PDA

View Full Version : God Created Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve...



SomeRandomGuy
06-26-2015, 03:12 PM
Alright, gay marriage is now legal in all 50 States. There are bound to be hot takes on this on both Twitter and Facebook. I realize that some of you in this forum are against gay marriage. Can I ask one small favor? Please don't defend gay marriage bans by saying, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Here's the problem with that statement. How did Adam and Eve's children reproduce? As far as I can tell, Adam and Eve had five children. They were Cain, Abel (killed by Cain), Seth, Azura, and Awan. Since God didn't create Steve or Sarah or anyone else his plan was apparently for Adam and Eve to marry each other. That's simple enough but surely an all-knowing God had a long-term plan right? He didn't create any other people. This means that God is totally cool with incest. He planned for Adam and Eve's children to marry each other or else have sex with their parents.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-26-2015, 03:29 PM
Alright, gay marriage is now legal in all 50 States. There are bound to be hot takes on this on both Twitter and Facebook. I realize that some of you in this forum are against gay marriage. Can I ask one small favor? Please don't defend gay marriage bans by saying, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Here's the problem with that statement. How did Adam and Eve's children reproduce? As far as I can tell, Adam and Eve had five children. They were Cain, Abel (killed by Cain), Seth, Azura, and Awan. Since God didn't create Steve or Sarah or anyone else his plan was apparently for Adam and Eve to marry each other. That's simple enough but surely an all-knowing God had a long-term plan right? He didn't create any other people. This means that God is totally cool with incest. He planned for Adam and Eve's children to marry each other or else have sex with their parents.

As a libertarian, I fully support the rights of gays to marry. Why not? It doesn't impact my life whatsoever. To each his own.

efmbman
06-26-2015, 03:54 PM
As a libertarian, I fully support the rights of gays to marry. Why not? It doesn't impact my life whatsoever. To each his own.

Just about verbatim what I was going to post.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-26-2015, 04:05 PM
As a libertarian, I fully support the rights of gays to marry. Why not? It doesn't impact my life whatsoever. To each his own.

Good. Now get your ass over to the Gay Heritage celebration.

Rainmaker
06-26-2015, 04:12 PM
Alright, gay marriage is now legal in all 50 States. There are bound to be hot takes on this on both Twitter and Facebook. I realize that some of you in this forum are against gay marriage. Can I ask one small favor? Please don't defend gay marriage bans by saying, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

Here's the problem with that statement. How did Adam and Eve's children reproduce? As far as I can tell, Adam and Eve had five children. They were Cain, Abel (killed by Cain), Seth, Azura, and Awan. Since God didn't create Steve or Sarah or anyone else his plan was apparently for Adam and Eve to marry each other. That's simple enough but surely an all-knowing God had a long-term plan right? He didn't create any other people. This means that God is totally cool with incest. He planned for Adam and Eve's children to marry each other or else have sex with their parents.

You have been brainwashed by a mass propaganda campaign to convince you that the gay lifestyle is normal. Homosexual behavior is not normal behavior. It's perverted and it's sick behavior. It's an uncontested fact that Homosexual contact spreads disease.

So, For the sake our Children and the Health of our Society, The Society has the responsibility to require its Citzens to suppress harmful desires (even if it is difficult for them to do so)

For instance. Just this morning Rainmaker wanted to hang up my Confederate flag at work and they told him to take it down. It seemed like a natural thing to do. But, they said it could be hazardous to my health.

And Before you get all excited and run off and start humping your sister, GOD is not "cool" with that Nancy.... The Genesis story is a Metaphorical story and not meant to be interpreted literally.

SomeRandomGuy
06-26-2015, 04:30 PM
You have been brainwashed by a mass propaganda campaign to convince you that the gay lifestyle is normal. Homosexual behavior is not normal behavior. It's perverted and it's sick behavior. It's an uncontested fact that Homosexual contact spreads disease.

So, For the sake our Children and the Health of our Society, The Society has the responsibility to require its Citzens to suppress harmful desires (even if it is difficult for them to do so)

For instance. Just this morning Rainmaker wanted to hang up my Confederate flag at work and they told him to take it down. It seemed like a natural thing to do. But, they said it could be hazardous to my health.

And Before you get all excited and run off and start humping your sister, GOD is not "cool" with that Nancy.... The Genesis story is a Metaphorical story and not meant to be interpreted literally.

A gay lifestyle is not normal? Compared to what? I'm guessing there are a lot of things that go on in people's bedrooms that aren't normal. A friend of mine sells sex toys. There's one thing that she sells where you can hogtie your partner. That shit ain't normal either. Why would anyone want to hump their partner like some sort of animal they just captured?

As far as the defense that society should require it's citizens to suppress harmful desires. I don't believe in that either. I would be in favor of legalizing every damn drug out there. Meth, crack, cocaine? I don't give a shit. It's the same stuff big pharma is selling us anyways. If some idiot wants to shoot meth and fentanyl into his veins so he can get a high that's fine with me. It's probably going to kill him but we don't need that kind of idiot in the gene pool anyways.

As far as your confederate flag, I'm not sure how that one is harmful to your health. I fly the confederate flag myself. I'm from Missouri and me and my redneck friends fly the Confederate flag because we are proud of our heritage. Our ancestors fought on both sides of the war. That's the kind of Missouri heritage I'm proud of. Half us wanted slavery and half didn't. I don't fly this flag because I'm a racist bigot I fly it because my Missourian ancestors couldn't make up their damn mind and I'm damn proud of that.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-26-2015, 04:30 PM
Good. Now get your ass over to the Gay Heritage celebration.

Why would I do that? I don't believe we should be celebrating race or sex.

SomeRandomGuy
06-26-2015, 04:34 PM
Why would I do that? I don't believe we should be celebrating race or sex.

One time I processed an article 15 for a SNCO. One of the charges was that he went to the strip club with junior ranking members. Personally, I think he should dig that bad boy up and try to fight it. He was simply celebrating his heterosexual heritage with other proud heterosexuals. What is so wrong with that?

garhkal
06-26-2015, 04:36 PM
I used to be that way. Live and let live. You want to be gay and marry, go for it.
BUT with the constant bashing, throwing it in our faces, down our throats etc, i have gotten SICK of it.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-26-2015, 04:39 PM
You have been brainwashed by a mass propaganda campaign to convince you that the gay lifestyle is normal. Homosexual behavior is not normal behavior. It's perverted and it's sick behavior. It's an uncontested fact that Homosexual contact spreads disease.

So, For the sake our Children and the Health of our Society, The Society has the responsibility to require its Citzens to suppress harmful desires (even if it is difficult for them to do so)

For instance. Just this morning Rainmaker wanted to hang up my Confederate flag at work and they told him to take it down. It seemed like a natural thing to do. But, they said it could be hazardous to my health.

And Before you get all excited and run off and start humping your sister, GOD is not "cool" with that Nancy.... The Genesis story is a Metaphorical story and not meant to be interpreted literally.


http://youtu.be/K5a_v0MP_Fk

Rainmaker
06-26-2015, 04:39 PM
A gay lifestyle is not normal? Compared to what? I'm guessing there are a lot of things that go on in people's bedrooms that aren't normal. A friend of mine sells sex toys. There's one thing that she sells where you can hogtie your partner. That shit ain't normal either. Why would anyone want to hump their partner like some sort of animal they just captured?

As far as the defense that society should require it's citizens to suppress harmful desires. I don't believe in that either. I would be in favor of legalizing every damn drug out there. Meth, crack, cocaine? I don't give a shit. It's the same stuff big pharma is selling us anyways. If some idiot wants to shoot meth and fentanyl into his veins so he can get a high that's fine with me. It's probably going to kill him but we don't need that kind of idiot in the gene pool anyways.

As far as your confederate flag, I'm not sure how that one is harmful to your health. I fly the confederate flag myself. I'm from Missouri and me and my redneck friends fly the Confederate flag because we are proud of our heritage. Our ancestors fought on both sides of the war. That's the kind of Missouri heritage I'm proud of. Half us wanted slavery and half didn't. I don't fly this flag because I'm a racist bigot I fly it because my Missourian ancestors couldn't make up their damn mind and I'm damn proud of that.

Oh Great. Just when you think you've seen it all... Now, we got a Pro-Homo, White Supremacist posting here.... what will they think of next?

SomeRandomGuy
06-26-2015, 04:53 PM
Oh Great. Just when you think you've seen it all... Now, we got a Pro-Homo, White Supremacist posting here.... what will they think of next?


97

Need some text to meet 10 letter minumum

Mjölnir
06-27-2015, 05:39 AM
So how will this impact the military?

Effects on DOMA?

Military Housing?

Barracks and berthing considerations etc?

My personal view is that the average 18-24/25 year old is much more accepting of LGBT folks than people in the 40-45 category (who tend to be more senior in the military.) I don't think we will see many issues, and it will most likely be folks blowing something out of proportion (never happens right?) I actually think the current 18-24/25 year olds have been and will handle the issue of same sex marriage and homosexuals in the military better than my generation when I was 18-24.

I can see a potential concern over barracks assignments ... but I will be honest ... it is pretty dumb to think that just because you are rooming with someone who is attracted to folks of your gender means they are going to be attracted to you. I don't see this making things a free for all of straight male - straight male rooms, straight male - gay female rooms, gay male to straight female rooms etc. I am interested to see how it plays out.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-27-2015, 12:40 PM
So how will this impact the military?

Effects on DOMA?

Military Housing?

Barracks and berthing considerations etc?

My personal view is that the average 18-24/25 year old is much more accepting of LGBT folks than people in the 40-45 category (who tend to be more senior in the military.) I don't think we will see many issues, and it will most likely be folks blowing something out of proportion (never happens right?) I actually think the current 18-24/25 year olds have been and will handle the issue of same sex marriage and homosexuals in the military better than my generation when I was 18-24.

I can see a potential concern over barracks assignments ... but I will be honest ... it is pretty dumb to think that just because you are rooming with someone who is attracted to folks of your gender means they are going to be attracted to you. I don't see this making things a free for all of straight male - straight male rooms, straight male - gay female rooms, gay male to straight female rooms etc. I am interested to see how it plays out.

If you mean the Defense of Marriage Act by DOMA, I think Friday's decision strikes it down, right?

It also opens the door to strike down any state laws that prevent gay marriage.



http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-gay-marriage-decision-20150626-story.html#page=1

The surge of support for gay marriage was set off two years ago when the high court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and said the marriages of same-sex couples deserved equal dignity and respect under the law.

That decision resolved only a question of federal benefits for these couples, but its reasoning spurred judges to void a series of state laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.

I don't see how barracks assignments are directly impacted over gay marriage being legal in all 50 states. It actually gives a gay troop an opportunity to get married to escape the barracks.

We've had gay troops serving openly for a while now, I haven't heard of any widespread problems. Have you?

I agree that the younger generation has much less of a problem with gay issues. It is the cultural dinosaurs and some religious people that have a problem with it.

The cultural dinosaurs will be gone soon, and the religious people will learn to adapt.

The Holy Rollers learned to ignore those passages in the bible that permitted people to own slaves, and stone to death people who work on Sunday.

They will learn to ignore the bible passages about gays being an abomination.

Rainmaker
06-27-2015, 01:23 PM
I agree that the younger generation has much less of a problem with gay issues. It is the cultural dinosaurs and some religious people that have a problem with it.

The cultural dinosaurs will be gone soon, and the religious people will learn to adapt.





Truth. At Rainmaker's local installation We've had an individual working out at the base gym for about a year, that I think is going through "the sex change"....... Now the first time I saw (her/him?) My initial thought was that she(?) must have a hard time trying to walk with a big dilldo up both holes....

.Anyway, at first she(?) used to wear sports bras under his(?) tank top. But, I've noticed recently that he's(?) no longer doing that, And after about a year of 2 a days, along with massive doses of Male sex hormones, and about a dozen new tatoos later...... He(?) is finally up to about 135lbs on the bench with no spot, pretty impressive (for a 12 year old boy).

Yesterday I saw her(?) walk in to the women's locker room (wtf?). I've thought of asking out of (general honest curiosity) just what in the sam hell's going on here dude??!! Because, If my wife or daughters had been in there I'd have punched him(?) in the throat.... But, they weren't and I didn't want risk using the wrong pronoun and commit a micro-aggression, and get marked down on my EEO rankings and nobody else really seems to give a fuck anymore anyway. Nomsayin?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey6ugTmCYMk

Absinthe Anecdote
06-27-2015, 01:55 PM
Truth. At Rainmaker's local installation We've had an individual working out at the base gym for about a year that I think is going through "the change". Now the first time I saw (her/him?) My initial thought was she(?) must have a hard trying to walk with a big dilldo up both holes.....Anyway, at first she(?) used to wear sports bras under his(?) tank top. But, I've noticed recently that he's(?) no longer doing that, And after about a year of 2 a days, along with massive doses of Male sex hormones, and about a dozen new tatoos later...... He(?) is finally up to about 135lbs on the bench with no spot, pretty impressive (for a 12 year old boy).

Anyhow, yesterday I saw her(?) walk in to the women's locker room (wtf?). I've thought of asking out of just (general honest curiosity) just what in the sam hell's going on here dude? Because, If my wife or daughters were in there I'd have punched him(?) in the throat.... But, they weren't and I didn't want risk using the wrong pronoun and commit a micro-aggression, and get marked down on my EEO rankings and nobody else really seems to give a fuck anymore anyway. Nomsayin?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey6ugTmCYMk

I thought you keep your women locked up on your million dollar property with no TV or Internet. Why are you worried about who uses the locker room on base?

Rainmaker
06-27-2015, 02:10 PM
Why are you worried about who uses the locker room on base?

Because, letting bearded- midget-trannies go into a public spaces and eye rape innocent little children is immoral...
They should have to stick to meeting at the transgender lezziegay bar down the street on Thursday for ladies night.

UncaRastus
06-27-2015, 03:37 PM
Since RM has a beautiful 145 pound Latina lioness guarding his installation, and she is female, after all, thereby knowing all of the female's trickery, none of the women in the compound could ever escape.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-27-2015, 03:48 PM
Because, letting bearded- midget-trannies go into a public spaces and eye rape innocent little children is immoral...
They should have to stick to meeting at the transgender lezziegay bar down the street on Thursday for ladies night.

Eye rape? You mean look at?

If you are worried about "thought crimes" call the mind police which you regularly complain about.

Otherwise, let the female-to-male transgender use the men's shower.

Rainmaker
06-28-2015, 03:04 AM
Eye rape? You mean look at?

If you are worried about "thought crimes" call the mind police which you regularly complain about.

Otherwise, let the female-to-male transgender use the men's shower.

Ok then at least you agree that Mr. Beaver Cleaver shouldn't be in there....But, you still think we should have to share showers with Mannies?

So, Rainmaker'll just put you down as undecided ..... You Know who else has tits and a dick? - Baphomet..

Absinthe Anecdote
06-28-2015, 11:29 AM
Ok then at least you agree that Mr. Beaver Cleaver shouldn't be in there....But, you still think we should have to share showers with Mannies?

So, Rainmaker'll just put you down as undecided ..... You Know who else has tits and a dick? - Baphomet..

I can barely tell what you are talking about with your over use of slang and made up words.

Rainmaker
06-28-2015, 02:03 PM
I can barely tell what you are talking about with your over use of slang and made up words.

It's a little over your head. I know....

The Point is that you can't let perverts take over society. Lines in the sand must be drawn.....These people are dysfunctional lunatics and the mere fact that they are not only being taken seriously (but actually catered to and celebrated as heroic) signals that the collapse is upon us.

The country is being set up to fall. When that happens, there will be a nasty backlash against this insanity. Pendulums swing and there's a long way to go to revert to the mean.... Nomsayin?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-28-2015, 04:47 PM
It's a little over your head. I know....

The Point is that you can't let perverts take over society. Lines in the sand must be drawn.....These people are dysfunctional lunatics and the mere fact that they are not only being taken seriously (but actually catered to and celebrated as heroic) signals that the collapse is upon us.

The country is being set up to fall. When that happens, there will be a nasty backlash against this insanity. Pendulums swing and there's a long way to go to revert to the mean.... Nomsayin?


Isn't it about time for you to go hide in your doomsday bunker?

LOAL-D
06-28-2015, 06:33 PM
I haven't posted in years and I see the "shower" argument again in this thread. Some things never change. LD

Mjölnir
06-28-2015, 07:38 PM
I haven't posted in years and I see the "shower" argument again in this thread. Some things never change. LD

Antiquated argument or valid ... in your opinion?

Rainmaker
06-28-2015, 08:32 PM
Isn't it about time for you to go hide in your doomsday bunker?

The fourth turning has begun. It's shaping up to be a doozy!

We have elements of the 1770s,1850s and 1930s at play in the country right now. But we still have a few years before it's time to go dark.

When it's that time that which is unsustainable won't be sustained.

Rainmaker recommends muhfuggas Use this time to learn useful skills (other than open source analysis of vanity fair's cheerleading of the absurd) Nomsayin Brother?

SomeRandomGuy
06-29-2015, 12:43 PM
I haven't posted in years and I see the "shower" argument again in this thread. Some things never change. LD

We have a GS civilian that is almost complete with the process to become a man. This was apparently a bit of an issue as far as which bathroom she/he would be using. It became a big enough deal that they actually allocated money to build one of those "family restrooms" It is a single room restroom that locks. What I'm not sure about is who they built it for. I assume that the tranny will use the restroom she identifies with. I'm guessing the new restroom is for people who aren't comfortable using the restroom when "he" walks and they know it used to be a "she".

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me. In the men's restroom you walk in, stare straight ahead and take care of your business. I've never used the women's restroom before but they have stalls so it seems you have quite a bit more privacy there.

My question though is what happens if transsexuals and homosexuals ever become mainstream. Do we just get rid of the idea of single gender restrooms? Don't they already have unisex bathrooms in overseas countries and it's not a big deal?

Rainmaker
06-29-2015, 01:58 PM
My question though is what happens if transsexuals and homosexuals ever become mainstream.

That ship has already sailed...... What was considered crazy or morally degenerate just a generation ago is now considered virtuous......In just 6 years, DoD (the last bastion of honor left in the Nation) has been reduced to trying to figure out what bathroom demented she-males are going to use.

All this sex change stuff was started in the Nazi Death camps by Dr. Mengele.

UncaRastus
06-29-2015, 02:26 PM
Back in the mid '70s, while I was stationed in Japan, the base had it's yearly Japanese American Friendship Day. During that day, the Japanese were allowed to wander about the base, with a few places closed off to them.

The barracks were not closed off, though. I walked into the men's head and I was surprised to see some Japanese women relieving themselves, using the American styled toilets.

They were perched on top of the toilets, doing the squat, with their feet firmly planted on the toilet seats.

Thinking on how the Japanese toilets were porcelain troughs set into the ground at deck level, that wasn't such a surprise.

Females being in a men's head was a foretelling of things to come.

MitchellJD1969
06-29-2015, 03:42 PM
So what will be the next group calling for equal rights? Saw calls for transgenders in a few places on polygamists in a few others. Those I figuered would be next...but what will be after that? I have a suspicion but will keep that to myself for a while.

SomeRandomGuy
06-29-2015, 03:57 PM
So what will be the next group calling for equal rights? Saw calls for transgenders in a few places on polygamists in a few others. Those I figuered would be next...but what will be after that? I have a suspicion but will keep that to myself for a while.

We could end this entire debate if we simply abolished the IRS and went to the Flat Tax. Under the current system there will always be advantages or disadvantages to married people. That was how this entire gay marriage debate finally gained some steam. Gay couples were being denied certain tax breaks that were only available to married couples.

Next you could see a situation where people who practice polygamy are disadvantaged. The IRS only allows two people to file married jointly. What about a three person marriage?

How do you solve it? You de-couple the benefits of having your marriage recognized by the state. What's the difference between a gay couple living together and a married gay couple? Now that gay marriage is legal, the gay couple has the same rights as heterosexuals do. They can get married and enjoy the legal benefits or they can simply cohabitate. Under the current system a three person marriage doesn't have the same opportunity. Two of the people can get married and the third gets to be the side-piece.

If we went to a flat tax everyone would pay the same taxes. You pay your tax based on what you buy. There is no benefit or penalty to getting married. That would allow us to get the government out of people's bedrooms. That's what needs to happen.

Rainmaker
06-29-2015, 05:11 PM
We could end this entire debate if we simply abolished the IRS and went to the Flat Tax.

Dead issue. Not Happening. Because, the Free Shit Army now makes up over 1/2 the electorate and could care less about taxes (since, they don't pay any). Traditional American values of Self-reliance and rugged individualism have totally been Replaced with the "It takes a village to wipe your ass" mindset.



That was how this entire gay marriage debate finally gained some steam. Gay couples were being denied certain tax breaks that were only available to married couples.

Make no mistake. The Militant gay rights movement gained steam because the Progressive Politicians have spent the past 30 years stocking the Federal Court system with activist traitors. In recognition of their victory, They now get to illuminate the People's house in Rainbow colors to celebrate the corrupt SCOTUS allowing the degenerates to subvert the will of 38 states that passed DOMA laws.

Next up. The government will force the Church to marry gays by threatening their tax exempt status.


Next you could see a situation where people who practice polygamy are disadvantaged. The IRS only allows two people to file married jointly. What about a three person marriage?

Agree, Polygamy is most likely their next step in the generations long Psychological warfare campaign to destroy the values of this nation.

Besides the Muslims will probably demand it and we can't have racist-bigots going around violating anyone's Fundamental "rights".

The end game for these sodomites is state sanctioned legalized child abuse.


How do you solve it?

By studying patterns of History, It must be concluded that Without a Devine intervention, It's probably too late and so we will be subject to purification through Fire and Brimstone.

Pure individualists like ourselves are not affected by psychological warfare. But, They've been teaching " gayness" as normal in school and saturating the airwaves for 20 years so the Millennial generation that's been on the receiving end of it have embraced the agenda because, they're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome en mass.

MitchellJD1969
06-29-2015, 05:35 PM
We could end this entire debate if we simply abolished the IRS and went to the Flat Tax. Under the current system there will always be advantages or disadvantages to married people. That was how this entire gay marriage debate finally gained some steam. Gay couples were being denied certain tax breaks that were only available to married couples.

Next you could see a situation where people who practice polygamy are disadvantaged. The IRS only allows two people to file married jointly. What about a three person marriage?

How do you solve it? You de-couple the benefits of having your marriage recognized by the state. What's the difference between a gay couple living together and a married gay couple? Now that gay marriage is legal, the gay couple has the same rights as heterosexuals do. They can get married and enjoy the legal benefits or they can simply cohabitate. Under the current system a three person marriage doesn't have the same opportunity. Two of the people can get married and the third gets to be the side-piece.

If we went to a flat tax everyone would pay the same taxes. You pay your tax based on what you buy. There is no benefit or penalty to getting married. That would allow us to get the government out of people's bedrooms. That's what needs to happen.

I have already seen calls for churches tax exempt status being taken away...one way to start the process will be to sue churches for not accommodating homosexuals. Similar to the business's that were sued for not serving homosexuals.

Considering the lefts track record....the left will do its best to destroy those who do not agree with them or support their cause.

Mjölnir
06-29-2015, 05:49 PM
All,

Let's try to keep any derogatory terms / language out of the conversation ... whether talking about a group of people or each other.

We can disagree ... without being rude or disagreeable.

http://media.giphy.com/media/rvdUftzA8567u/giphy.gif

Rainmaker
06-29-2015, 07:41 PM
All,

Let's try to keep any derogatory terms / language out of the conversation ... whether talking about a group of people or each other.

We can disagree ... without being rude or disagreeable.

http://media.giphy.com/media/rvdUftzA8567u/giphy.gif

Good point. It's important to make the distinction between the Rainbow Flag Waving Agenda types that are pushing their extremist crap in society's face and forcing everyone else (through the power of progressive government) to accept their bullshit as normal behavior and the regular Gays who just wanted to be left alone.

Rainmaker knows a Lesbian couple down the street. They seem to be nice people. Keep to themselves,Take good care of the house, Even had a kid (implanted through invitro), that comes over and swims in the pool with my 5 year old twins. It's a little awkward but,really no big deal.

Now, We all have our Fetishes.... Rainmaker Favors Big-Boned, Blonde Women with Heart shaped asses, that can crack a walnut between their thighs........ Others may want to grind their adam's apple off, get bolted on gigantic titties and parade around all day in women's underwear..... Whatever, it should be nobody's business either way , just keep your freak in the bag..... But, they MAKE it your business.

The next thing we're going to see is these "activists" start demanding to get married in the Churches that they know wouldn't marry them in the first place...... Then, when the churches refuse, It will go to the courts (which have been subverted).

The whole shit show is about tearing down religion as a threat to state power. They're being used by the Anti-Christ agenda.

We might as well wake up and smell the chaos. Because, We are all being forced to choose sides whether we want to or not.

meatbringer
06-29-2015, 07:46 PM
I normally do not post on here, but felt compelled to in order to get some of your guys' opinions. I saw the whole shower dilemma mentioned on here and had a similar story. My wife used to work out with me at our unit's gym when we were stationed at Italy, the reason being that it was some extra time that we were able to hang out since I worked so much. Anyways, afterwards she would clean up and change in the women's locker room before heading out for school. This was a few years ago, so gays were allowed to openly serve during the "altercation." There was an openly gay woman who worked in our unit, and she would always go out of her way to talk to every spouse or female troop that walked by. One day she decided to hang out in the locker room while my wife was getting changed. The way my wife told it was that, while she was completely naked, she looked over and saw the chick standing there and just openly gawking at her. My wife said something to her in the lines of "stop staring at me and f#ck off", only for the openly gay chick to deny it. The gay girl then went back to just blatantly staring at my wife while she changed. My wife said that the girl just stood next to an empty locker with the door open, staring at her straight on, not even discreet about it. Anyways, my wife told her off and stormed off. She refused to use the women's locker room at our unit after that.

So, my question to all of you: What do you think can or should be done to prevent such occurrences in the future? Do we give everyone their own bathroom/showers in basic/living quarters when deployed? Is there a line to be drawn in the sand or is it all just a slippery slope?

For the record, I am for same sex marriage and consider myself pretty liberal; however, I foresee many problems in regards to resources and protecting everyone from situations like the one mentioned in my story. Do we let openly gay individuals room together in the desert or in the dorms? I know being gay does not mean that you are attracted to every other gay person, but it does give them the opportunity to engage in activity that others are prevented from partaking in. Have we opened Pandora's Box or is there a way to fairly maintain order now?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-29-2015, 09:28 PM
I normally do not post on here, but felt compelled to in order to get some of your guys' opinions. I saw the whole shower dilemma mentioned on here and had a similar story. My wife used to work out with me at our unit's gym when we were stationed at Italy, the reason being that it was some extra time that we were able to hang out since I worked so much. Anyways, afterwards she would clean up and change in the women's locker room before heading out for school. This was a few years ago, so gays were allowed to openly serve during the "altercation." There was an openly gay woman who worked in our unit, and she would always go out of her way to talk to every spouse or female troop that walked by. One day she decided to hang out in the locker room while my wife was getting changed. The way my wife told it was that, while she was completely naked, she looked over and saw the chick standing there and just openly gawking at her. My wife said something to her in the lines of "stop staring at me and f#ck off", only for the openly gay chick to deny it. The gay girl then went back to just blatantly staring at my wife while she changed. My wife said that the girl just stood next to an empty locker with the door open, staring at her straight on, not even discreet about it. Anyways, my wife told her off and stormed off. She refused to use the women's locker room at our unit after that.

So, my question to all of you: What do you think can or should be done to prevent such occurrences in the future? Do we give everyone their own bathroom/showers in basic/living quarters when deployed? Is there a line to be drawn in the sand or is it all just a slippery slope?

For the record, I am for same sex marriage and consider myself pretty liberal; however, I foresee many problems in regards to resources and protecting everyone from situations like the one mentioned in my story. Do we let openly gay individuals room together in the desert or in the dorms? I know being gay does not mean that you are attracted to every other gay person, but it does give them the opportunity to engage in activity that others are prevented from partaking in. Have we opened Pandora's Box or is there a way to fairly maintain order now?

Would you have us believe that there we no instances of creeps staring at people in showers in the 1940s? In the 1950s? I'm betting that creepy behavior has always been around, and the people who behave inappropriately aren't prevented or enabled by any laws.

In other words, the shower argument is bullshit.

USN - Retired
06-29-2015, 10:00 PM
Would you have us believe that there we no instances of creeps staring at people in showers in the 1940s? In the 1950s? I'm betting that creepy behavior has always been around, and the people who behave inappropriately aren't prevented or enabled by any laws.

In other words, the shower argument is bullshit.

If the shower argument is "bullshit", then there really is no need for separate showers for men and women.

Rainmaker
06-29-2015, 10:12 PM
Would you have us believe that there we no instances of creeps staring at people in showers in the 1940s? In the 1950s? I'm betting that creepy behavior has always been around, and the people who behave inappropriately aren't prevented or enabled by any laws.

In other words, the shower argument is bullshit.

There you have it folks. Moral relativism in all its glory.
Military dykes should be able to sexually harass their co workers wives in the shower, because there were creeps around in the 1940s.... Difference being that in the 1940s the creep would've probably just "slipped" and smacked their head in the locker room.

meatbringer
06-30-2015, 04:26 AM
Would you have us believe that there we no instances of creeps staring at people in showers in the 1940s? In the 1950s? I'm betting that creepy behavior has always been around, and the people who behave inappropriately aren't prevented or enabled by any laws.

In other words, the shower argument is bullshit.

It's not bullshit, it's a good example of a problem that needs to be addressed. You see, that's why no one posts on here anymore. Everyone is so quick to jump down everyone's throat whenever someone asks a question. So, you are telling me that my wife should just deal with it, and her feeling uncomfortable about it is bullshit? You've obviously missed the point of the story.

The difficult part is that I feel no one should ever have to pretend to be someone they aren't or feel persecuted against, but I also feel that the floodgates have now been opened. We are now at the point where we have made it impossible to protect and accommodate everyone who serves in the military utilizing our limited resources and capabilities.

garhkal
06-30-2015, 04:41 AM
That ship has already sailed...... What was considered crazy or morally degenerate just a generation ago is now considered virtuous.

Agreed. Heck with how (from my perception) the left uses the schools to indoctrinate people to accept these 'new lifestyles' as good/acceptable, i feel we won't see a change for the better any time soon.

garhkal
06-30-2015, 04:46 AM
I normally do not post on here, but felt compelled to in order to get some of your guys' opinions. I saw the whole shower dilemma mentioned on here and had a similar story. My wife used to work out with me at our unit's gym when we were stationed at Italy, the reason being that it was some extra time that we were able to hang out since I worked so much. Anyways, afterwards she would clean up and change in the women's locker room before heading out for school. This was a few years ago, so gays were allowed to openly serve during the "altercation." There was an openly gay woman who worked in our unit, and she would always go out of her way to talk to every spouse or female troop that walked by. One day she decided to hang out in the locker room while my wife was getting changed. The way my wife told it was that, while she was completely naked, she looked over and saw the chick standing there and just openly gawking at her. My wife said something to her in the lines of "stop staring at me and f#ck off", only for the openly gay chick to deny it. The gay girl then went back to just blatantly staring at my wife while she changed. My wife said that the girl just stood next to an empty locker with the door open, staring at her straight on, not even discreet about it. Anyways, my wife told her off and stormed off. She refused to use the women's locker room at our unit after that.

So, my question to all of you: What do you think can or should be done to prevent such occurrences in the future? Do we give everyone their own bathroom/showers in basic/living quarters when deployed? Is there a line to be drawn in the sand or is it all just a slippery slope?

For the record, I am for same sex marriage and consider myself pretty liberal; however, I foresee many problems in regards to resources and protecting everyone from situations like the one mentioned in my story. Do we let openly gay individuals room together in the desert or in the dorms? I know being gay does not mean that you are attracted to every other gay person, but it does give them the opportunity to engage in activity that others are prevented from partaking in. Have we opened Pandora's Box or is there a way to fairly maintain order now?

Wow. That sucks for your wife. BUT it almost reminds me of what Planet fitness did when a woman complained to other customers about a transgendered using the 'other changing rooms' just cause they "Self identified with that sex, NOT that he/she/it was already changing or had completed the op", for 'violating their no judgement zone (even though according to the planet fitness site, that NJZ applies to the WORKOUT floor, not the locker rooms.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-30-2015, 05:58 AM
It's not bullshit, it's a good example of a problem that needs to be addressed. You see, that's why no one posts on here anymore. Everyone is so quick to jump down everyone's throat whenever someone asks a question. So, you are telling me that my wife should just deal with it, and her feeling uncomfortable about it is bullshit? You've obviously missed the point of the story.

The difficult part is that I feel no one should ever have to pretend to be someone they aren't or feel persecuted against, but I also feel that the floodgates have now been opened. We are now at the point where we have made it impossible to protect and accommodate everyone who serves in the military utilizing our limited resources and capabilities.

It is bullshit in regards to homosexuals getting the right to serve in the military or the right to marry.

You are talking about inappropriate staring in public showers. Do you think that wouldn't exist be it not for the changes in the last 10 years?

Bullshit.

A creepy person who acts inappropriately in a communal shower is a separate issue on its own.

Sounds like your wife dealt with it.

You are trying to create the narrative that homosexuals are locker room predators, and that is bullshit.

Mjölnir
06-30-2015, 10:47 AM
What do you think can or should be done to prevent such occurrences in the future?

As far as I know, there are already standards of conduct; it sounds like the woman you talk about was violating those already existing standards. There is no solution for anything that will work 100% of time, especially when people (subjective creatures at best) are in the mix.

It sounds like your wife addressed the problem directly; do you know if she addressed it with either the facility manager, the unit EEO or as a sexual harassment issue (I would think that is the logical next step.)

meatbringer
06-30-2015, 12:23 PM
It is bullshit in regards to homosexuals getting the right to serve in the military or the right to marry.

You are talking about inappropriate staring in public showers. Do you think that wouldn't exist be it not for the changes in the last 10 years?

Bullshit.

A creepy person who acts inappropriately in a communal shower is a separate issue on its own.

Sounds like your wife dealt with it.

You are trying to create the narrative that homosexuals are locker room predators, and that is bullshit.


Jesus Christ, dude... If you had read the post carefully instead of looking for an argument where there is none, you may have realized that I am not creating any narratives or painting any homosexuals as perverts. I simply relayed a personal story as an example of what could prove to be a problem, and asked for some serious input or thoughts on what the military could do to prevent such occurrences. If you are just going to pull your crap where everyone is a bigot, please do it elsewhere.

Like I said, I feel that gays shouldn't have to hide who they are or be subject to ridicule, especially while serving their country. You know what, forget the story since some people seemed to have missed the point entirely. Let's pretend that tomorrow the military allowed for coed bathrooms across the board. Great. Now, pretend your wife goes into the locker room to get changed, only to have some dude just standing next to her gawking at her while she undresses. So this is alright and should be tolerated because there will always be creeps? Yeah, that makes sense...

SomeRandomGuy
06-30-2015, 12:45 PM
As far as I know, there are already standards of conduct; it sounds like the woman you talk about was violating those already existing standards. There is no solution for anything that will work 100% of time, especially when people (subjective creatures at best) are in the mix.

It sounds like your wife addressed the problem directly; do you know if she addressed it with either the facility manager, the unit EEO or as a sexual harassment issue (I would think that is the logical next step.)

Since when it is it sexual harassment to stare at someone? Certainly in the eyes of the law you can't be prosecuted for staring. Maybe the situation meatbringer mentioned could be dealt with administratively but would you really want to be the supervisor who had to do it? Again, we are talking about staring at someone, which even in the story, the person said they weren't staring when confronted?

The "locker room creeper" isn't a new problem just because gays are allowed to marry now. As you said though, there really isn't a solution to it either. If it gets to the point of physical contact something can be done. As far as I know you can't punish someone for looking around while in the locker room.

meatbringer
06-30-2015, 12:51 PM
As far as I know, there are already standards of conduct; it sounds like the woman you talk about was violating those already existing standards. There is no solution for anything that will work 100% of time, especially when people (subjective creatures at best) are in the mix.

It sounds like your wife addressed the problem directly; do you know if she addressed it with either the facility manager, the unit EEO or as a sexual harassment issue (I would think that is the logical next step.)

No, she was alright about it for the most part. It pissed her off (and still does whenever I tease her about it), but we are pretty thick-skinned people. No one else was brought in to the matter. Besides, how do you really address something like that with no video or audio proof? It's just an example of a problem that I could see rearing it's ugly head in the future. I've always been intrigued by the military's policies regarding the LGBT community in the logistical sense. We can't have our cake and eat it too with this one.

Think about it, shit would hit the fan if our military suddenly allowed coed bathrooms and showers. Most women don't want to get changed and do their business in front of a bunch of dudes. What's the difference? And no, it's not that I think gays are sexual predators or anything like that, it's that I think PEOPLE are just shitty in general. Most people aren't mature or respectful enough to share bathrooms and showers with the opposite sex. Christ, most chicks can't even go to the gym and work out without being hounded by a bunch of clowns. Would it be fair to make them have to share a bathroom with those same clowns? Of course not. The same applies to gays, and not because gays harass people or are sexual creatures, but because PEOPLE harass and are sexual creatures by nature.

meatbringer
06-30-2015, 12:59 PM
Since when it is it sexual harassment to stare at someone? Certainly in the eyes of the law you can't be prosecuted for staring. Maybe the situation meatbringer mentioned could be dealt with administratively but would you really want to be the supervisor who had to do it? Again, we are talking about staring at someone, which even in the story, the person said they weren't staring when confronted?

The "locker room creeper" isn't a new problem just because gays are allowed to marry now. As you said though, there really isn't a solution to it either. If it gets to the point of physical contact something can be done. As far as I know you can't punish someone for looking around while in the locker room.

I know, I get it. That particular instance of staring isn't that big of a deal. Sexual harassment? I don't know... Now, pretend that gay chick was a dude and pretend it was your wife getting gawked at while she was naked. You telling me you don't have a problem with that? The point is that my wife felt uncomfortable to use the locker room after that. Why? Because we now allow people who are openly sexually attracted to the same sex share the same "private rooms." It should not be that big a problem, but in this case the openly gay individual was a creep.

Obviously, not all gay people are creeps. I know that. But not all straight men are creeps either. Doesn't mean they should allow straight men to share locker rooms with females, does it? Of course not, because it would allow an insane amount of potential harassment and problems. Can you imagine?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-30-2015, 01:47 PM
I know, I get it. That particular instance of staring isn't that big of a deal. Sexual harassment? I don't know... Now, pretend that gay chick was a dude and pretend it was your wife getting gawked at while she was naked. You telling me you don't have a problem with that? The point is that my wife felt uncomfortable to use the locker room after that. Why? Because we now allow people who are openly sexually attracted to the same sex share the same "private rooms." It should not be that big a problem, but in this case the openly gay individual was a creep.

Obviously, not all gay people are creeps. I know that. But not all straight men are creeps either. Doesn't mean they should allow straight men to share locker rooms with females, does it? Of course not, because it would allow an insane amount of potential harassment and problems. Can you imagine?

Okay, I'll pretend all of that..... Mission complete. I still don't get your point.

Your turn to pretend. Pretend your name is Meat Reciever and Mike Huckabee and been making secret meat deliveries to you for years.

Huckabee suddenly increases the frequency of his meat deliveries, he starts bringing it to you faster and faster. All of a sudden, you see Nicki Minaj and John Waters hiding in a tree staring at your loading dock.


http://youtu.be/tLPZmPaHme0

SomeRandomGuy
06-30-2015, 02:00 PM
I know, I get it. That particular instance of staring isn't that big of a deal. Sexual harassment? I don't know... Now, pretend that gay chick was a dude and pretend it was your wife getting gawked at while she was naked. You telling me you don't have a problem with that? The point is that my wife felt uncomfortable to use the locker room after that. Why? Because we now allow people who are openly sexually attracted to the same sex share the same "private rooms." It should not be that big a problem, but in this case the openly gay individual was a creep.

Obviously, not all gay people are creeps. I know that. But not all straight men are creeps either. Doesn't mean they should allow straight men to share locker rooms with females, does it? Of course not, because it would allow an insane amount of potential harassment and problems. Can you imagine?

I understand your point. If my wife were changing in a co-ed area and some creep was staring at her I would have a problem with it. Even though I have a problem with it the creep has a right to be there and staring isn't a crime.

Really though this is about each person's expectation of privacy. Here in Dayton Ohio there is a really nice gay bar called Club Masque. Even though it is a gay bar quite a few straight people go there. I've been a few times myself since the drinks are really good and the gays really know how to throw a party.

Even though it is a gay bar they still have separate men's and women's restrooms. I've used the bathroom there plenty of times and I didn't really feel uncomfortable. I went in with the expectation that there would be men in there who like other men. Maybe I'm just not an extremely good looking dude but no one tried to rape me while I was in there. Really the only uncomfortable part of the ordeal is they have this shirtless bathroom attendant wearing a bow tie who hands you a towel after you wash your hands. I was uncomfortable with whether or not I should tip him. Other people were doing it but why should I give this guy a $1? All he did was hand me a towel which I could have grabbed myself.

Anyways, the whole point of this story is that I didn't have an expectation of privacy when I used the men's restroom at a gay bar. For the most part everyone kept to their self. I assume that if things got out of hand the attendant would have taken care of it. That's probably the real reason he was there.

I felt perfectly comfortable taking a piss in the men's restroom at a gay bar. I can't say I would feel the same way if it were a shower or locker room where I needed to strip down naked though. It's all about what expectations you have for yourself going into the situation. We need to define what the "new normal" is for restroom etiquette. The dangerous thing about that though is that if we set a new normal Odoacer is going to come conquer us like he did the Roman Empire. Gnomesayin?

meatbringer
06-30-2015, 02:02 PM
Okay, I'll pretend all of that..... Mission complete. I still don't get your point.

Your turn to pretend. Pretend your name is Meat Reciever and Mike Huckabee and been making secret meat deliveries to you for years.

Huckabee suddenly increases the frequency of his meat deliveries, he starts bringing it to you faster and faster. All of a sudden, you see Nicki Minaj and John Waters hiding in a tree staring at your loading dock.


http://youtu.be/tLPZmPaHme0

:clap1: Cool. Thanks, well done. Now, do any of the adults that can read and comprehend what I was getting at have any suggestions or input regarding the matter?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-30-2015, 02:12 PM
:clap1: Cool. Thanks, well done. Now, do any of the adults that can read and comprehend what I was getting at have any suggestions or input regarding the matter?

Since when did you become an adult? Next to me you are one of the most irreverent SOBs on this board.

Anyway, what the hell do you want?

Someone stared at your wife in a public locker room. She cussed them out. Problem solved.

meatbringer
06-30-2015, 02:17 PM
I understand your point. If my wife were changing in a co-ed area and some creep was staring at her I would have a problem with it. Even though I have a problem with it the creep has a right to be there and staring isn't a crime.

I felt perfectly comfortable taking a piss in the men's restroom at a gay bar. I can't say I would feel the same way if it were a shower or locker room where I needed to strip down naked though. It's all about what expectations you have for yourself going into the situation. We need to define what the "new normal" is for restroom etiquette. The dangerous thing about that though is that if we set a new normal Odoacer is going to come conquer us like he did the Roman Empire. Gnomesayin?

You're right, but what could possible be the "new norm" for bathroom etiquette when there are so many variables thrown into the mix now? Honestly, the whole ordeal mentioned in my story wasn't that big a deal to us. We joke about it now and then. The problem is that many people would have a problem with it and would feel uncomfortable about changing in front of individuals who are sexually attracted to their gender, gay or not. I just don't see there ever being a scenario or policy that can accommodate everyone and treat everyone fairly. It's impossible unless there is are bathrooms and locker rooms for each individual. Maybe a bunch of little rooms that you can sign out to change or shower in and have a standard coed bathroom or locker room for everyone else who doesn't feel weird about it. Oh well, guess we'll wait and see in the future. Also, thanks for acting like an adult and responding in a civil manner. It's not something you see on here.

Rainmaker
06-30-2015, 02:20 PM
It is bullshit in regards to homosexuals getting the right to serve in the military
.

AA, get your point and Not to be petty and argue semantics or anything. .. But, with 53,492 views there are a lot of lurkers out there..... So, Rainmaker must clear something up. ....To any of you BLT's following along at home....... Military Service is not a Right.

They used to teach this stuff in Basic training and PME, Back in the old days, Before the country fell victim to the Gay Mafia's project mayhem and turned the average American citizen into a crying ball of shit.

SomeRandomGuy
06-30-2015, 02:25 PM
You're right, but what could possible be the "new norm" for bathroom etiquette when there are so many variables thrown into the mix now? Honestly, the whole ordeal mentioned in my story wasn't that big a deal to us. We joke about it now and then. The problem is that many people would have a problem with it and would feel uncomfortable about changing in front of individuals who are sexually attracted to their gender, gay or not. I just don't see there ever being a scenario or policy that can accommodate everyone and treat everyone fairly. It's impossible unless there is are bathrooms and locker rooms for each individual. Maybe a bunch of little rooms that you can sign out to change or shower in and have a standard coed bathroom or locker room for everyone else who doesn't feel weird about it. Oh well, guess we'll wait and see in the future. Also, thanks for acting like an adult and responding in a civil manner. It's not something you see on here.

There are plenty of people who don't feel comfortable changing in public locker rooms. They feel this way regardless of whether or not there are gays present. There are people who feel uncomfortable with a Doctor of the opposite sex. Personally, I'm cool with anyone who wants, "checking out my junk." If it were allowed I wouldn't even need a restroom. I'm cool with just pissing outdoors and I don't care who is watching.

To me this is an issue that can only be solved by the people who have a problem with it. If you don't want people staring at you in a public locker room you are more than welcome to use one of the stalls to change in. That's basically the same thing as a fitting room at the mall.

I don't think we need to make any more accommodations than we already do. Most Men's rooms have urinals for people who don't mind taking a piss in public. For the shy people you can wait in a line for a stall. That's the solution.

Really the "shower scenario" isn't even the scenario I would expect people to bring up. Now that gays are allowed to openly serve what should we do about watching people during a urinalysis? The whole experience is already pretty uncomfortable. Can you imagine you get selected for a random UA and the dude from your unit who is openly gay is the observer? Can I request a female observer instead?

Rainmaker
06-30-2015, 04:44 PM
. We need to define what the "new normal" is for restroom etiquette. The dangerous thing about that though is that if we set a new normal Odoacer is going to come conquer us like he did the Roman Empire. Gnomesayin?

A Total self-destruction of a society does not happen because of one thing.... It's a cumulative effect. Psycho transsexuals now being celebrated as not just normal. But, Noble and Heroic are not the cause of a decayed society, they are just a symptom of it.

History teaches that when people start mutilating themselves the collapse is near. The Mayans flattened their kids heads between boards, Chinese crushed their feet, Nero fiddled while Rome burned....Americans just eat themselves to death and watch their former Olympic Heros Chop their peckers and balls off and call that Good.

There's nothing new under the sun. We can either recognize this communist cancer for what it is and cut it out or America's going into the dustbin of history.

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." Gnomesayin?

meatbringer
06-30-2015, 04:53 PM
Really the "shower scenario" isn't even the scenario I would expect people to bring up. Now that gays are allowed to openly serve what should we do about watching people during a urinalysis? The whole experience is already pretty uncomfortable. Can you imagine you get selected for a random UA and the dude from your unit who is openly gay is the observer? Can I request a female observer instead?

Huh, good point about the urinalysis. I never even considered that one. So what do you say about living quarters? Think about tech school dorms and how males and females are kept separate in order to try and control any potential mishaps or sexual activity in the dorms. Now, throw in openly gay members and transgender individuals. Should they be catered to differently than everyone else or do we keep everything the same? Do we room the transgender individual in with what gender they identify with, or their new gender?

Last night I watched John Oliver's HBO show and it had to do with what we are talking about. They even had a small segment on the individual who identifies as a man in the Army. She (or he) was very excited to be in Afghanistan because it is the only place where he is apparently accepted as a man by his peers. I wonder if he gets any special treatment or accommodations being the way he is. I'm sure you've probably seen at least an article or two of the guy (girl). He's freaking jacked as hell and tatted up. I saw one argument online about how she was able to use steroids legally in the military to become a man while a typical workout nut can't use steroids. They claimed it was unfair. A lot of interesting stuff and variables in the mix now when it comes to the military.

SomeRandomGuy
06-30-2015, 05:19 PM
Huh, good point about the urinalysis. I never even considered that one. So what do you say about living quarters? Think about tech school dorms and how males and females are kept separate in order to try and control any potential mishaps or sexual activity in the dorms. Now, throw in openly gay members and transgender individuals. Should they be catered to differently than everyone else or do we keep everything the same? Do we room the transgender individual in with what gender they identify with, or their new gender?

Last night I watched John Oliver's HBO show and it had to do with what we are talking about. They even had a small segment on the individual who identifies as a man in the Army. She (or he) was very excited to be in Afghanistan because it is the only place where he is apparently accepted as a man by his peers. I wonder if he gets any special treatment or accommodations being the way he is. I'm sure you've probably seen at least an article or two of the guy (girl). He's freaking jacked as hell and tatted up. I saw one argument online about how she was able to use steroids legally in the military to become a man while a typical workout nut can't use steroids. They claimed it was unfair. A lot of interesting stuff and variables in the mix now when it comes to the military.

On living quarters I say treat it like college dorms. The people we are talking about are literally in the same age bracket as college students and they seem to handle it fine. You can have a co-ed floor and a non co-ed floor. For new people I would put everyone with their same gender. If it turns out that someone is gay and the roommate wanted to switch rooms I would accommodate that request. These kind of things would need to be handled at the unit level. If a gay guy and straight guy are roomed together and either is uncomfortable then they should talk to their MTL about a room switch. The MTL should handle the situation like an adult and with common sense.

For tech school it probably doesn't make sense to let males and females room together but there is no reason it can't work in the dorms at permanent party bases. Keep in mind that there aren't any bases that you share an actual room with someone else. You just share a common area or adjoined restroom. There is no reason opposite genders can't be roommates when all that being roommates means is that you share a kitchen.

As far as deployed locations, if rooms are shared let the people pick what type of living situation they want. I'm good with co-ed, same gender, and even people in a relationship sharing. I've seen situations where a husband and wife were deployed but not allowed to visit each other's rooms. That's idiotic.

As far as the transgendered Army person I have seen a little information on that. The big issue there is different fitness standards for men and women. I would just make one basic fitness requirement for all genders. It would match the minimum amount required to perform one's job. It has been said often on here but when was the last time an Air Force member had to run 1.5 miles in combat?

If you want gender equality you can't set different standards for men and women. The standard has to be whatever is required to do the job. If that's too high for most women then I guess they can't handle the job. You don't lower the standard to accommodate them.

garhkal
06-30-2015, 06:26 PM
No, she was alright about it for the most part. It pissed her off (and still does whenever I tease her about it), but we are pretty thick-skinned people. No one else was brought in to the matter. Besides, how do you really address something like that with no video or audio proof? It's just an example of a problem that I could see rearing it's ugly head in the future. I've always been intrigued by the military's policies regarding the LGBT community in the logistical sense. We can't have our cake and eat it too with this one.

Think about it, shit would hit the fan if our military suddenly allowed coed bathrooms and showers. Most women don't want to get changed and do their business in front of a bunch of dudes. What's the difference? And no, it's not that I think gays are sexual predators or anything like that, it's that I think PEOPLE are just shitty in general. Most people aren't mature or respectful enough to share bathrooms and showers with the opposite sex. Christ, most chicks can't even go to the gym and work out without being hounded by a bunch of clowns. Would it be fair to make them have to share a bathroom with those same clowns? Of course not. The same applies to gays, and not because gays harass people or are sexual creatures, but because PEOPLE harass and are sexual creatures by nature.

IMO this subject has already reared its ugly head with the # of recent lawsuits against schools to allow a transgendered student to use the opposite sexes restrooms/showers. It seems they always focus on That person's feelings, but never the rest of the population's feelings or concerns.

Mjölnir
06-30-2015, 07:11 PM
IMO this subject has already reared its ugly head with the # of recent lawsuits against schools to allow a transgendered student to use the opposite sexes restrooms/showers. It seems they always focus on That person's feelings, but never the rest of the population's feelings or concerns.

I think that is in a way the opposite. A transgender person who ID's as male and uses the male restroom is not necessarily 'attracted' to the other folks using that restroom ... unless of course they also identify as trangendered and gay ... gender ID and sexuality are not the same.

The argument some are making is that having a gay male using the male bathroom or locker room puts them in a facility where they are attracted to the other people in that facility.

Is having a gay or lesbian person using the locker room for their gender really an issue. Granted, the example meatbringer gave is inappropriate ... but is that behavior the exception or the rule? I mostly go to the Gold's Gym near my house, I am positive a few of the other members are gay ... it has never bothered me to be in the locker room when they are there too ... then again they are not staring me down (I guess I am not attractive enough to warrant a stare.)

meatbringer
06-30-2015, 07:15 PM
On living quarters I say treat it like college dorms. The people we are talking about are literally in the same age bracket as college students and they seem to handle it fine. You can have a co-ed floor and a non co-ed floor. For new people I would put everyone with their same gender. If it turns out that someone is gay and the roommate wanted to switch rooms I would accommodate that request. These kind of things would need to be handled at the unit level. If a gay guy and straight guy are roomed together and either is uncomfortable then they should talk to their MTL about a room switch. The MTL should handle the situation like an adult and with common sense.

For tech school it probably doesn't make sense to let males and females room together but there is no reason it can't work in the dorms at permanent party bases. Keep in mind that there aren't any bases that you share an actual room with someone else. You just share a common area or adjoined restroom. There is no reason opposite genders can't be roommates when all that being roommates means is that you share a kitchen.

As far as deployed locations, if rooms are shared let the people pick what type of living situation they want. I'm good with co-ed, same gender, and even people in a relationship sharing. I've seen situations where a husband and wife were deployed but not allowed to visit each other's rooms. That's idiotic.

As far as the transgendered Army person I have seen a little information on that. The big issue there is different fitness standards for men and women. I would just make one basic fitness requirement for all genders. It would match the minimum amount required to perform one's job. It has been said often on here but when was the last time an Air Force member had to run 1.5 miles in combat?

If you want gender equality you can't set different standards for men and women. The standard has to be whatever is required to do the job. If that's too high for most women then I guess they can't handle the job. You don't lower the standard to accommodate them.

The only permanent part dorms that I can think of that require one to share a room would be at both bases in South Korea. Other than that, the college dorm concept should work. Tech school, on the other hand, would have to be controlled and monitored with extreme prejudice, only because of the level of maturity and different set of rules they play by. The newer dorms at Sheppard have security cameras in all of the hallways and common areas, which makes it much easier to monitor the little bastards.

I'm sorry, but I feel deployed locations need to be sterile in regards to sexual activity. Not only could it introduce tons of drama and problems, but it would also bring about the possibility of someone becoming pregnant while over there. Think of the shit storm that would be sure to follow with having pregnancies while in a deployed area. I've already witnessed women becoming pregnant before deployments to get out of them. Also, think of the liabilities and PR nightmares with having a pregnant woman around mortar attacks, the burn pits, shitty living conditions, etc. I realize they would be removed from duty as soon as possible, but you never know if someone would be pregnant for a while before coming forward.

Mjölnir
06-30-2015, 07:16 PM
There are plenty of people who don't feel comfortable changing in public locker rooms. They feel this way regardless of whether or not there are gays present. There are people who feel uncomfortable with a Doctor of the opposite sex. Personally, I'm cool with anyone who wants, "checking out my junk." If it were allowed I wouldn't even need a restroom. I'm cool with just pissing outdoors and I don't care who is watching.

To me this is an issue that can only be solved by the people who have a problem with it. If you don't want people staring at you in a public locker room you are more than welcome to use one of the stalls to change in. That's basically the same thing as a fitting room at the mall.

I don't think we need to make any more accommodations than we already do. Most Men's rooms have urinals for people who don't mind taking a piss in public. For the shy people you can wait in a line for a stall. That's the solution.

Really the "shower scenario" isn't even the scenario I would expect people to bring up. Now that gays are allowed to openly serve what should we do about watching people during a urinalysis? The whole experience is already pretty uncomfortable. Can you imagine you get selected for a random UA and the dude from your unit who is openly gay is the observer? Can I request a female observer instead?

Would having a gay observer be any different than having a doctor that was gay?

Be careful about requesting a female observer ... if your luck is anything like mine:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_knkvaxcxu7Q/TFdU2uxLj4I/AAAAAAAAAPY/AVnmj0xEcLM/s1600/beulah.jpg

meatbringer
06-30-2015, 07:28 PM
I think that is in a way the opposite. A transgender person who ID's as male and uses the male restroom is not necessarily 'attracted' to the other folks using that restroom ... unless of course they also identify as trangendered and gay ... gender ID and sexuality are not the same.

The argument some are making is that having a gay male using the male bathroom or locker room puts them in a facility where they are attracted to the other people in that facility.

Is having a gay or lesbian person using the locker room for their gender really an issue. Granted, the example meatbringer gave is inappropriate ... but is that behavior the exception or the rule? I mostly go to the Gold's Gym near my house, I am positive a few of the other members are gay ... it has never bothered me to be in the locker room when they are there too ... then again they are not staring me down (I guess I am not attractive enough to warrant a stare.)

You make a good point. Should there even be an exception to the rules? The problem is that the military could usually be counted on as, for the most part, being a politically correct institution, or at least strive to be. So let's say that the lesbian in the bathroom actually harassed my wife instead of just gawking and making her feel uncomfortable. Do we just tell her to suck it up? What about a gay man harassing a dude in the showers? Tell him to deal with it out of the greater good? Before you know it, there may be quite a few people being harassed more often than you'd think. What do we tell those people? Sorry, you have to share private areas with people who are attracted to your sex. Unless they physically hurt you, just deal with it.

Trust me, I could care less. People like me aren't the problem; I don't complain about shit. However, we all know that most people are quick to complain and start drama. Those are the people the military has to cater to.

SomeRandomGuy
06-30-2015, 07:57 PM
Would having a gay observer be any different than having a doctor that was gay?

Be careful about requesting a female observer ... if your luck is anything like mine:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_knkvaxcxu7Q/TFdU2uxLj4I/AAAAAAAAAPY/AVnmj0xEcLM/s1600/beulah.jpg

Not really. I'm guessing that many male gynecologists are straight. I'm assuming they don't get any sexual enjoyment out of performing a pap smear or ramming their hand up a vagina to see how many centimeters a pregnant woman is dilated.

Some women are comfortable with that and some women will request a female doctor but that doesn't mean the female doctor isn't a lesbian.

A while back there was a thread on here that was asking if you could have any job at any base what would it be. Some smartass said, "Assistant to the Base Gynecologist at MacDill AFB, Florida." Another poster pointed out that as a Dr. you see a wide variety of patients and not all of them are attractive.

When the shower discussion happens I think people imagine the locker room is some de-facto strip club for gay people. They get to just hang out and stare at naked people all day. I'm straight and I honestly wouldn't have any interest in hanging out in the women's restroom all day. I'm not sure why people assume a gay person would want watch people undress, shower, or take a shit. Maybe some are into that but I'm guessing it is a very small percentage.

meatbringer
06-30-2015, 08:08 PM
Not really. I'm guessing that many male gynecologists are straight. I'm assuming they don't get any sexual enjoyment out of performing a pap smear or ramming their hand up a vagina to see how many centimeters a pregnant woman is dilated.

Some women are comfortable with that and some women will request a female doctor but that doesn't mean the female doctor isn't a lesbian.

A while back there was a thread on here that was asking if you could have any job at any base what would it be. Some smartass said, "Assistant to the Base Gynecologist at MacDill AFB, Florida." Another poster pointed out that as a Dr. you see a wide variety of patients and not all of them are attractive.

When the shower discussion happens I think people imagine the locker room is some de-facto strip club for gay people. They get to just hang out and stare at naked people all day. I'm straight and I honestly wouldn't have any interest in hanging out in the women's restroom all day. I'm not sure why people assume a gay person would want watch people undress, shower, or take a shit. Maybe some are into that but I'm guessing it is a very small percentage.

I'm sure that most people, including gays, are not obsessed with the prospect of hanging out in a bathroom or a locker room in order to get a private show. There are, however, people who would do that. I personally know probably a few dudes who would take advantage of a unisex bathroom. So how do you protect people from those individuals, if you even can at all? Do you just let those few slide through the cracks in order to avoid making waves? The military has already been having a field day with sexual harassment and rape in the past years. Do you think this "sharing private living areas" could contribute to the already serious problem the force faces, even if it is just a little?

Rainmaker
06-30-2015, 08:14 PM
Is having a gay or lesbian person using the locker room for their gender really an issue.


The whole locker room thing is a side show.

In all the years I served Pre and during DADT, I never personally knew or heard of anyone being driven out of the military for just being gay. The rationale always used for generations to deny Gays from serving was that it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline and Unit Cohesion for them to do so.

It's necessary for us to understand that the civilian bureaucrats pushing this queering of the military, view the military as just another government agency (i.e a social proving ground), which out of "fairness" should look like America (although They are lying about what America really looks like).

Behind this agenda are ideologues who don't know a right face from a left face. This push has nothing to do with fairness or equality for gay people. We all wanted that. What it's about to them is destroying the culture they Hate. That's why the new flavor of the month today is trans-whatever, and once they have that they'll move on to the next whatever. Which is why ever giving them an inch of ground is a mistake.

The fact that we even have Dipshits on here stating that Military Service is a constitutional right for gays shows you how far they've penetrated (pun intended).

After I'd returned from my 3rd OEF/OIF deployment in 2006 . I remember my view at that time as being that the military was suffering from an extreme leadership vacuum.

For the most part People pretty much fell in to a couple of categories. Those with too much time invested and wanting to get out But, waiting to get to their 20 to retire
and those with less than 10 that were fed up But, waiting to get to their ETS to go work for contractors or make a go of it on their own.

But, without fail Almost Everyone recognized the GWOT was Bullshit, and that they were being led (mostly) by Political Hack Appointees with no principles that put themselves ahead of the welfare of their troops.

Now, I retired 4 years ago. And From what little I can garner as an outsider looking in , The American Military today looks like a fucking basket case.....It doesn't take long to destroy a legacy when 50% of the force turns over every couple years.

The Grab-Assery one witnesses at the gates is telling of the underlying discipline problem and You've got LGBT Propaganda articles running in the base paper and Junior Enlisted in Uniform handing out 5K Gay Color Fun Run Fliers at the exchanges to the Veterans of the Greatest Generation (that Liberated a world from Tyranny)..... It looks like the God Damn Army of misfit toys. It's Disgraceful.

Rainmaker
06-30-2015, 08:19 PM
A while back there was a thread on here that was asking if you could have any job at any base what would it be. Some smartass said, "Assistant to the Base Gynecologist at MacDill AFB, Florida." Another poster pointed out that as a Dr. you see a wide variety of patients and not all of them are attractive.



But, wouldn't It'd be nice to just have a job where you could look inside women and see the power that they held over you?

MitchellJD1969
06-30-2015, 08:29 PM
Do they hang out at the YMCA? cue music.......

garhkal
07-01-2015, 02:24 AM
I think that is in a way the opposite. A transgender person who ID's as male and uses the male restroom is not necessarily 'attracted' to the other folks using that restroom ... unless of course they also identify as trangendered and gay ... gender ID and sexuality are not the same.

The argument some are making is that having a gay male using the male bathroom or locker room puts them in a facility where they are attracted to the other people in that facility.


Its more that people who say are female but have a man 'who feels a woman' have to 'put up' with this male in their changing room.
Even if all that guy is doing is 'self identifying' as being a woman.


You make a good point. Should there even be an exception to the rules? The problem is that the military could usually be counted on as, for the most part, being a politically correct institution, or at least strive to be. So let's say that the lesbian in the bathroom actually harassed my wife instead of just gawking and making her feel uncomfortable. Do we just tell her to suck it up? What about a gay man harassing a dude in the showers? Tell him to deal with it out of the greater good? Before you know it, there may be quite a few people being harassed more often than you'd think. What do we tell those people? Sorry, you have to share private areas with people who are attracted to your sex. Unless they physically hurt you, just deal with it.

Its not just a gay man or lesbian woman though. Do you wish to have someone who physically is male (or female) but who feels they are Female (or male) using the shower/toilets while you are in there?

Mjölnir
07-01-2015, 10:40 AM
Its not just a gay man or lesbian woman though. Do you wish to have someone who physically is male (or female) but who feels they are Female (or male) using the shower/toilets while you are in there?

I don't 'wish' that ... I just don't care as long as they are observing the 'usual' locker room / bathroom etiquette.

In both Iraq & Afghanistan I used coed bathrooms with no issues. For a while the shower area was coed (small shower stalls with a small changing area outside each stall that could have a curtain pulled in front of it) and there were no issues ... people acted (wait for it ... ) professional.

Mjölnir
07-01-2015, 10:54 AM
Since when it is it sexual harassment to stare at someone? Certainly in the eyes of the law you can't be prosecuted for staring.


Sexual harassment? I don't know...

Actually yes, sexual harassment can include staring, leering or other looks that make someone feel uncomfortable ... Hostile non-sexual conduct (or language) directed at an employee because of his or her gender may create an actionable hostile environment. It was a topic of conversation at the Navy legal course I had to attend before becoming an XO.

Rainmaker
07-01-2015, 03:12 PM
Shouldn’t The Military start becoming more and not less selective as it draws down?

Shouldn't somebody with a mental disorder that leaves them so confused about what their gender actually is, be by definition unfit for duty?

Isn't somebody suffering from a severe mental disorder by it's very definition prejudicial to good order and discipline?

I recall a couple of people being boarded out over the years for Bi-polar or Manic Depression, as a potential danger to themselves and others. Guys feeling the urge to lop of their Johnsons and dress up like chicks seems way more extreme to me than that.

Are none of the Generals publicly speaking out against this? Or are We the public just left to conclude that all 500 of them are just marching in lockstep agreement with this insanity? I remember watching as young NCO as some of the more High Profile Generals spoke out against the Clinton admins attempts to lift the bans on Gay service.

Leaving the Gay thing out of it (because that train has already left the station). But, Everyone (in real life) I talk to seems to think this Trannys in the service thing is a bad idea. In what way does the Military actually benefit from this?

Mjölnir
07-01-2015, 03:37 PM
Shouldn’t The Military become more not less selective as it draws down?

Shouldn't somebody with a mental disorder that leaves them so confused about what their gender actually is, be by definition unfit for duty?

Isn't a severe mental disorder prejudicial to good order and discipline? I recall a couple of people being boarded out over the years for Bi-polar or Manic Depression.

You bring up a good point. I was working in Congress in 2013 and the Interagency Task Force on Military and Veterans Mental Health concluded that gender identity disorder ALONE was not seen as disqualifying from military service. I think one consideration that was pointed out then was if the disorder is prejudicial to good order and discipline. It seems today that most (not all, but most) of the younger generation have no issues with gender identity issues ... so is there really a problem with good order and discipline? As opposed to bi-polar or manic depression which would actually prevent someone from being able to do their job, handle stress etc. gender identity (in and of itself) is not vocationally debilitating in the same way ... not to say that gender identity disorder AND manic depression would / should also be compatible with service.


Are any of the Generals publicly speaking out against this? Or is the public just left to conclude that all 500 of them are just marching in lockstep agreement with this insanity? I remember as young troop High Profile Generals speaking out against the Clinton admin attempts to lift the bans on Gay service.

Depends actually ... per the law. For one and two star ... yeah ... it really isn't their position to disagree with the administration so long as the administration is following the law. All officer promotions are confirmed by the Senate, but three and four star promotions are confirmed by name and by billet, they are bound to follow Constitutional orders but are also advisers in the development of policy, but once we are out of the decision making phase and the President has made a decision, yeah ... legally bound to follow orders.

When a 3 or 4 star testifies before Congress they are not necessarily bound by law to support an administration policy. Particularly with the service chiefs Title 10 is very specific on their authority to provide recommendations to Congress after informing (note ... not "with the consent of") the Secretary of Defense.

{quote] Title 10 sec 151 - After first informing the Secretary of Defense, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may make such recommendations to Congress relating to the Department of Defense as he considers appropriate[/quote]

Contrary to belief, if you look you will see that often the service chiefs do not march in step with the Executive Branch and don't get drummed out or purged -- ref Gen Amos' testimony to Congress IRT the repeal of DADT --- he was steadfastly against it, he said so ... and he kept his job.

Rainmaker
07-01-2015, 04:52 PM
So in a nutshell the argument seems to be that if the kids don't care then it's not a problem...Hmm...Wonder what visionary socialist leftist think-tank came to that conclusion? Because, Rainmaker's own informal polling of young people (including his 22 year old son who just commissioned and is continuing training to be an Infantry Officer) shows that 100% of them think that this is not a very good idea.....

Admittedly, It's only been a couple of dozen people though and they are not Staff Officer LNO's at the District of Criminals, so the sample size may be too small to be valid......

But, for argument's sake Rainmaker will take your observation at face value and assume you are correct, then the thought train being that if the youth don't have a problem with it then it doesn't affect good order and discipline or esprit de corps.... that's all well and good. But, I'll ask again (with No malice intended) Because, You seem to be dancing all around it Sir.... How specifically does the Military Benefit from this recent changing of DoD POLICY (vice Law) to allow those with Gender Identity Disorder to serve? How does this make us better? How does this help my son?

Mjölnir
07-01-2015, 05:24 PM
But, I'll ask again (with No malice intended) Because, You seem to be dancing all around it Sir.... How specifically does the Military Benefit from this recent changing of DoD POLICY (vice Law) to allow those with Gender Identity Disorder to serve? How does this make us better? How does this help my son?

Not trying to dance around it ... didn't see that as part of the question before. I will answer them out of order:

The law, DADT was repealed, the DoD policy on transgendered individuals openly serving still exists but is likely on it's way out as the DoD has signaled via other policy changes.

How does this make the military better? How does this help your son? I would say the military benefits in that the pool of potential candidates for service are widened, thereby the talent pool is widened ... not every transgendered person may be the next Patton or Hopper, but there are some intelligent & smart people in that crowd too. Kristen Beck (formerly Chris Beck) was a Navy SeAL for 20 years for example; maybe the exception to the rule ... but I don't know.

How does this make us better? 'Us' ... as a society ... I think it is better to realize that things change over time, people's perceptions of what is right & wrong change over time. Almost 25 years ago when I came in the military the issue of transgender or homosexual service members serving openly would not have worked ... based on the way my peers and I were raised and the issue handled writ large back then. Much like how in the 1940's the thought of an African American commanding white service members would not have worked ... times changed. The big caveat on the whole thing is people have to act professionally.

Rainmaker
07-01-2015, 06:33 PM
Not trying to dance around it ... didn't see that as part of the question before. I will answer them out of order:

The law, DADT was repealed, the DoD policy on transgendered individuals openly serving still exists but is likely on it's way out as the DoD has signaled via other policy changes.

How does this make the military better? How does this help your son? I would say the military benefits in that the pool of potential candidates for service are widened, thereby the talent pool is widened ... not every transgendered person may be the next Patton or Hopper, but there are some intelligent & smart people in that crowd too. Kristen Beck (formerly Chris Beck) was a Navy SeAL for 20 years for example; maybe the exception to the rule ... but I don't know.

How does this make us better? 'Us' ... as a society ... I think it is better to realize that things change over time, people's perceptions of what is right & wrong change over time. Almost 25 years ago when I came in the military the issue of transgender or homosexual service members serving openly would not have worked ... based on the way my peers and I were raised and the issue handled writ large back then. Much like how in the 1940's the thought of an African American commanding white service members would not have worked ... times changed. The big caveat on the whole thing is people have to act professionally.

I see.... So, the answer is indeed that " In a resource constrained environment, Unilateral Executive Branch Changes in policy to allow Mentally Ill Transgenders (Formerly known as cross dressers) are necessary in order to give us a larger recruiting base. Diversity is Our Greatest Strength.".................. Preach it Brother. Out//

Mjölnir
07-01-2015, 08:05 PM
I see.... So, the answer is indeed that " In a resource constrained environment, Unilateral Executive Branch Changes in policy to allow Mentally Ill Transgenders (Formerly known as cross dressers) are necessary in order to give us a larger recruiting base. Diversity is Our Greatest Strength.".................. Preach it Brother. Out//

I think the answer is treating people fairly is the proper thing to do. As far as how does it make the military better, yes ... one benefit is a larger recruiting base.

INGUARD
07-02-2015, 11:32 AM
I found this article about the children of gay marriage very interesting.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/dawn-stefanowicz/warning-canada-same-sex-marriage-erodes-fundamental-rights

And when I hear about a priest being spat on at a gay parade, I see the intolerance on their side as well.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

Bos Mutus
07-02-2015, 02:30 PM
I found this article about the children of gay marriage very interesting.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/dawn-stefanowicz/warning-canada-same-sex-marriage-erodes-fundamental-rights

I saw a similar article the other day...it was more about the children...lots of statistics, etc. about how children are better off with their biological opposite sex parents...

Well and good. That's probably true. I'm wondering how banning same-sex marriage would've helped the author and others like her be raised by her two biological parents? If same-sex marriage were illegal, does she think her father would've just "not been gay" and stayed with her mother? I don't think so.

What scenario makes these children be raised by their biological parents? Outlawing gay marriage? Or outlawing homosexuality completely? Or outlawing divorce? If the parent is gay, they aren't going to stop being gay and stay married to their other parent for lack of the right to marry a same-sex partner..

The author doesn't say what happened to her mother...but was she really torn away from her mother and raised by her Dad and his partner simply because same-sex marriage was legalized? I doubt that.

So, I think "Children of heterosexual couples vs. children of homosexual couples" is the wrong question....at that point, I think the option of being raised by two loving parents in a healthy opposite-sex marriage probably no longer applies.

Let's try "Are children of homosexuals better off if their parent can be married to their partner or better off if their parent lives in a non-marriage homosexual relationship?"

Does the marriage of a homosexual parent create a more stable environment or more problems for the child of a homosexual?

Are the adopted kids of a same-sex marriage better off being raised by a stable, committed same-sex married couple...same-sex unmarried couple...or being kept in the foster care system/orphanage or whatever they have in Canada?

...as far as the rest of her article, that same-sex marriage leads to loss of Freedom of Speech, etc. I don't necessarily see the connection and I wouldn't support any of the stuff she talks about.

Her idea that "Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms."..."some" is true of just about every group.

Did you know "some people who fly Confederate Flags are racists and support Dylan Roof"
"some people who oppose same-sex marriage want to have homosexuality punishable by death"
"some of the people who oppose same-sex marriage are neo-Nazis who also want to ethnically cleanse America"

...it's bullshit...some of every group is part of something more disagreeable. You can be in favor of same-sex marriage from a libertarian point of view...


And when I hear about a priest being spat on at a gay parade, I see the intolerance on their side as well.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court


Whoever spat on someone at this parade should be arrested and charged with assault....not acceptable.

Mjölnir
07-02-2015, 03:10 PM
I saw a similar article the other day...it was more about the children...lots of statistics, etc. about how children are better off with their biological opposite sex parents...

Well and good. That's probably true. I'm wondering how banning same-sex marriage would've helped the author and others like her be raised by her two biological parents? If same-sex marriage were illegal, does she think her father would've just "not been gay" and stayed with her mother? I don't think so.

What scenario makes these children be raised by their biological parents? Outlawing gay marriage? Or outlawing homosexuality completely? Or outlawing divorce? If the parent is gay, they aren't going to stop being gay and stay married to their other parent for lack of the right to marry a same-sex partner..

The author doesn't say what happened to her mother...but was she really torn away from her mother and raised by her Dad and his partner simply because same-sex marriage was legalized? I doubt that.

So, I think "Children of heterosexual couples vs. children of homosexual couples" is the wrong question....at that point, I think the option of being raised by two loving parents in a healthy opposite-sex marriage probably no longer applies.

Let's try "Are children of homosexuals better off if their parent can be married to their partner or better off if their parent lives in a non-marriage homosexual relationship?"

Does the marriage of a homosexual parent create a more stable environment or more problems for the child of a homosexual?

Are the adopted kids of a same-sex marriage better off being raised by a stable, committed same-sex married couple...same-sex unmarried couple...or being kept in the foster care system/orphanage or whatever they have in Canada?

...as far as the rest of her article, that same-sex marriage leads to loss of Freedom of Speech, etc. I don't necessarily see the connection and I wouldn't support any of the stuff she talks about.

Her idea that "Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms."..."some" is true of just about every group.

Did you know "some people who fly Confederate Flags are racists and support Dylan Roof"
"some people who oppose same-sex marriage want to have homosexuality punishable by death"
"some of the people who oppose same-sex marriage are neo-Nazis who also want to ethnically cleanse America"

...it's bullshit...some of every group is part of something more disagreeable. You can be in favor of same-sex marriage from a libertarian point of view...




Whoever spat on someone at this parade should be arrested and charged with assault....not acceptable.

You make a lot of great points. I won't argue that a child being raised by the biological parents is best for the child ... the caveat that is if the parents are in a healthy relationship. The question is, when that isn't an option, what is next? Is a child being raised by a heterosexual couple the next best option, and then what is next? At some point I think a child being raised by a loving set of parents (regardless of MF, MM, FF etc.) is better than a child being raised in an institution or in random & rotating foster care. In the past we have fostered children ... and the system while helping kids, also does a lot to screw them up.

Now, an interesting and compelling counterpoint to that is the argument about divorce. I have heard a few people make the point that once you have kids, your life is no longer yours. You live your life for the sake of your kids -- which means (to some) stay in that (dysfunctional) relationship for the sake of the children and do not let the children observe or know that the relationship is soured. If the relationship is abusive, then get out but do not remarry and commit to raising your child on your own until the child is 18. While this logic is at face value very unselfish ... there are also issues with it.

As a child who grew up with an abusive father who often was violent with my mother, my mother later in life has touted her staying with my dad as in the best interests of my brother and I -- something we didn't want her doing and that as we got into our young teens we verbalized. Honestly I would have preferred that the marriage dissolved long before it did ... both for her safety & long term happiness.

USN - Retired
07-02-2015, 07:02 PM
Here's an interesting story on CNN about polygamy...

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/07/02/polygamist-applies-for-marriage-license-pkg.ktvq

Homosexual marriage is now legal, so why isn't polygamy also legal?

Mjölnir
07-02-2015, 09:10 PM
Here's an interesting story on CNN about polygamy...

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/07/02/polygamist-applies-for-marriage-license-pkg.ktvq

Homosexual marriage is now legal, so why isn't polygamy also legal?

It seems to be at least an issue that needs to be discussed.

If the concept is that marriage can / should exist between couples of the same gender based on inclusion, fairness for all, justice etc. should that also hold true for polygamists?

From a legal perspective it is a compelling argument.

I can see more objections being raised on religious or moral interpretations than on clearly legal / constitutional grounds.

Bos Mutus
07-02-2015, 10:03 PM
As a libertarian, I fully support the rights of gays to marry. Why not? It doesn't impact my life whatsoever. To each his own.


Just about verbatim what I was going to post.

I support gay marriage...not sure I'm in line with there being a constitutional right to it.

Admittedly, I haven't fully read the arguments for and against...but I'm thinking there could possibly be a compelling governmental interest in supporting/encouraging opposite-sex couples to commit into legally recognized relationships over others...

If it's all about the children...there could even be a compelling interest to recognize couples who beget, bear and raise biological children...and not provide the same recognition/benefits to childless couples, older couples beyond child bearing years, adoptive parents. I dunno. It's conceivable...not saying I support that, but it's conceivable that the ability to selectively endorse specific kinds of relationships over others, as long as they can demonstrate the compelling govt. interest can be justified.

The govt. encourages a lot of behavior that it prefers, supposedly under the guise that it benefits society/collective interests...solar energy investment, charitable giving, home purchase, use of accredited educational institutions...most of these are encouraged through the use of tax breaks, but there might be some other benefits, too.

Not that they should "ban" other relationships, but not be compelled to provide the same benefit as the ones the govt/society wants to encourage.

This seems a little to me like someone saying, "Well if the govt. provides tax-free status to charitable donations, then it must also provide tax-free status to non-charitable donations under the Equal Protection Clause"

The pure libertarian would say...get the govt. out of all of it...no recognition for any marriage, nor any donation...it's easy to agree with that on principle, but there are some practical ramifications as we've discussed in other threads.

Now, if it goes up to vote on whether or not my state or the country should allow and recognize same-sex marriage...I'd vote "Yes." and would prefer everyone did....but the SCOTUS deciding it as a Constitutional right, I'm not completely on board with.

Bos Mutus
07-02-2015, 10:42 PM
These kind of things would need to be handled at the unit level.

This is exactly the answer to all the shower, shitter, bedroom, etc. issues...they can all be worked out better when you know the individual people involved and make an amicable solution. Overbearing "departmental policy" will always create fiascos somewhere.


As far as the transgendered Army person I have seen a little information on that. The big issue there is different fitness standards for men and women. I would just make one basic fitness requirement for all genders. It would match the minimum amount required to perform one's job. It has been said often on here but when was the last time an Air Force member had to run 1.5 miles in combat?

Yeah...this is the same thing with sports participation...when we have transpersons competing in sports...seems unfair. There is that male-to-female trans that is currently competing in MMA...that ain't right.


If you want gender equality you can't set different standards for men and women. The standard has to be whatever is required to do the job. If that's too high for most women then I guess they can't handle the job. You don't lower the standard to accommodate them.

Job standards, yes. Fitness standards are not job performance standards though...they are supposed to be health and wellness standards. Like your blood pressure. The whole implementation of fitness is out of whack...designed and administered by personnelists instead of medical professionals...they are more about image than fitness, health or wellness...leadership just wants people that look fit, that's what's driving all of this...general halftrack drives around and sees a fatty belly up at the chow hall and says "I'm gonna put a stop to this...look at that slob."...the rest is trying to find out a moral justification for not liking fat people.

garhkal
07-03-2015, 07:03 AM
I think the answer is treating people fairly is the proper thing to do. As far as how does it make the military better, yes ... one benefit is a larger recruiting base.

Seeing as how standards imo keep getting lowered, just to 'keep that diverse large base" i wouldn't consider it a benefit.


You make a lot of great points. I won't argue that a child being raised by the biological parents is best for the child ... the caveat that is if the parents are in a healthy relationship. The question is, when that isn't an option, what is next? Is a child being raised by a heterosexual couple the next best option, and then what is next? At some point I think a child being raised by a loving set of parents (regardless of MF, MM, FF etc.) is better than a child being raised in an institution or in random & rotating foster care. In the past we have fostered children ... and the system while helping kids, also does a lot to screw them up.

I say in order of preference..
A) Biological mom and dad,
B) Biological mom OR dad (if one is dead or they have already split/divorced etc)
C) Heterosexual parents that foster them
D) Homosexual parents that foster them.



Now, an interesting and compelling counterpoint to that is the argument about divorce. I have heard a few people make the point that once you have kids, your life is no longer yours. You live your life for the sake of your kids -- which means (to some) stay in that (dysfunctional) relationship for the sake of the children and do not let the children observe or know that the relationship is soured. If the relationship is abusive, then get out but do not remarry and commit to raising your child on your own until the child is 18. While this logic is at face value very unselfish ... there are also issues with it.

I have heard that many times too, that once you have kids, your life is no longer your own, it belongs to your kid(s).


As a child who grew up with an abusive father who often was violent with my mother, my mother later in life has touted her staying with my dad as in the best interests of my brother and I -- something we didn't want her doing and that as we got into our young teens we verbalized. Honestly I would have preferred that the marriage dissolved long before it did ... both for her safety & long term happiness.

I grew up with divorced parents, and know plenty of well adjusted kids who did the same. Its imo NOT the divorce itself that creates the issue, but how much is pushed onto the kid(s).


It seems to be at least an issue that needs to be discussed.

If the concept is that marriage can / should exist between couples of the same gender based on inclusion, airness for all, justice etc. should that also hold true for polygamists?

From a legal perspective it is a compelling argument.

I can see more objections being raised on religious or moral interpretations than on clearly legal / constitutional grounds.

Since Polygamy has had more of a historical basis than gay marriage, and has had several religions where it was allowed (and in 2 cases still is) i see MORE of a legal basis for it being allowed than Gay marriage.

INGUARD
07-03-2015, 08:20 AM
Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret)

As a libertarian, I fully support the rights of gays to marry. Why not? It doesn't impact my life whatsoever. To each his own.

Also, the sale of marijuana across the US does not bother me. Also, they should legalize prostitution in each and every state (many live too far from Nevada) because it does not impact my life whatsoever. A woman can get paid for porn but if she does it outside of it to make money, then its illegal. This should fall under whatever she wants to do with her body (just like the abortion debate), then what is the problem?

Legalize polygamy, brother/sister or brother/brother or sister/sister father/daugher relationships (like Mackenzie Phillips and her Dad) that wants to get married in the name of the love. Maybe if the liberals can put more shows on Netflix that shows those taboo things in a positive light (like the show Big Love) then why not? Muslim faiths and Mormons enjoy polygamy, so why not here for all? Let's spread the vast infinite benefit of social security to all types of marriages.

The Catholic Church has to change their doctrine for Priests to marry in the name of love.

An adult should be able to marry a consenting adult at 15 instead of 18 because Europeans and Asians males do not get punished for statutory rape with teenage girls at 16. Since we used that argument comparing ourselves with other nations in regards to gay marriage and women in combat, the same should apply here. No issues there, so it definitely should not be any issues over here.

I been told to evolve about gay marriage, then we should evolve not bashing the Confederate flag. Puerto Ricans bombed buildings in NYC and shot the Capitol up in the 50s due to love of their flag and the Black Panthers as well. Then every flag that is not a US or state flag needs to be put in a museum.

Trust me, I have evolved. I am the first since the New Deal that broke the cycle of welfare in my family. I am the first in my family to attain a graduate degree. I am the one of the new off-springs in my family to actually been with one spouse for over two decades and actually raised my biological children.

Yes, I have evolved.

I an an Independent/Conservative.

Since Polygamy has had more of a historical basis than gay marriage, and has had several religions where it was allowed (and in 2 cases still is) i see MORE of a legal basis for it being allowed than Gay marriage. <---BTW +1 for Garkhal.

Mjölnir
07-03-2015, 01:52 PM
Seeing as how standards imo keep getting lowered, just to 'keep that diverse large base" i wouldn't consider it a benefit.

There has been talk of changing some recruitment standards:

-raising maximum allowable ages for recruitment.
-expanded waivers for minor criminal histories.

There was a lot of talk when the proposal to open combat arms to females was floated that the standards would be lowered, hasn't happened.

In contrast, test score requirements for many fields have gone up ... a tightening of standards.

I don't know if any of the tweaking of standards (up or down) is really targeting 'diversity' in the recruiting base as much as widening the recruiting base overall.

Currently about 25% of Americans are too fat to enlist. To an extent I think loosening that standard could be done, I can PT the hell out of you to make you shed fat -- we used a similar concept when screening Marines for reconnaissance units. A candidate may fall a bit short on a run time or a pull up ... but we were evaluating their effort. We could always make someone with the right character stronger ... while strong candidates with no character were routinely rejected.

Mjölnir
07-03-2015, 02:01 PM
Muslim faiths and Mormons enjoy polygamy, so why not here for all?


When you say "Mormons" ... most people assume you are talking about the church headquartered in Salt Lake City, which does not endorse nor practice polygamy. Mormons have not practiced polygamy for quite some time ... as in 1890.

There was a break off section of the Latter Day Saint (LDS) church that continued practicing polygamy and formally established itself as teh Fundamental Latter Day Saint Church in 1954 ... there are about 6,000 of them. There are a few other very small 'sects' ... but all of those are far removed from the "Mormon" church.

Rainmaker
07-03-2015, 02:35 PM
There was a lot of talk when the proposal to open combat arms to females was floated that the standards would be lowered, hasn't happened.

.

Really you don't think so? My Father was instructor at the Airborne school in 70's when they lowered the standards for everyone to make sure that more women could complete it.

When I graduated in 94 (it was pretty much a cake walk) he used to joke that he'd gone to the jump school in the 1950's were they taught you to be a paratrooper and I'd gone to the one where they taught you to jump out of airplanes. The stories he told of their training was way more than anything we ever did. Pops wasn't the type of person to exaggerate.

Absinthe Anecdote
07-03-2015, 02:42 PM
When you say "Mormons" ... most people assume you are talking about the church headquartered in Salt Lake City, which does not endorse nor practice polygamy. Mormons have not practiced polygamy for quite some time ... as in 1890.

There was a break off section of the Latter Day Saint (LDS) church that continued practicing polygamy and formally established itself as teh Fundamental Latter Day Saint Church in 1954 ... there are about 6,000 of them. There are a few other very small 'sects' ... but all of those are far removed from the "Mormon" church.

I don't think you are looking at this the right way. The point is to get into a panic about what comes next now that gay marriage is allowed in all 50 states.

Getting worked into a frenzy about polygamy is the logical next step. As a matter of fact, I'd like to up the ante and encourage people to fear that triple-gay polygamy is on the horizon.

I predict that there will be gay Taliban Sheiks in the deserts of Arizona soon tending herds of free-range sheep and jing jing boys.

Absinthe Anecdote
07-03-2015, 02:51 PM
Really you don't think so? My Father was instructor at the Airborne school in 70's when they lowered the standards for everyone to make sure that more women could complete it.

When I graduated in 94 (it was pretty much a cake walk) he used to joke that he'd gone to the jump school in the 1950's were they taught you to be a paratrooper and I'd gone to the one where they taught you to jump out of airplanes. The stories he told of their training was way more than anything we ever did. Pops wasn't the type of person to exaggerate.

Stick to telling that one in a VFW Post, you'll get a couple of free PBRs.

The next generation will see the deployment of ground combat drones that will make things like jump school obsolete.

If you think that training standards and methods should remain the same over the course of 60 years, you aren't being realistic.

Not to mention your belief that culture and attitudes should stay the same. Like I said, if you want to live in the past, go hang out at a VFW Post.

Mjölnir
07-03-2015, 03:48 PM
Really you don't think so? My Father was instructor at the Airborne school in 70's when they lowered the standards for everyone to make sure that more women could complete it.

When I graduated in 94 (it was pretty much a cake walk) he used to joke that he'd gone to the jump school in the 1950's were they taught you to be a paratrooper and I'd gone to the one where they taught you to jump out of airplanes. The stories he told of their training was way more than anything we ever did. Pops wasn't the type of person to exaggerate.

I was referring to the talk (the serious SECDEF level talk) that has been going around since 2012 IRT introducing women into combat arms (infantry, artillery, tanks etc.) Several USMC females have completed infantry school (enlisted) without changing the standard (which having done it is no cake walk) -- no females have completed Infantry Officer School to date, women have attended but not yet graduated from Ranger school as well. I think an important point here is the data gathering. I am not in favor of changing the standard solely to allow women a better chance of graduating. At the same time, if the standard is to be able to get over an 8 foot wall that is much easier for a male (based on the avg height of a male vs. avg height of a female.) Is the standard an 8 foot wall because that is the standard height of a wall or because it was an arbitrary number picked years ago ... if it is the latter I think it could be altered without negatively impacting the training value.

IRT the change in the Basic Airborne Course, it isn't designed to train Paratroopers ... it is in fact designed (in it's current inception) to teach people how to jump out of a plane and land safely (at least as safely as possible.) The expansion of who 'needed' to be airborne qualified to MOS's outside of combat arms drove the change not a desire to qualify females. Simply put -- not everyone with jump wings is a paratrooper.

Women attend Pathfinder (I also attended & graduated), where the course of instruction has remained virtually unchanged (technology updates but no changes to the physical requirements) for decades ... that is no cake walk either.

USN - Retired
07-03-2015, 04:05 PM
Getting worked into a frenzy about polygamy in the logical next step.

Who is getting worked into a frenzy about polygamy? Is there a problem with polygamous marriage? Should polygamous marriage be illegal? If so, then why?

Absinthe Anecdote
07-03-2015, 04:11 PM
Who is getting worked into a frenzy about polygamy? Is there a problem with polygamous marriage? Should polygamous marriage be illegal? If so, then why?

I'm not. Frankly, I don't give a shit if some fool wants to have more than one wife.

USN - Retired
07-03-2015, 04:49 PM
I'm not. Frankly, I don't give a shit if some fool wants to have more than one wife.

It appears that the vast majority of people in this country must "give a shit" about polygamy, because polygamy is illegal. Nancy Grace has said that Kody Brown (of the TV show "Sister Wives") should be thrown in jail. I suspect that many people in this country agree with Nancy Grace (Note: I do not agree with Nancy Grace on that issue).

Absinthe Anecdote
07-03-2015, 05:06 PM
It appears that the vast majority of people in this country must "give a shit" about polygamy, because polygamy is illegal. Nancy Grace has said that Kody Brown (of the TV show "Sister Wives") should be thrown in jail. I suspect that many people in this country agree with Nancy Grace (Note: I do not agree with Nancy Grace on that issue).

I only commented on it because a few people on this forum are in a panic over homosexuals getting married, or in communal showers. It sounds like an issue the "society is crumbling" crowd gets in a frenzy about.

I forgot you are pro-polygamy.

It isn't an issue that concerns me one way or another. It sounds like something only dumbasses are into if you ask me.

I really don't care about it.

garhkal
07-03-2015, 05:16 PM
Also, the sale of marijuana across the US does not bother me. Also, they should legalize prostitution in each and every state (many live too far from Nevada) because it does not impact my life whatsoever. A woman can get paid for porn but if she does it outside of it to make money, then its illegal. This should fall under whatever she wants to do with her body (just like the abortion debate), then what is the problem?

I disagree on MJ, but if they are going to do that, then why not go hole hock and legalize ALL drugs.. If the arguments for legalizing MJ is it is safer and gets it away from the criminals, then the same should apply to crack, or heroin.
And i have long agreed that Prostitution (NOT sex trafficing) should be legal. Do like Nevada does, and make it licensed. That does away (or at least makes it a lot harder) for underage girls to be pimped out. It should also do away with pimps in general and make things safer for both the girls and the clients.



An adult should be able to marry a consenting adult at 15 instead of 18 because Europeans and Asians males do not get punished for statutory rape with teenage girls at 16. Since we used that argument comparing ourselves with other nations in regards to gay marriage and women in combat, the same should apply here. No issues there, so it definitely should not be any issues over here.

That is a valid point. Those in charge DO like bringing up other countries and what they do in relation to Gay marriage/women in combat etc to show it should be allowed here. So why not do the same with age of consent for sex. I would LOVE to see the figures for whether Europe has a bigger or smaller problem in relation to under 18s getting pregnant.



Since Polygamy has had more of a historical basis than gay marriage, and has had several religions where it was allowed (and in 2 cases still is) i see MORE of a legal basis for it being allowed than Gay marriage. <---BTW +1 for Garkhal.

Thanks.


I'm not. Frankly, I don't give a shit if some fool wants to have more than one wife.

Technically most men already do (well one wife and one mistress)..


It appears that the vast majority of people in this country must "give a shit" about polygamy, because polygamy is illegal. Nancy Grace has said that Kody Brown (of the TV show "Sister Wives") should be thrown in jail. I suspect that many people in this country agree with Nancy Grace (Note: I do not agree with Nancy Grace on that issue).

Has there ever been any public referendum on this? Or is that based off watching some TV shows?
Remember, gay marriage (just as interracial marriage) used to also be considered illegal.

USN - Retired
07-03-2015, 07:45 PM
I only commented on it because a few people on this forum are in a panic over homosexuals getting married, or in communal showers. It sounds like an issue the "society is crumbling" crowd gets in a frenzy about.

I forgot you are pro-polygamy.

It isn't an issue that concerns me one way or another. It sounds like something only dumbasses are into if you ask me.

I really don't care about it.

Was homosexual marriage ever an issue of greater importance, interest and/or concern than polygamous marriage to you? If yes, then why?

Should homosexual marriage be an issue of greater importance, interest and/or concern than polygamous marriage to our country? If it should, then why?

Absinthe Anecdote
07-03-2015, 08:35 PM
Was homosexual marriage ever an issue of greater importance, interest and/or concern than polygamous marriage to you? If yes, then why?

Should homosexual marriage be an issue of greater importance, interest and/or concern than polygamous marriage to our country? If it should, then why?

The LGBT movement organized themselves and launched a media campaign that lasted decades until it proved successful.

I'm not an activist for anything, but I do support gay marriage. Why?

The LGBT community raised the issue enough until people had it on their minds. They communicated their message to me, and I decided to support them. They also won a lot of public support and eventually got it past the Supreme Court.

Polygamy? I don't care, and it seems like the only ones who do are fringe people. If polygamists want it bad enough, let them get organized and take it to court, let them launch a successful media campaign to put the issue on the minds of the American public.

Otherwise, I don't care.

I will say that it seems unconstitutional for the government to be involved with who marries who.

What is your fucking point with polygamy anyway?

USN - Retired
07-04-2015, 08:32 PM
The LGBT movement organized themselves and launched a media campaign that lasted decades until it proved successful.

I'm not an activist for anything, but I do support gay marriage. Why?

The LGBT community raised the issue enough until people had it on their minds. They communicated their message to me, and I decided to support them. They also won a lot of public support and eventually got it past the Supreme Court.

Any schmuck can easily support a cause when the cause is politically correct.


What is your fucking point with polygamy anyway?

I don't need a point because I am a troll. I just enjoy making you dance with your hypocrisy. Have a nice day.

Absinthe Anecdote
07-05-2015, 12:01 PM
Any schmuck can easily support a cause when the cause is politically correct.



I don't need a point because I am a troll. I just enjoy making you dance with your hypocrisy. Have a nice day.

Nice, I like the way you edited my quote to strengthen your claim of hypocrisy.

That is some pretty weak trolling.

Rainmaker
07-06-2015, 05:17 PM
I was referring to the talk (the serious SECDEF level talk) that has been going around since 2012 IRT introducing women into combat arms (infantry, artillery, tanks etc.) Several USMC females have completed infantry school (enlisted) without changing the standard (which having done it is no cake walk) -- no females have completed Infantry Officer School to date, women have attended but not yet graduated from Ranger school as well. I think an important point here is the data gathering. I am not in favor of changing the standard solely to allow women a better chance of graduating.

There's No doubt that given enough time there are a few women who can do it. and they will just keep cycling the chicks through training till they get sufficient numbers to declare the victory that they're already pre-determined to declare.

The problem though comes after they get the first couple of Olympic Caliber Athletes with Hairy Nipples through the Selection process and then they have to make sure that there's enough numbers of them to Normalize it throughout the institution. Then what?

If you can stomach reading "General" Dempsey's DC Mouth full of Dick Speak he talks about that here when he says...

"The other part of the equation, of course, is in order to account for their safety and their success in those kinds of units, we got to have enough of them so that they have mentors and leaders above them -- you know, you wouldn't want to take one woman who can meet a standard and put her in a particular unit. You know, not -- the issue there wouldn't be privacy. It would be, you know, where's her ability to have upward mobility and compete for command if she's one of one?"

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5183


At the same time, if the standard is to be able to get over an 8 foot wall that is much easier for a male (based on the avg height of a male vs. avg height of a female.) Is the standard an 8 foot wall because that is the standard height of a wall or because it was an arbitrary number picked years ago ... if it is the latter I think it could be altered without negatively impacting the training value.

If it's taken 3 years and yet only 8 women have made through the RAP just to even get into school, then you'd really have to question How many more could even do it (without lowering standards). Hell, there was even an article here in the times about most women not even wanting this.


IRT the change in the Basic Airborne Course, it isn't designed to train Paratroopers ... it is in fact designed (in it's current inception) to teach people how to jump out of a plane and land safely (at least as safely as possible.) The expansion of who 'needed' to be airborne qualified to MOS's outside of combat arms drove the change not a desire to qualify females. Simply put -- not everyone with jump wings is a paratrooper.

Right. Paratroopers no longer exist. Because, This is Exactly what happened to the Airborne and why the Rangers pretty much took over that mission. There's no military necessity for this (other than to advance the Social Justice Crowd's Agenda). But, hey whatever floats your boat. Because, when they lower the standards to create combat Barbie (and make no mistake they will) it's your legacy they're destroying. Not Mine. I was Air Force.


Women attend Pathfinder (I also attended & graduated), where the course of instruction has remained virtually unchanged (technology updates but no changes to the physical requirements) for decades ... that is no cake walk either

Yeah I hear that is a hard course. . We had a few females going thru the Air Assault School at Ft. Rucker with me 20+ years ago. I'd say it was about as physically challenging as Fort Hill High School's Summer Football camp was (without the hitting part). Anyhow, On The last day they had us do a 12 mile ruck march. I recall the couple girls that didn't wash out (and even a few guys) stumbling across the finish line in just under the 3 hours time limit while everyone cheered them on . They were totally wrecked. It was pretty much a joke.

Rainmaker
07-06-2015, 06:47 PM
Stick to telling that one in a VFW Post, you'll get a couple of free PBRs.

The next generation will see the deployment of ground combat drones that will make things like jump school obsolete.

If you think that training standards and methods should remain the same over the course of 60 years, you aren't being realistic.

Not to mention your belief that culture and attitudes should stay the same. Like I said, if you want to live in the past, go hang out at a VFW Post.

Yeah, the Sky net's here.....But, the real question is.... How did you even have time to post this? I thought we were supposedly in DEFCON Threat Level Magenta Delta 4 all weekend?....

You mean to tell me While Rainmaker was down at VFW pounding PBR's with the Tea Party, you weren't diligently reading the UPI Newswire and keeping us safe from the scary boogie man ISIL terrorists with Confederate flags?

So, Just Who in the Hell was watching the store!!???

A lot of good the tech panacea has done us so far..... Here we are a decade and half and couple trillion dollars later and you cats can't even find 60 hardcore goat herders with box cutters (Hint to the NSA watching us: They ain't at the Sarasota VFW guys).

Why, Can't you assholes just go over to mosque in Silver Spring, MD and round 'em up and start justifying your obscene budget?

UncaRastus
07-06-2015, 07:24 PM
Rainmaker,

The first time I read your comment, I thought that you had keyboarded in tech pancakes!

I don't know about techies, but I do love me my pancakes!

Rainmaker
07-06-2015, 07:40 PM
Rainmaker,

The first time I read your comment, I thought that you had keyboarded in tech pancakes!

I don't know about techies, but I do love me my pancakes!

Just trying to throw some fancy words in there to impresses the MTF intelligentsia. NomSayin?

Mjölnir
07-06-2015, 11:27 PM
http://tommcfarlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/writes-fancy-words-like-a-sir.jpg

garhkal
07-07-2015, 05:39 AM
There's No doubt that given enough time there are a few women who can do it. and they will just keep cycling the chicks through training till they get sufficient numbers to declare the victory that they're already pre-determined to declare. .
I am just waiting for the day some star, gets the bright idea, to 'allow women to retake the test more than men do;, just so they can get improvements in the # of passers.

UncaRastus
07-07-2015, 02:37 PM
Garhkal,

The other day I asked my wife to make me a sandwich, to which she replied, "Poof! You're a sandwich!"

While Angie was at the hospital to be with our daughter while Christine was birthing a baby, Christine asked someone in the hospital via phone, to please make her a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The woman in the kitchen asked her how to make a peanut butter sandwich.

What has become of our nation's sandwich makers? As men, we have lost yet another male oriented activity!

When will this stop?

OK, so I make better sandwiches than my wife does. I usually make her sandwiches. Still ...

Like when I politely ask her to make a turkey breast sandwich, she makes it with one thin slice right out of the deli package of thinly sliced turkey breast. She lets the bread sniff the mayo. What kind of sandwich is that?

I believe that over all of our years together, that Angie just sabotages my sandwiches, just to make the point that I should make my own.

On the other hand, I have watched her consistently either burn meals, or make them so under done that even our cat won't touch them.

Since the second year of our marriage started, for self preservation, I have taken to cooking our meals.

Bless Angie's heart, but since she has placed on a certain medication, her sense of taste has been nullified. Having her even attempt to make a meal scares the life out of me!

Rainmaker
07-07-2015, 03:26 PM
http://tommcfarlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/writes-fancy-words-like-a-sir.jpg

Who is that Natty Boh imposter?