openly is that erosion of good order and discipline that is caused by the knowledge they are actively committing those acts. If someone hasnt done something that would cause good order and discipline to decay and it doesnt negatively impact morale then i dont think the person should be discharged. If they havent done anything or burst out the ISU, then how on earth does Amn snuffy know the guy is gay? People joke about someone being gay all the time across the AF. But just making a joke about it doesnt cause anyone i know to feel uncomfortable in the shower or tight living quarters situation. I think the UCMJ should require more than just a suspicion to convict anyone of any crime!

As for your word play, no i dont believe people are born that way. Just like i dont believe people are born serial killers. However once they become one they have a dictionary definition, proclivity, for that type of behaviour. It is as natural to them as me liking a girl with nice hips! It is part of their inner make up at that point.

Measure Man
09-23-2009, 10:04 PM
I will agree 100% no one should be discharged unless they have done something. I believe there should be proof just like with any trial.

Agreed. In which case...there should not be any DADT, right?

would you also agree...that the UCMJ Art 128 against sodomy should be prosecuted with the same vigor against gays as it is against straights (which is none, btw)?


The problem with gays serving openly is that erosion of good order and discipline that is caused by the knowledge they are actively committing those acts.

The problem with that statement...is that it is not proven...and in fact disproven. We have numerous cases where a member was known to be homosexual in the military...and that erosion of good order and discipline simply did NOT occur. Heck, one guy (Manzanella?) was RECALLED to active duty after his DADT discharge...he was sent on deployment as a known gay...and was later re-discharged upon completion of his deployment. Several others have been known to their units...and the widespread lack of discipline and good order has simply not occurred. And of course, our allies who have lifted their bans...well, it's all been posted before. There is an Letter in the latest hard copy AF times from a guy who was discharged under DADT...he then got a contractor job...went to Iraq...went to Afghanistan...and is now working on a military base. How is that possible?

I ask you to point to any evidence that this erosion of good order and discipline will occur?...other than anectdotal quips by people who swear they'll separate. A bunch of people said that when they allowed women into the Academies and Citadel...and the mass exodus just didn't happen.


If someone hasnt done something that would cause good order and discipline to decay and it doesnt negatively impact morale then i dont think the person should be discharged. If they havent done anything or burst out the ISU, then how on earth does Amn snuffy know the guy is gay?

someone mentioned it?


People joke about someone being gay all the time across the AF. But just making a joke about it doesnt cause anyone i know to feel uncomfortable in the shower or tight living quarters situation. I think the UCMJ should require more than just a suspicion to convict anyone of any crime!

The UCMJ does...DADT doesn't.


As for your word play, no i dont believe people are born that way. Just like i dont believe people are born serial killers. However once they become one they have a dictionary definition, proclivity, for that type of behaviour. It is as natural to them as me liking a girl with nice hips! It is part of their inner make up at that point.

Well...I believe people are born with the sexual orientation...obviously any actual action would be choice...I could choose to be a virgin too, but I can't choose to not get excited when I see a hot woman. I can choose not to look, or force myself to think of baseball...but I can't choose to not be attracted to women.

As for serial kilers...some of them have, I believe, an actual chemical imbalance..or emotional disability, if you will, that gives them a tendency toward violence...that can be helped or hindered by nurturing and parenting, for sure...are there some that are just so far off chemically, that there is no stopping it...probably. Of course that is just a tendency to do something...to actually do it, is, of course, a choice. Some may argue that at some point it is the disability and not an actual choice, but...well, that's probably a whole other bucket of worms. For our purposes, I accept that the actual action is always a choice...but the tendency, orientation, proclivity, whatever... I don't think is...in some cases anyway.

I believe the same about sexual orientation only moreso...I mean we all have SOME kind of sexual orientation....I think there is at least some biology to it...otherwise, there'd probably be a lot more homosexuality. Now, if you can assume there is some biology to it...then we must also assume that the biology is capable of being "screwed up"...as is most everything else... I mean, babies born with six toes...missing brains...the hermaphrodite track star....conjoined twins...I mean biology screws up from time to time...there is no doubting that....to think that it does with everything except sexual orientation is pretty narrow, in my view. Nevetheless...I don't see how that is relevant...people are gay...there is no denying that...that they should be arbitrarily discriminated against because actions...or even a belief that they are INCLINED to commit the actions...which are constitutionally protected by the way, I think is wrong...

Forgive my ignorance...but what is ISU?

usmc19812000
09-24-2009, 01:23 AM
The main reason I see for those not wanting open gays in the military is (1) Their Religious beliefs and (2) the living/berthing/shower situation, right now we're all living/berthing/showering, though the last time I took a communal shower was in 03 in Iraq, and it was separate stalls anyways, but what happens when/ if DADT is lifted and some decide not to disclose their sexuality? its going to be like nothing happened.

imported_Gigglendorf
09-24-2009, 02:49 AM
*yawn* whatever, that part was dripping with emotional response. I can read between the lines so dont try to insult me by pretending that I cannot.

Right . . ..

imported_BRAVO10000
09-24-2009, 09:15 AM
Point of note, God didnt say killing was wrong he said murder was wrong. The same God who justified going into a village and killing everything that breathed air and punished his people for sparing, i believe it was a goat.

Jesus is the one who taught and professed love for all mankind and turn the other cheek, not God. God would have you stone the homosexuals and not bat an eye! Jesus would say let those without sin cast the first stone.

If your going to interject religion, please keep it correct.

Back atcha. "Thou shalt not kill" per the Roman Catholic translation of Exodus 20 in the Old Testament, "murder" as translated by Jewish, Anglican and Orthodox. I guess you think that God was leaving room for a legal and binding order.

We can do the word games thing if you want, but it misses my point. The hypocracy of religion is always readily apparent in that it is often cited as a convenient justification for someone's point, but is almost never concise enough to be quoted verbatim...certainly not if you're going off a milleniums-old and translated reference.

By the same token, we can talk about God and Jesus all day, whether a manifestation, prophet, offspring, whatever. Your interpretation is just one of many points of view. So there is no "correct" in that vein. But using religion to control the masses has no place in a conversation about regulation so long as our constitution demands a separation between church and state.

Variable Wind
09-24-2009, 01:17 PM
Back atcha. "Thou shalt not kill" per the Roman Catholic translation of Exodus 20 in the Old Testament, "murder" as translated by Jewish, Anglican and Orthodox. I guess you think that God was leaving room for a legal and binding order.

We can do the word games thing if you want, but it misses my point. The hypocracy of religion is always readily apparent in that it is often cited as a convenient justification for someone's point, but is almost never concise enough to be quoted verbatim...certainly not if you're going off a milleniums-old and translated reference.

By the same token, we can talk about God and Jesus all day, whether a manifestation, prophet, offspring, whatever. Your interpretation is just one of many points of view. So there is no "correct" in that vein. But using religion to control the masses has no place in a conversation about regulation so long as our constitution demands a separation between church and state.

And vice versa to that Bravo, the government cannot tell him that his religion is wrong either. And I have never found hypocrisy in religions...at least not Christianity, merely hypocritical PRACTICIONERS of the religion.

BTW, if you are going to take the word of God LITERALLY, do not rely on the Roman Catholic Translation, go with the HEBREW language...you know, the one it was originally written in. Murder. It is made quite clear in the bible that death in combat is not murder.

ringjamesa
09-24-2009, 01:38 PM
You know B...I think this is really what it is going to take...personal experience.

Like you, that was what convinced me that lifting DADT was the right thing to do...having a troop I work with get discharged for it.

That's what changed it, in my mind, from "those other people (gays) to "Gee, Carl really should be able to serve" No one that worked with old Carl..that I know of...does not think he should still be serving.

I'm pretty sure DADT will be lifted in the next few years...and many of you opponents will some day find out that one of the guys you have beer with on Friday is gay...and you will NOT hate him...you will probably NOT shun him...or beat him...it'll just be a part of who he is, just like anything else...as if you just found out he has six toes on each foot...you won't be worried about him being attracted to you anymore than you are worried about your 65 yr old married female commander's secretary hititng on you in the lunch room. Yeah, you might say "oh, so and so is gay, but he is one of the cool ones...he isn't all flamboyant"....sort of the way Archie Bunker referred to Lionel Jefferson. Yes, Archie was a racist, but he didn't have nothing against ol' Lionel...didn't really consider him to be "one of them"...and so it'll go, until most people have personal experience with some gays...and realize all the fear is unfounded.

If i had to to guess...I'd say the majority of gays in the military would remain closeted...or maybe only be open to very few select friends/co-workers (much like most of them do in civilian life)...but would no longer have that Dishonorable Discharge hanging over their head in the event they were inadvertently outed. The vast majority of us...still won't know whether or not our shower buddies are gay or not.

This thing about being "openly gay" seems to have a lot of people think that all the gays want to put rainbow flags in their office and bumper stickers on their cars...I don't believe that's the issue...they simply want to be able to quietly serve without the fear of being discharged if someone finds out.

Diseases? Are you seriously suggesting we screen people out of the military based on their statistical probability of getting a disease because of their demographic? I mean, really? What if...black homosexuals have a much higher chance of getting HIV than white homosexuals? (they do). What about Tay-Sachs II...which is far more debillitating than HIV and is present almost exclusivly in Jews? I mean...do we really want to go down this road? Heart Disease...which is the number one killer of us all...is far more prevalent in Blacks than Whites. 100% of all cases of testicular cancer are in men....100% of cervical cancer in women. What exactly does your statistic prove? (you quoted it incorrectly though...it was 71% of adult male HIV cases were of gay men; 53% of total cases...but don't let the details hold you back) If it were to have any relevance...tell me what are the odds of a healthy gay male of getting HIV...not how many who get HIV are gay males...if there was only 1 HIV case this year, and it was a woman...that's 100% women, is that a significant statistic? Then, factor in the higher than average education of military members...access to health care and information...awareness, etc. etc. Bottom line...no way is this a valid argument in any sense. Would we have an HIV prevention program? Maybe we already should...I dunno. We have suicide prevention...but don't try to keep 18-24 year olds out. Are gays any less likely to catch HIV if they are in the closet? Not to mention that the group LEAST likely to get HIV is homosexual women...what do you wanna do with that?

The whole shower hullaboo...I just find that to be juvenile..sorry. You shower at the base gym? Guess what...DOD civilians can be openly gay...contractors who can use the facility...do you see them hitting on guys in the shower every day? Do you see all the gay signs and banners all over base...or them making out in the food court? Please...this is much ado about nothing.

When gays are open in the military...you will see them about as often as you see them now when you go off-base...almost never, unless you go specifically looking for them at gay bars and pride events.

I don't expect anyone that is "not comfortable with gays" or think "homosexuality is just wrong" will be convinced by my little post...it'll just take personal exposure to some highly professional gay servicemembers...for some, that may never happen...for others it will.

Excellent post.



One minor point, someone discharged under DADT gets an Honorable Discharge (Which pisses Drake off to no end).

imported_BRAVO10000
09-24-2009, 02:35 PM
And vice versa to that Bravo, the government cannot tell him that his religion is wrong either. And I have never found hypocrisy in religions...at least not Christianity, merely hypocritical PRACTICIONERS of the religion.

BTW, if you are going to take the word of God LITERALLY, do not rely on the Roman Catholic Translation, go with the HEBREW language...you know, the one it was originally written in. Murder. It is made quite clear in the bible that death in combat is not murder.

I see. What does YOUR Hebrew copy say about working on Sunday? Does it say that you should be stoned to death? Or is that okay if you're in the military? Does it likewise say that "all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord"? Either way, your translation is no more fact than mine is. But hey, what a great example of flexible-to-suit-my-needs interpretation.

V-Dub: I am not getting troll-sucked into a regious debate. The point was (and remains, hopefully) that religion is a poor justification for banning gays from military service. The example was right off the top of my head. Maybe it was a bad example...I could have been talking about drinking to excess or watching porn. Whatever. All of these things go on at each base, are perfectly legal, practiced widely...and are immoral according to "the Bible". Use it as justification if you like...but if you aren't married and aren't a virgin, then you might be one of those afforementioned "practitioners" that has no "biblical" room to cast the first stone. /HIJACK OFF

Variable Wind
09-24-2009, 02:51 PM
I see. What does YOUR Hebrew copy say about working on Sunday? Does it say that you should be stoned to death? Or is that okay if you're in the military? Does it likewise say that "all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord"? Either way, your translation is no more fact than mine is. But hey, what a great example of flexible-to-suit-my-needs interpretation.
Whatever, I dont take everything so literally, because I dont put so much stock in the literal translation taken by a literal culture when the word was taken by a very metaphorically based culture. Do I think the word is flexible? Absolutely. I feel that any God who holds love. free choice and forgiveness above all would be a flexible one. But we are digressing as you correctly pointed out.


V-Dub: I am not getting troll-sucked into a regious debate. The point was (and remains, hopefully) that religion is a poor justification for banning gays from military service. The example was right off the top of my head. Maybe it was a bad example...I could have been talking about drinking to excess or watching porn. Whatever. All of these things go on at each base, are perfectly legal, practiced widely...and are immoral according to "the Bible". Use it as justification if you like...but if you aren't married and aren't a virgin, then you might be one of those afforementioned "practitioners" that has no "biblical" room to cast the first stone. /HIJACK OFF
Slow down there, I agree that the Bible is a poor reason for banning gays from military service. That said, I also understand that some people (even some gays) may feel uncomfortable showering or living with homosexuals. It is no different than the modesty we afford women. Gender is MUCH closer to the sexuality debate than Race...because Gender implies sexuality, while race has nothing to do with it. I jumped in about the religion, because what you said is a two way street.

Measure Man
09-24-2009, 03:03 PM
Excellent post.



One minor point, someone discharged under DADT gets an Honorable Discharge (Which pisses Drake off to no end).

Thanks.

I'd say DADT discharges are USUALLY honorable..not always. They can be any admin discharge...UOTHC, General...

But, you're right...for a DD it would need to go through a court martial...so, there would have to be some conduct involved for that...

Variable Wind
09-24-2009, 03:07 PM
Thanks.

I'd say DADT discharges are USUALLY honorable..not always. They can be any admin discharge...UOTHC, General...

But, you're right...for a DD it would need to go through a court martial...so, there would have to be some conduct involved for that...

Yeah, I thank you for the enlightenment. I did not know the wording was for the capacity to commit an act instead of the act itself. One more reason that shows that DADT was not supposed to be a permanent policy. Its was a means of jarring the door loose.

imported_kvnhlstd
09-24-2009, 03:44 PM
And vice versa to that Bravo, the government cannot tell him that his religion is wrong either. And I have never found hypocrisy in religions...at least not Christianity, merely hypocritical PRACTICIONERS of the religion.

BTW, if you are going to take the word of God LITERALLY, do not rely on the Roman Catholic Translation, go with the HEBREW language...you know, the one it was originally written in. Murder. It is made quite clear in the bible that death in combat is not murder.

Please provide the source, Book, chapter, verse.

ringjamesa
09-24-2009, 03:46 PM
Thanks.

I'd say DADT discharges are USUALLY honorable..not always. They can be any admin discharge...UOTHC, General...

But, you're right...for a DD it would need to go through a court martial...so, there would have to be some conduct involved for that...

Actually....if it is strictly for DADT, it is required to be a Honorable. If the individual gets an OTH or General under honorable conditions, something else had to be going on OR the commander overstepped his authority in processing the discharge (giving NJP or the ilk for a DADT violation etc...). DADT violations in and of themselves with no derrogatory information or extenuating circumstances result in an Honorable Discharge. The Re Code and SPD code have even been updated so that it doesn't look like it was a mental condition...

Variable Wind
09-24-2009, 03:51 PM
Please provide the source, Book, chapter, verse.

The source would be...the Bible...and you can start with the first few chapters of Joshua. Or you could read the entire old testament if you can handle it...obviously you havent in the past if you didnt know that God sanctioned war on SEVERAL occasions.

Or David and Goliath?

are you really this dense or are you truely clueless when it comes to the Bible?

Measure Man
09-24-2009, 03:51 PM
Please provide the source, Book, chapter, verse.

...and take it to the Religion thread...

imported_kvnhlstd
09-24-2009, 03:59 PM
The source would be...the Bible...and you can start with the first few chapters of Joshua. Or you could read the entire old testament if you can handle it...obviously you havent in the past if you didnt know that God sanctioned war on SEVERAL occasions.

Or David and Goliath?

are you really this dense or are you truely clueless when it comes to the Bible?


Just trying to verify that it is your interpratation of what you read, having gone to a catholic school from kindergarten thru high school I was taught differently in my daily bible classes.

imported_kvnhlstd
09-24-2009, 04:01 PM
...and take it to the Religion thread...


In case you haven't noticed this entire thread is cloaked in religon and religous beliefs.

Proud Mom
09-24-2009, 04:05 PM
Just to jump in....without having to make me go back and read 33 pages....has anyone heard from the original posted on who, what, where and when of the happenings since he first posted he emailed his entire chain of command?

Variable Wind
09-24-2009, 04:07 PM
In case you haven't noticed this entire thread is cloaked in religon and religous beliefs.

Measure Man, AND Bravo are right. This isnt the medium for the type of discussion that is going to blossom from debating God and War and the Bible.

This is about Homosexuality in the Military and will definitely touch religious beliefs...but we must have the understanding that everyone has their beliefs and such beliefs are protected in the 1st ammendment.

Measure Man
09-24-2009, 04:11 PM
In case you haven't noticed this entire thread is cloaked in religon and religous beliefs.

...as it relates to the topic.

But, go ahead then...have at it...don't let me stand in your way. Religion is actually one of my favorite topics...

imported_kvnhlstd
09-24-2009, 04:28 PM
...as it relates to the topic.

But, go ahead then...have at it...don't let me stand in your way. Religion is actually one of my favorite topics...


My whole take on this from the beginning is people use of religon to withhold rights and persecute someone because of sexual orientation. Coming from a deeply religous family and have to spend 12 years of formal education going to mass every Sunday, Monday morning in school and Friday afternoon in school. After joining the AF and travelling the world I have change my programming and left formal religon, if I decide to return to it ... I would choose Buddihism or the belief system of the native american tribes (Mother earth). In closing I will always support another persons right to openly serve in our military, with no strings attached.

Gunner007
09-24-2009, 04:54 PM
Agreed. In which case...there should not be any DADT, right?

would you also agree...that the UCMJ Art 128 against sodomy should be prosecuted with the same vigor against gays as it is against straights (which is none, btw)?

The problem with that statement...is that it is not proven...and in fact disproven. We have numerous cases where a member was known to be homosexual in the military...and that erosion of good order and discipline simply did NOT occur. Heck, one guy (Manzanella?) was RECALLED to active duty after his DADT discharge...he was sent on deployment as a known gay...and was later re-discharged upon completion of his deployment. Several others have been known to their units...and the widespread lack of discipline and good order has simply not occurred. And of course, our allies who have lifted their bans...well, it's all been posted before. There is an Letter in the latest hard copy AF times from a guy who was discharged under DADT...he then got a contractor job...went to Iraq...went to Afghanistan...and is now working on a military base. How is that possible?

I ask you to point to any evidence that this erosion of good order and discipline will occur?...other than anectdotal quips by people who swear they'll separate. A bunch of people said that when they allowed women into the Academies and Citadel...and the mass exodus just didn't happen.
....

Forgive my ignorance...but what is ISU?

I dont care if its called DADT or whatever i just think they should keep that to theirselves. As for morale issues, In my unit we deploy to austere places and operate in actual FOB's (not main bases in the AOR), & SOF camps. We bunk in tight quarters and we shower in tents not trailers much of the time. I can honestly tell you that the guys in my unit would have a HUGE morale problem if one of us was known to be gay and was sharing tight quarters like that. For people who live on the main bases and have the cadillac facilities maybe it wouldnt be an issue?

There is a guy right now in the army who came out. His CC is letting him stay in anyway. If the guy can be gay and out and it doesnt cause an uproar and erode morale and good order then so be it. Whats the problem? If it causes a huge shit storm and guys minds are not in the game and ready for the mission then its a problem and it needs to be addressed. That goes for anything! It doesnt matter what you can dream up, if it causes problems in the unit and impairs its effectiveness to do the mission the CC has a duty to address it and eliminate it. We are fighting GWOT on numerous fronts, we dont have time to cater to someone for some special interest, we need all the units mission ready 100%.

ISU's are metal storage units that mobility gear gets packed in for deployments. Instead of the flat metal pallets units ISU's so they can get more crap in them and not have it beat to hell. So instead of coming out the closet, our joke is coming out the ISU.

Gunner007
09-24-2009, 05:04 PM
...
By the same token, we can talk about God and Jesus all day, whether a manifestation, prophet, offspring, whatever. Your interpretation is just one of many points of view. So there is no "correct" in that vein. But using religion to control the masses has no place in a conversation about regulation so long as our constitution demands a separation between church and state.

Religion is exactly WHY we are talking about this as a regulation. As i stated, 80% of the people in this country consider themselves religious. NO matter the religion they all look down at homosexuality. That is the reason the thought process of our country is what it is. Like it or not this country was founded by puritans who left europe due to religious persecution. So the biggest prudes of all were the ones who came here in masses. This country was founded by them and generations were reared on their views as passed down from generation to generation.

Our culture is what it is because of those puritanical views, whether you like it or not. Now as time has elapsed the puritanical gene pool has been diluted as people with varying backgrounds immigrated. Today you have conversations about DADT only because those puritanical views have become diluted. Religion is the whole reason our country operates the way it does in many cases. Some of the first written records of laws in the world were laws written because of religious influence. DADT is the same thing, a law based on religous influence. You cant have regulations without laws. So therefore, like it or not, whether you think it makes any sense or not, many of the regulations the military abides by were based on religious doctrine or POV.

You can think it sucks but in order for any civilization to evolve they first have to codify law and order and people being creatures of habit almost always have done that based on the prevelant religion in their civilization. Whether its a tribe in New Guinea or muslims in the middle east or our own puritanical roots, those societies begin with law and order. Yeah you may think its dumb to have someones religion used to codify a law but someone else would see the idea of codify laws without it as akin to anarchy.

Gunner007
09-24-2009, 05:19 PM
I see. What does YOUR Hebrew copy say about working on Sunday? Does it say that you should be stoned to death? Or is that okay if you're in the military? Does it likewise say that "all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord"? Either way, your translation is no more fact than mine is. But hey, what a great example of flexible-to-suit-my-needs interpretation.

...

Ummmm, the Hebrew Bible would be of Jewish faith. The jewish sabath is saturday not sunday. So the jewish bible would care less if you worked on sunday.

There is a reason earlier forms of God based religion all share common terminology over what i term the cult based religions of today (Catholics, Baptists, etc...) The Roman Catholics interpreted the Bible based on the Popes desires, the King James version is interpreted based on what King James wanted it to say. The earlier translations like the Latin vulgate or translations done early on, from Aramaic typically, share a much different wording than those tossed around today. Those earlier version were translated by scholars for the sole purpose of translation in order to educate their people. Later version were translated with the vested interested of the one paying the scholars to translate it as well as by the ones who were in control of the printing presses.

There is a reason i have invested the time in order to read several version and translations of the Bible instead of just taking what was told to me at face value. This is why i am adament that i am a Christian, not a secular cult member. I dont need someone special to tell me what it says, i am capable of reading it and forming my own opinion.

imported_kvnhlstd
09-24-2009, 05:26 PM
Religion is exactly WHY we are talking about this as a regulation. As i stated, 80% of the people in this country consider themselves religious. NO matter the religion they all look down at homosexuality. That is the reason the thought process of our country is what it is. Like it or not this country was founded by puritans who left europe due to religious persecution. So the biggest prudes of all were the ones who came here in masses. This country was founded by them and generations were reared on their views as passed down from generation to generation.

Our culture is what it is because of those puritanical views, whether you like it or not. Now as time has elapsed the puritanical gene pool has been diluted as people with varying backgrounds immigrated. Today you have conversations about DADT only because those puritanical views have become diluted. Religion is the whole reason our country operates the way it does in many cases. Some of the first written records of laws in the world were laws written because of religious influence. DADT is the same thing, a law based on religous influence. You cant have regulations without laws. So therefore, like it or not, whether you think it makes any sense or not, many of the regulations the military abides by were based on religious doctrine or POV.

You can think it sucks but in order for any civilization to evolve they first have to codify law and order and people being creatures of habit almost always have done that based on the prevelant religion in their civilization. Whether its a tribe in New Guinea or muslims in the middle east or our own puritanical roots, those societies begin with law and order. Yeah you may think its dumb to have someones religion used to codify a law but someone else would see the idea of codify laws without it as akin to anarchy.


Buddism is older than christianity and has a following of over 500 million, they do not shun homosexuality.

The puritan laws that you speak of have been and are currently being phased out across America. Even Utah just recently changed its laws on serving alcohol...

Variable Wind
09-24-2009, 05:34 PM
Buddism is older than christianity and has a following of over 500 million, they do not shun homosexuality.

The puritan laws that you speak of have been and are currently being phased out across America. Even Utah just recently changed its laws on serving alcohol...

Worldwide...but they are in a distinct minority in this nation. I dont think the Wiccans shun it either though, and I believe that Hindu is the same way as well...though I know very little about it. But again, all are in a very small minority here. For many reasons, I am glad we do not follow the way of much of the world. The pros far outweight the cons.

ConfusedAirman
09-24-2009, 05:53 PM
Devil's Advocate here -

I have read other posts discussing forced integration of gays and straights with forced integration of male and female. My take is that society keeps males separate from females (restrooms, college dorm roommates, public shower facilities, etc.) simply because a considerable number of members of either sex would be uncomfortable otherwise. Why the discomfort? Because those individuals view sexual attraction as a possibility, no matter how slim. Society doesn't integrate the sexes within intimate confines and simply say, "keep to yourself". Society doesn't tell anyone who feels uncomfortable in such situations that, unless the other person acts on their attraction (leer, comment, contact), they are the ones with the problem. Society simply separates the sexes in these situations to accomodate personal preference.

Why not the same for gays and straights? When a heterosexual is uncomfortable in intimate confines with a homosexual, why does society say the heterosexual has a problem? If the military is going to force heterosexuals to be uncomfortable in such situations, why not drop all barriers and integrate male and female restrooms, shower facilities, rooming assignments, etc? Why doesn't the military just tell females that, if they don't like showering with men who take no improper action, then they are the ones with the problem?

Taking it one step further - why does the military need to be the testing lab for society? Take all of the above and have society implement the same. Let's tell parents that their freshman daughter will have a male roommate plus share a bathroom with several other men, and they have no choice. Let's have same sex restrooms with 40 y/0 men sharing facilities with 8 y/o girls.

Can someone explain what is the difference between the above and allowing gays to openly serve? (And please don't trot out the old, "they're already serving and showering next to you" excuse. The whole issue is awareness and perception. If it were possible for a female not to know the person showering next to them was a guy, she would not have a problem. The awareness leads to perception.)

Gunner007
09-24-2009, 06:33 PM
Buddism is older than christianity and has a following of over 500 million, they do not shun homosexuality.

The puritan laws that you speak of have been and are currently being phased out across America. Even Utah just recently changed its laws on serving alcohol...

thats my point, but a few decades ago those laws wouldnt have been questioned... the puritanical pool is continuously being diluted until one day when there is nothing left of it.

Gunner007
09-24-2009, 06:37 PM
Devil's Advocate here -

I have read other posts discussing forced integration of gays and straights with forced integration of male and female. My take is that society keeps males separate from females (restrooms, college dorm roommates, public shower facilities, etc.) simply because a considerable number of members of either sex would be uncomfortable otherwise. Why the discomfort? Because those individuals view sexual attraction as a possibility, no matter how slim. Society doesn't integrate the sexes within intimate confines and simply say, "keep to yourself". Society doesn't tell anyone who feels uncomfortable in such situations that, unless the other person acts on their attraction (leer, comment, contact), they are the ones with the problem. Society simply separates the sexes in these situations to accomodate personal preference.

Why not the same for gays and straights? When a heterosexual is uncomfortable in intimate confines with a homosexual, why does society say the heterosexual has a problem? If the military is going to force heterosexuals to be uncomfortable in such situations, why not drop all barriers and integrate male and female restrooms, shower facilities, rooming assignments, etc? Why doesn't the military just tell females that, if they don't like showering with men who take no improper action, then they are the ones with the problem?

Taking it one step further - why does the military need to be the testing lab for society? Take all of the above and have society implement the same. Let's tell parents that their freshman daughter will have a male roommate plus share a bathroom with several other men, and they have no choice. Let's have same sex restrooms with 40 y/0 men sharing facilities with 8 y/o girls.

Can someone explain what is the difference between the above and allowing gays to openly serve? (And please don't trot out the old, "they're already serving and showering next to you" excuse. The whole issue is awareness and perception. If it were possible for a female not to know the person showering next to them was a guy, she would not have a problem. The awareness leads to perception.)


Very well put, pretty much summed up this entire thread of almost 40 pages in one post.

Measure Man
09-24-2009, 06:51 PM
Devil's Advocate here -

I have read other posts discussing forced integration of gays and straights with forced integration of male and female. My take is that society keeps males separate from females (restrooms, college dorm roommates, public shower facilities, etc.) simply because a considerable number of members of either sex would be uncomfortable otherwise. Why the discomfort? Because those individuals view sexual attraction as a possibility, no matter how slim. Society doesn't integrate the sexes within intimate confines and simply say, "keep to yourself". Society doesn't tell anyone who feels uncomfortable in such situations that, unless the other person acts on their attraction (leer, comment, contact), they are the ones with the problem. Society simply separates the sexes in these situations to accomodate personal preference.

Why not the same for gays and straights? When a heterosexual is uncomfortable in intimate confines with a homosexual, why does society say the heterosexual has a problem? If the military is going to force heterosexuals to be uncomfortable in such situations, why not drop all barriers and integrate male and female restrooms, shower facilities, rooming assignments, etc? Why doesn't the military just tell females that, if they don't like showering with men who take no improper action, then they are the ones with the problem?

Taking it one step further - why does the military need to be the testing lab for society? Take all of the above and have society implement the same. Let's tell parents that their freshman daughter will have a male roommate plus share a bathroom with several other men, and they have no choice. Let's have same sex restrooms with 40 y/0 men sharing facilities with 8 y/o girls.

Can someone explain what is the difference between the above and allowing gays to openly serve? (And please don't trot out the old, "they're already serving and showering next to you" excuse. The whole issue is awareness and perception. If it were possible for a female not to know the person showering next to them was a guy, she would not have a problem. The awareness leads to perception.)

The military is hardly the "testing lab" on this issue...in fact, we lag the rest of the US society...and many other militaries in the free world.

ringjamesa
09-24-2009, 06:55 PM
Ummmm, the Hebrew Bible would be of Jewish faith. The jewish sabath is saturday not sunday. So the jewish bible would care less if you worked on sunday.


You are right of course about the Sabbath being Saturday of course but you do realize that there is no such thing as a Jewish Bible right? The Jewish holy book is the Torah. The Bible was originally written in several languages. The old Testament is a derrivative of the Torah-they kept some and tossed some. So you are incorrect in saying that the Hebrew Bible is the Jewish bible because a good portion of the King James Bible was originally in Hebrew. What parts were Hebrew/Greek/Roman/etc? I couldn't tell you because I am not a bibilical scholar but I know that portions of the Christian Bible were originally written in hebrew...

1HardDI
09-24-2009, 07:29 PM
The military is hardly the "testing lab" on this issue...in fact, we lag the rest of the US society...and many other militaries in the free world.

I've been to 17 different countries. Never did I see one with unisex bathrooms.

imported_kvnhlstd
09-24-2009, 07:35 PM
I've been to 17 different countries. Never did I see one with unisex bathrooms.


I have seen them in Germany, also there is two nightclubs here in scottsdale that have them. There is one club here that has a see thru bathroom in the center of the bar, when you enter you flip a switch and the glass goes opaque.

Variable Wind
09-24-2009, 07:41 PM
I have seen them in Germany, also there is two nightclubs here in scottsdale that have them. There is one club here that has a see thru bathroom in the center of the bar, when you enter you flip a switch and the glass goes opaque.

Wouldnt that be embarrasing if whatever mechanism or function broke and you didnt know. :D

Scottsdale AZ?

1HardDI
09-24-2009, 07:45 PM
I have seen them in Germany, also there is two nightclubs here in scottsdale that have them. There is one club here that has a see thru bathroom in the center of the bar, when you enter you flip a switch and the glass goes opaque.

Very well, I stand corrected. I assume that you would have the choice on whether to use these restrooms or not? I would choose not to. I don't think, in the military, that I would have that choice.

imported_kvnhlstd
09-24-2009, 07:53 PM
Wouldnt that be embarrasing if whatever mechanism or function broke and you didnt know. :D

Scottsdale AZ?


They use electrified glass, when you turn on the light inside is also powers the glass... this aligns all the atoms and turns the glass opaque. I guess the only way it goes clear with you in it is if you lose power... if that happens everyone in the bar is in the dark. Last it goes for like 12.00 a square foot, not cheap but alot of new custom homes here in AZ are using them if you have a western exposure. In the summer the sun can really heat up your house causing the AC to be on constantly, the opaque glass deflects the sun and heat.

bb stacker
09-24-2009, 07:56 PM
They use electrified glass, when you turn on the light inside is also powers the glass... this aligns all the atoms and turns the glass opaque. I guess the only way it goes clear with you in it is if you lose power... if that happens everyone in the bar is in the dark. Last it goes for like 12.00 a square foot, not cheap but alot of new custom homes here in AZ are using them if you have a western exposure. In the summer the sun can really heat up your house causing the AC to be on constantly, the opaque glass deflects the sun and heat.

or if someone kills that breaker:cool:

Measure Man
09-24-2009, 08:06 PM
I've been to 17 different countries. Never did I see one with unisex bathrooms.

what the heck are you talking about ? what does unisex bathrooms have to do with it?

Also...I guess you've never been to Korea either.

Variable Wind
09-24-2009, 08:13 PM
They use electrified glass, when you turn on the light inside is also powers the glass... this aligns all the atoms and turns the glass opaque. I guess the only way it goes clear with you in it is if you lose power... if that happens everyone in the bar is in the dark. Last it goes for like 12.00 a square foot, not cheap but alot of new custom homes here in AZ are using them if you have a western exposure. In the summer the sun can really heat up your house causing the AC to be on constantly, the opaque glass deflects the sun and heat.

Heh...I did border patrol out of Pheonix...I know that money is no object in Scottsdale.

Nice place, real friendly people for the most part. I guess they just like it because we are there to keep the illegals out.

NFCstang
09-24-2009, 08:19 PM
I've been to 17 different countries. Never did I see one with unisex bathrooms.

I saw Unisex bathroom trailers at Ali Base in Iraq.....and unisex bathrooms in both Germany and the Minneapolis Airport

1HardDI
09-24-2009, 08:21 PM
what the heck are you talking about ? what does unisex bathrooms have to do with it?

Also...I guess you've never been to Korea either.
I was talking in reference to ConfusedAirmans post comparing gays and straights sharing bathrooms to males and females sharing bathrooms, and why would the military need to be test beds for this, and your reply that we are lagging behind other country's in this regard.

imported_kvnhlstd
09-24-2009, 08:37 PM
I think its was Ali McBeal the TV show that publiclly broached the subject of unisex bathrooms... that was like 15 yeras ago and it was a very popular show.

imported_BRAVO10000
09-24-2009, 08:54 PM
Ummmm, the Hebrew Bible would be of Jewish faith. The jewish sabath is saturday not sunday. So the jewish bible would care less if you worked on sunday.

Dude - context. Mine was a response to VW's post. I am aware that the NEW testament is not Jewish...VERY simply put, the primary controling difference (not the only one) in protestants and the Jewish is the belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. But as I recall, the Old Testament was just one of those bastardized versions of the Torah. OK, cool. It means what?

I used Sunday as an example since it is the Sabbath for the overwhelming majority. Doesn't change the fact that the Bible called for people to be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath. So I said Sunday, big deal. The point was made - it was a reference to the 7th day as referenced in Genesis.

We can keep playing word games and try to shred each other's posts based on word choice, but it doesn't advance the conversation or our thinking. I stand by my assertion that religion cannot have an influence on our nation's decision regarding DADT, whether you find it distasteful or not.

This is my interpretation professionally. If I were asked for a personal opinion, I would tell you that I would not look forward to being in compromising positions around gay men. I realize that this is fear and uncertainty. But as a responsible citizen and SNCO, I have to put aside my personal opinions and remain objective, and form positions based on fact versus fear.

Sidebar - it is interesting that so many faiths disagree with which day is the Sabbath, yet every religion *seems* to have one. I guess they just don't agree on which day is the first day of the week. Oh, and I have seen plenty of unisex bathrooms. I remember oncre in Italy when some young lady came in, hit the stall next to me, and let go with something that sounded like a flat tire on a wet road. Special.

ringjamesa
09-24-2009, 09:03 PM
Dude - context. Mine was a response to VW's post. I am aware that the NEW testament is not Jewish...VERY simply put, the primary controling difference (not the only one) in protestants and the Jewish is the belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. But as I recall, the Old Testament was just one of those bastardized versions of the Torah. OK, cool. It means what?

I used Sunday as an example since it is the Sabbath for the overwhelming majority. Doesn't change the fact that the Bible called for people to be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath. So I said Sunday, big deal. The point was made - it was a reference to the 7th day as referenced in Genesis.

We can keep playing word games and try to shred each other's posts based on word choice, but it doesn't advance the conversation or our thinking. I stand by my assertion that religion cannot have an influence on our nation's decision regarding DADT, whether you find it distasteful or not.

This is my interpretation professionally. If I were asked for a personal opinion, I would tell you that I would not look forward to being in compromising positions around gay men. I realize that this is fear and uncertainty. But as a responsible citizen and SNCO, I have to put aside my personal opinions and remain objective, and form positions based on fact versus fear.

Sidebar - it is interesting that so many faiths disagree with which day is the Sabbath, yet every religion *seems* to have one. I guess they just don't agree on which day is the first day of the week. Oh, and I have seen plenty of unisex bathrooms. I remember oncre in Italy when some young lady came in, hit the stall next to me, and let go with something that sounded like a flat tire on a wet road. Special.

While the New Testament is not part of the Torah, parts of it could be considered part of the "Hebrew Bible" if there was any such animal because portions were originally written in Hebrew.

Variable Wind
09-24-2009, 09:11 PM
For cryin out loud I was just talking about a Bible written in Hebrew. I wasnt referring to the Torah, the Koran or even the OS manual for Windows 7.

WTF does this have to do with DADT?

imported_BRAVO10000
09-24-2009, 09:16 PM
As i stated, 80% of the people in this country consider themselves religious. NO matter the religion they all look down at homosexuality.

And yet 80% of people don't oppose gays. In fact, only 54% oppose gay MARRIAGE ( reference ) (http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/fifty-four-percent-of-americans-oppose.html). That does not mean that I support it, just a counter-point.


...country was founded by them and generations were reared on their views as passed down from generation to generation. Our culture is what it is because of those puritanical views, whether you like it or not.

This is also the reason that racism and sexism still exist in our country, based on that argument. Just saying, you can't have it both ways.


Now as time has elapsed the puritanical gene pool has been diluted as people with varying backgrounds immigrated. Today you have conversations about DADT only because those puritanical views have become diluted. Religion is our country operates the way it does in many cases. Some of the first written records of laws in the world were laws written because of religious influence.

Actually, I agree on this point. There are some that would say that religion WAS primitive law, with unpalatable consequences in order to control the morality of the masses (plagues, death sentences, 10,000 years in hell).


DADT is the same thing, a law based on religous influence. You cant have regulations without laws. So therefore, like it or not, whether you think it makes any sense or not, many of the regulations the military abides by were based on religious doctrine or POV.

Ayep. Does that mean that we should go back and repeal any laws that violate commonly held religious morals? Now we get to re-introduce abortion discussions. Oh goody.


You can think it sucks but in order for any civilization to evolve they first have to codify law and order and people being creatures of habit almost always have done that based on the prevelant religion in their civilization. Whether its a tribe in New Guinea or muslims in the middle east or our own puritanical roots, those societies begin with law and order. Yeah you may think its dumb to have someones religion used to codify a law but someone else would see the idea of codify laws without it as akin to anarchy.

I'll argue that laws were codified based on a common morality, vice religion. We can have 200 religions, but most all of them would condemn killing another person (murder, kill, whatever). I'll give you that most of the time, common morals are driven by commonality in religion or culture. But society has become more tolerant...I just think that represents evolving ideals, and not necessarily diluting of them. it isn't an absence of values, just a different position.

In any case, I still maintain that we cannot consciously use religion as a basis in the discussion aboutfor maintaining DADT.

imported_BRAVO10000
09-24-2009, 09:19 PM
For cryin out loud I was just talking about a Bible written in Hebrew. I wasnt referring to the Torah, the Koran or even the OS manual for Windows 7.

WTF does this have to do with DADT?

Nothing. It is what happens when people can't refute a point and start dissecting words in an attempt to invalidate their opposor's opinions. ;)

Variable Wind
09-24-2009, 09:21 PM
Nothing. It is what happens when people can't refute a point and start dissecting words in an attempt to invalidate their opposor's opinions. ;)

Awww hell.

ConfusedAirman
09-24-2009, 10:16 PM
The military is hardly the "testing lab" on this issue...in fact, we lag the rest of the US society...and many other militaries in the free world.

Not sure how we lag behind the rest of US society as it pertains to my earlier words. Can you tell me in what situation that the rest of US society is forcing heterosexuals and homosexuals to share intimate living arrangements?

As for "other militaries", I can only say that, as a member of the world's greatest military, I really don't give a fuck what other militaries do.

imported_kvnhlstd
09-24-2009, 11:23 PM
Not sure how we lag behind the rest of US society as it pertains to my earlier words. Can you tell me in what situation that the rest of US society is forcing heterosexuals and homosexuals to share intimate living arrangements?

As for "other militaries", I can only say that, as a member of the world's greatest military, I really don't give a fuck what other militaries do.


I would think college freshman dorms... most universities are forcing kids to live in the freshman dorms, and in a liberal setting such as a college I don't think 'My roomys gay so I want out".... will do.

imported_Seasons
09-25-2009, 01:07 AM
Not sure how we lag behind the rest of US society as it pertains to my earlier words. Can you tell me in what situation that the rest of US society is forcing heterosexuals and homosexuals to share intimate living arrangements?

As for "other militaries", I can only say that, as a member of the world's greatest military, I really don't give a fuck what other militaries do.

You're toeing the line between pride and arrogance quite closely with that phrase.

Measure Man
09-25-2009, 03:40 AM
Not sure how we lag behind the rest of US society as it pertains to my earlier words. Can you tell me in what situation that the rest of US society is forcing heterosexuals and homosexuals to share intimate living arrangements?

Universities...fire stations...


As for "other militaries", I can only say that, as a member of the world's greatest military, I really don't give a fuck what other militaries do.

...so, you think DADT is what makes us great, I guess.

The point was...we would not be a "test case" for the rest of society.

imported_LOAL-D
09-25-2009, 03:45 AM
Not to mention the military is a microcosm of society in the first place....

Were you born in the service?

Michaep
09-25-2009, 04:08 AM
Nobody can ever TRULY answer this question until its fully allowed to be out in the open

Unless youre writing letters to the Congress, Senate, and President

then all of this talk is nonsense hypothetical theories

ringjamesa
09-25-2009, 01:06 PM
Even if you are writing letters, it is still hypothetical until a new policy is enacted....

Variable Wind
09-25-2009, 01:28 PM
Universities...fire stations...



...so, you think DADT is what makes us great, I guess.

The point was...we would not be a "test case" for the rest of society.

NOT a good example. I remember my time around the station...so much drama because of who was sleeping with who...and who was married and...blarg. It definitely caused me to shy away from being a firefighter or EMT...none of them could act like adults.

Gunner007
09-25-2009, 02:13 PM
You are right of course about the Sabbath being Saturday of course but you do realize that there is no such thing as a Jewish Bible right? The Jewish holy book is the Torah. The Bible was originally written in several languages. The old Testament is a derrivative of the Torah-they kept some and tossed some. So you are incorrect in saying that the Hebrew Bible is the Jewish bible because a good portion of the King James Bible was originally in Hebrew. What parts were Hebrew/Greek/Roman/etc? I couldn't tell you because I am not a bibilical scholar but I know that portions of the Christian Bible were originally written in hebrew...

Yes i realized that, i figured i would make it easy to understand so i chose simplicity in that case because we had already gone waaaaaaaaay of course of the actual OP. The Torah by comparison (for simplicity sake) is the old testament and the new testament is just that. Jews dont follow Christ, which is the new testament, so we dont refer to them as Christian. I I should not have tried to dumb it down, you are correct.

King James version was not in hebrew originally, King james (of europe) had the first english translation of the Bible if my schooling is correct. He had his version translated into English on his and his kingdoms dime, therefore there was not a disinterested reason when it was translated, he had a personal stake in it so i do fully believe there are parts of it that dont match other translations for a reason, because he wanted it to read that way.

Gunner007
09-25-2009, 02:16 PM
Dude - context. Mine was a response to VW's post. I am aware that the NEW testament is not Jewish...VERY simply put, the primary controling difference (not the only one) in protestants and the Jewish is the belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. But as I recall, the Old Testament was just one of those bastardized versions of the Torah. OK, cool. It means what?

I used Sunday as an example since it is the Sabbath for the overwhelming majority. Doesn't change the fact that the Bible called for people to be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath. So I said Sunday, big deal. The point was made - it was a reference to the 7th day as referenced in Genesis.

We can keep playing word games and try to shred each other's posts based on word choice, but it doesn't advance the conversation or our thinking. I stand by my assertion that religion cannot have an influence on our nation's decision regarding DADT, whether you find it distasteful or not.

This is my interpretation professionally. If I were asked for a personal opinion, I would tell you that I would not look forward to being in compromising positions around gay men. I realize that this is fear and uncertainty. But as a responsible citizen and SNCO, I have to put aside my personal opinions and remain objective, and form positions based on fact versus fear.

Sidebar - it is interesting that so many faiths disagree with which day is the Sabbath, yet every religion *seems* to have one. I guess they just don't agree on which day is the first day of the week. Oh, and I have seen plenty of unisex bathrooms. I remember oncre in Italy when some young lady came in, hit the stall next to me, and let go with something that sounded like a flat tire on a wet road. Special.

LOL, honest man, i was really being just sarcastic and smart assey... i wasnt really meaning anything i was trying to break up some of the seriousness.

Gunner007
09-25-2009, 02:23 PM
And yet 80% of people don't oppose gays. In fact, only 54% oppose gay MARRIAGE ( reference ) (http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/fifty-four-percent-of-americans-oppose.html). That does not mean that I support it, just a counter-point.



This is also the reason that racism and sexism still exist in our country, based on that argument. Just saying, you can't have it both ways.



Actually, I agree on this point. There are some that would say that religion WAS primitive law, with unpalatable consequences in order to control the morality of the masses (plagues, death sentences, 10,000 years in hell).



Ayep. Does that mean that we should go back and repeal any laws that violate commonly held religious morals? Now we get to re-introduce abortion discussions. Oh goody.



I'll argue that laws were codified based on a common morality, vice religion. We can have 200 religions, but most all of them would condemn killing another person (murder, kill, whatever). I'll give you that most of the time, common morals are driven by commonality in religion or culture. But society has become more tolerant...I just think that represents evolving ideals, and not necessarily diluting of them. it isn't an absence of values, just a different position.

In any case, I still maintain that we cannot consciously use religion as a basis in the discussion aboutfor maintaining DADT.

I think were both cooking on the same burner really. We both see how and why those things ocurred but neither of us thinks that that is really a great idea across the board.

As for the stats you gave, yes i do realize that. The reason i think most people in civlian society dont have a problem with gays is because they are looking at it really like we are. We dont have problems except in close quarters living and 90% of civilians dont live in close quarters with people so they really see no problems at all.

By diluting i infer that as less and less people are fundemental or die hard about their religion their voice is diluted. While 80% claim to be religious that number goes way down when you ask how many attend church 2-3 times a week, attend Bible study etc... The religious folks are there they just dont have that die hard devotion of a decade or two ago. Were agreeing i believe

imported_kvnhlstd
10-11-2009, 04:16 AM
POTUS has reaffirmed today at a human rights speech that he will end DADT... Like i said earlier in this thread it is on his third year agenda plan...

"I will end 'don't ask-don't tell,'" Obama said to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.

bcoco14
10-11-2009, 06:01 AM
POTUS has reaffirmed today at a human rights speech that he will end DADT... Like i said earlier in this thread it is on his third year agenda plan...

"I will end 'don't ask-don't tell,'" Obama said to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.

The POTHUS has done what he's always done tell people what they want to hear or in this case paid. Don't think i'll see it but I might be wrong

Michaep
10-11-2009, 04:28 PM
POTUS has reaffirmed today at a human rights speech that he will end DADT... Like i said earlier in this thread it is on his third year agenda plan...

"I will end 'don't ask-don't tell,'" Obama said to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.

....haha that just means DADT can be replaced with something else

it doesnt necessarily mean Pink ABU's and feather boa's issued at BMT

I dont ever think full flamboyant behavior will EVER be allowed, the militaries job is to maintain peace through full force if necessary

You cannot be in a firefight and then have your M4 misfire and just start whining and slapping your weapon and hope it works.....then give up and start painting your nails.....

imported_kvnhlstd
10-11-2009, 07:34 PM
....haha that just means DADT can be replaced with something else

it doesnt necessarily mean Pink ABU's and feather boa's issued at BMT

I dont ever think full flamboyant behavior will EVER be allowed, the militaries job is to maintain peace through full force if necessary

You cannot be in a firefight and then have your M4 misfire and just start whining and slapping your weapon and hope it works.....then give up and start painting your nails.....

I wouldn't expect anything less childish from you... I'm glad you lived up to your status as a douche bag. When was the last time you were in a firefight at the back gate....
DADT will be terminated and replaced by nothing, expect it in 2011.

Michaep
10-12-2009, 02:44 AM
back gate? anyway...my last encounter was in early '09 in Iraq, thank you very much

and exactly how is my response childish? There are current STRAIGHT prissy male and females serving in the military who got tricked by their recruiter into thinking theyll never get deployed into a combat zone

So if there are CURRENT and STRAIGHT males and females who think M-4's are "icky and ewwie" then what exactly makes you think a flamboyant gay man would act ANY better????

On the plus side....we'll get a lot of butch lesbian chicks who pump iron....maybe it'll even itself out :)

imported_Seasons
10-12-2009, 04:41 AM
back gate? anyway...my last encounter was in early '09 in Iraq, thank you very much

and exactly how is my response childish? There are current STRAIGHT prissy male and females serving in the military who got tricked by their recruiter into thinking theyll never get deployed into a combat zone

So if there are CURRENT and STRAIGHT males and females who think M-4's are "icky and ewwie" then what exactly makes you think a flamboyant gay man would act ANY better????

On the plus side....we'll get a lot of butch lesbian chicks who pump iron....maybe it'll even itself out :)

Cause the flamboyant gay men I've met have more balls than many straight men I've met.

Michaep
10-12-2009, 05:17 AM
Cause the flamboyant gay men I've met have more balls than many straight men I've met.

Integrity First.....good job allowing openly flamboyant homosexuals serve against DADT

imported_Seasons
10-12-2009, 06:21 AM
Integrity First.....good job allowing openly flamboyant homosexuals serve against DADT

Gee, never said they were serving now did I?

Assumption fail.

Michaep
10-12-2009, 04:56 PM
Gee, never said they were serving now did I?

Assumption fail.

well, this is a MILITARY TIMES FORUM

we were referencing THE. MILITARY.

....not your personal friends :)

BRUWIN
10-12-2009, 05:21 PM
those that clap during the AF song kind reveal their sexual preferences in their actions anyway....might as well formalize it.

VFFSSGT
10-12-2009, 05:37 PM
So I sent an email to almost everyone in my chain of command(including my commander) that I am a homosexual. Does this mean I will be automatically kicked out? Are they actually going to investigate and see if I'm really gay? Or will they tolerate my gayness because they need me? I'm way past the point of caring who thinks I'm gay or not, and if I do get discharged...oh well, not the end of the world. Oh yea, I'm in the Air Force BTW.

Just shows how ignorant you are and that you have no respect for military authority and a prime example of why you should not be in the military to begin with.

Measure Man
08-09-2013, 10:01 PM
In all reality though.....let them in if they really wanna serve

then see all the mass chaos break out

protesters on every base

Nope.


glittery pink postcards being read out in BMT by the MTI

Can anyone speak to this one?


physical assaults on every base

haven't heard of any


troops demanding not to be roomed with a gay person

Anyone heard of this issue?


HIV infections on the rise

This may have come to pass...at least I've heard it a couple times as a single-base issue:


"There are a number of commonalities among our Soldiers who have been affected," wrote Pittard. "All of our recent cases have been a result of men having unprotected sex with men. African-American and Latino Soldiers were affected disproportionately in far greater numbers. The majority of our HIV cases resulted from online solicitations for sex, particularly from the websites Craigslist, Grinder, and Adam for Adam."

"Those websites have not been placed off limits," Buccino told ABC-7 Tuesday. "I think it's just an educational issue and I think what we're learning through this, is that the civilian population uses those sites to solicit from soldiers because they believe soldiers are cleaner and safer than the rest of the civilian population."

We might also consider rolling back the clock on allowing blacks in the military since they are disproportionately affected.


flamboyant military members

haven't seen anymore than there were before.


problems with BAH....is their marriage recognized? can he move off base?

In the works


sick calls constantly dealing with "rear end" problems

no info on this


.....I say we do a 1 year trial period....lets have at it

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR BRUNO

Coming up on 2 years...how's it going?

Measure Man
08-09-2013, 10:38 PM
I'll just throw this out and see what happens...
I think homosexuality is morally wrong. To the point that it makes me physically sick to see a homosexual couple together. Physically ill. I have been in the Marines for over 12 years. I have a perfect score on the ASVAB, I have been honor graduate or top 3 of every military school I've attended. I am regularly evaluated by my superiors as the top member of my rank that they have ever evaluated. I joined the military because they have a value system similiar to my own, or at least they used to.
If homosexuals are allowed to openly serve, I will leave the military at the next opportunity, and I will take my experience and high level of performance with me. I will miss the military I used to love, but I will be able to remain true to my core values.
How many others will leave? Will it be worth it?

Bet I get flamed for this one. Go ahead, everyone.

Wondering if this guy is still serving or if he got out as promised??


VARIABLE, I'm curious.....what do you think is truly going to occur if gays were openly allowed to prance around???

You do realize that there would be fights right? massive amounts of fights

Not so far...2 years.


refusal to shower together, that WILL happen

WILL?



The drool dripping from a gay mans mouth during shower time, WILL happen

when?


enough of the "you're stupid" arguments....a debate should counter back and fourth with intelligent input

Prove to me that fights are not going to occur

Prove to us that they have.


Prove to me that zero man on man assaults are going to occur instead of skyrocket

How about some small number in between zero and skyrocket?


I dont care if its called DADT or whatever i just think they should keep that to theirselves. As for morale issues, In my unit we deploy to austere places and operate in actual FOB's (not main bases in the AOR), & SOF camps. We bunk in tight quarters and we shower in tents not trailers much of the time. I can honestly tell you that the guys in my unit would have a HUGE morale problem if one of us was known to be gay and was sharing tight quarters like that. For people who live on the main bases and have the cadillac facilities maybe it wouldnt be an issue?

How's the morale these days?


There is a guy right now in the army who came out. His CC is letting him stay in anyway. If the guy can be gay and out and it doesnt cause an uproar and erode morale and good order then so be it. Whats the problem? If it causes a huge shit storm and guys minds are not in the game and ready for the mission then its a problem and it needs to be addressed. That goes for anything! It doesnt matter what you can dream up, if it causes problems in the unit and impairs its effectiveness to do the mission the CC has a duty to address it and eliminate it. We are fighting GWOT on numerous fronts, we dont have time to cater to someone for some special interest, we need all the units mission ready 100%.

I haven't heard of any shit storms...have you?

[/quote]ISU's are metal storage units that mobility gear gets packed in for deployments. Instead of the flat metal pallets units ISU's so they can get more crap in them and not have it beat to hell. So instead of coming out the closet, our joke is coming out the ISU.[/QUOTE]

I get it.



You know B...I think this is really what it is going to take...personal experience.

Like you, that was what convinced me that lifting DADT was the right thing to do...having a troop I work with get discharged for it.

That's what changed it, in my mind, from "those other people (gays) to "Gee, Carl really should be able to serve" No one that worked with old Carl..that I know of...does not think he should still be serving.

I'm pretty sure DADT will be lifted in the next few years...and many of you opponents will some day find out that one of the guys you have beer with on Friday is gay...and you will NOT hate him...you will probably NOT shun him...or beat him...it'll just be a part of who he is, just like anything else...as if you just found out he has six toes on each foot...you won't be worried about him being attracted to you anymore than you are worried about your 65 yr old married female commander's secretary hititng on you in the lunch room. Yeah, you might say "oh, so and so is gay, but he is one of the cool ones...he isn't all flamboyant"....sort of the way Archie Bunker referred to Lionel Jefferson. Yes, Archie was a racist, but he didn't have nothing against ol' Lionel...didn't really consider him to be "one of them"...and so it'll go, until most people have personal experience with some gays...and realize all the fear is unfounded.

If i had to to guess...I'd say the majority of gays in the military would remain closeted...or maybe only be open to very few select friends/co-workers (much like most of them do in civilian life)...but would no longer have that Dishonorable Discharge hanging over their head in the event they were inadvertently outed. The vast majority of us...still won't know whether or not our shower buddies are gay or not.

This thing about being "openly gay" seems to have a lot of people think that all the gays want to put rainbow flags in their office and bumper stickers on their cars...I don't believe that's the issue...they simply want to be able to quietly serve without the fear of being discharged if someone finds out.

Diseases? Are you seriously suggesting we screen people out of the military based on their statistical probability of getting a disease because of their demographic? I mean, really? What if...black homosexuals have a much higher chance of getting HIV than white homosexuals? (they do). What about Tay-Sachs II...which is far more debillitating than HIV and is present almost exclusivly in Jews? I mean...do we really want to go down this road? Heart Disease...which is the number one killer of us all...is far more prevalent in Blacks than Whites. 100% of all cases of testicular cancer are in men....100% of cervical cancer in women. What exactly does your statistic prove? (you quoted it incorrectly though...it was 71% of adult male HIV cases were of gay men; 53% of total cases...but don't let the details hold you back) If it were to have any relevance...tell me what are the odds of a healthy gay male of getting HIV...not how many who get HIV are gay males...if there was only 1 HIV case this year, and it was a woman...that's 100% women, is that a significant statistic? Then, factor in the higher than average education of military members...access to health care and information...awareness, etc. etc. Bottom line...no way is this a valid argument in any sense. Would we have an HIV prevention program? Maybe we already should...I dunno. We have suicide prevention...but don't try to keep 18-24 year olds out. Are gays any less likely to catch HIV if they are in the closet? Not to mention that the group LEAST likely to get HIV is homosexual women...what do you wanna do with that?

The whole shower hullaboo...I just find that to be juvenile..sorry. You shower at the base gym? Guess what...DOD civilians can be openly gay...contractors who can use the facility...do you see them hitting on guys in the shower every day? Do you see all the gay signs and banners all over base...or them making out in the food court? Please...this is much ado about nothing.

When gays are open in the military...you will see them about as often as you see them now when you go off-base...almost never, unless you go specifically looking for them at gay bars and pride events.

I don't expect anyone that is "not comfortable with gays" or think "homosexuality is just wrong" will be convinced by my little post...it'll just take personal exposure to some highly professional gay servicemembers...for some, that may never happen...for others it will.

Anyone had "new" experiences working with a gay person since DADT was lifted? How's it going?

Any one changed their mind on DADT one way or the other since it's repeal?

Absinthe Anecdote
08-09-2013, 10:47 PM
Measure Man

This thread is hilarious, thanks for resurrecting it.

You were looking for information on that guy's predictions.

As for going to sick call with rear end problems, I did that all the time even before they ended DADT, still do.

sharkhunter
08-10-2013, 10:37 PM
[QUOTE=Measure Man;646223Anyone had "new" experiences working with a gay person since DADT was lifted? How's it going?

Any one changed their mind on DADT one way or the other since it's repeal?[/QUOTE]

Two experiences:
1) Our brother shop on the other side of the base had one individual come storming in the day it was legal to be gay in the military and shouted out "I'M GAY!"
The response: everyone kept doing what they were doing.
He did it again "I said "I'M GAY"" No response, that's when he got mad and actually got teary eyed "You people were suppose to embrace me, hug me, and show me support. What the hell is the matter with all of you!"
Finally, one of co-workers told him "We knew and so now you're annoucing you're gay, so what? Do you want a cookie? The only "

2) Everyone in my shop circled one guy at his desk...all waiting for his announcement...everyone just waiting. His response "What the hell do you people want?" I responded "waiting for you to come on out!" He shouted about 50 explict comments

RobotChicken
08-10-2013, 10:44 PM
"And I'm waiting for Congress to make another 'gedunk' medal for 'others' serving for their country..."

DocBones
08-11-2013, 04:26 AM
RobotChicken,

Some of your posts make me urinate on myself a little. This was no exception. Being a male, that doesn't happen all that often. Thank you for making me spew my A&W Root Beer all over my monitor and keyboard.

Also, now I have to change my pants.

Bad Chicken! BAD ROBOT CHICKEN!!!

OK, so you CAN be hilarious, too.

sigecaps
08-11-2013, 08:17 AM
Does anyone remember all the service chiefs including Schwartz recommending against repealing DADT because of all the problems it would bring to the military? What problems have come to pass? None? I know it's a moot point now for Schwartz, but if any of those service chiefs are still serving they should resign for demonstrating extreme incompetence about the character of the people they supposedly lead.


"My best military judgment does not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low," he stated before the Senate Armed Services Committee Dec. 3. Schwartz said he "remains concerned" about a possible repeal's short-term impact on "military effectiveness in Afghanistan." Although "close combat" conditions pertain to a relative few, he expressed reticence to placing "any additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres in Afghanistan." If legislation is passed repealing the policy, Schwartz appealed for certification and full implementation to be deferred until 2012, allowing time for the Air Force to conduct training and education programs.

Your best military judgement failed you.

4CECMC
08-11-2013, 06:39 PM
Absolutely nobody cares what you do when you go home and close your front door!! I don't discuss what I do in private and I surely do not bring it to work and run memo's about it! The time you spent crafting your "memo" to your chain of command could have been better spent studying for advancement, contributing to your community or helping to develop one of your subordinates if you have any. Quit honking your horn, be a productive member of your team and keep your front door closed!!!!

20+Years
08-12-2013, 07:45 PM
Hey, I won't lie. I thought there would be issues here and there, or a few hate crimes committed in the name of drunkeness and intolerance. I also thought there would be alot more "in your face" behavior by gays. Guess I was wrong. I haven't seen much of anything.

I say, "well done".

Juggs
08-12-2013, 07:47 PM
Does anyone remember all the service chiefs including Schwartz recommending against repealing DADT because of all the problems it would bring to the military? What problems have come to pass? None? I know it's a moot point now for Schwartz, but if any of those service chiefs are still serving they should resign for demonstrating extreme incompetence about the character of the people they supposedly lead.



Your best military judgement failed you.

His over all judgement of everything was a failure.

4CECMC
08-14-2013, 08:42 PM
You should be booted; seems you were simply looking for a trade and a discharge, thus the "coming out". Leave your personal life at home and quit bothering your hard working chain of command with such trivial and senseless b.s., they've got true Patriots that are more worthy of their time and resources.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-14-2013, 08:47 PM
You should be booted; seems you were simply looking for a trade and a discharge, thus the "coming out". Leave your personal life at home and quit bothering your hard working chain of command with such trivial and senseless b.s., they've got true Patriots that are more worthy of their time and resources.

Who?

Pullinteeth
08-14-2013, 08:48 PM
Does anyone remember all the service chiefs including Schwartz recommending against repealing DADT because of all the problems it would bring to the military? What problems have come to pass? None? I know it's a moot point now for Schwartz, but if any of those service chiefs are still serving they should resign for demonstrating extreme incompetence about the character of the people they supposedly lead.

I wouldn't say none... There have been a few. Gay marriage continues to be an issue-to the point that they now get up to 10 days non-chargable leave to get married whereas heterosexuals do not... The DoD is now going to pay out bennies to homosexual spouses retroactively-THAT is gonna be one expensive clusterfuck. The proposal to open the DoD to transgender MIGHT be a problem...but then again, it might not...


Hey, I won't lie. I thought there would be issues here and there, or a few hate crimes committed in the name of drunkeness and intolerance. I also thought there would be alot more "in your face" behavior by gays. Guess I was wrong. I haven't seen much of anything.

I say, "well done".

All in all, yeah, smooth as silk. People bitch but other than the tranny show at LAFB, not much of note.

Pullinteeth
08-14-2013, 08:51 PM
Can anyone speak to this one?

Why would he assume that a gay man would recieve more pink sparkly postcards than a straight man? IMO, a chick would be just as likely (if not more likely) than a gay man to send such a postcard...