Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Comfort. It's the same for men and women, because it's the same. I'm not sure how you can break it down any further. I gave you a chance to explain otherwise and you have failed to give any other reason. Segregation preferences are because of comfort levels.



Back to the "irrelevant" responses. You guys have to come up with a better response when you know you're wrong.

My entire argument is that it's possible for people not to want to share rooms or showers with homosexuals and not be bigots. My proof is that women have the same reasons against doing those same activities with men and they aren't frown upon. For whatever reason, men are called names for expressing the same exact feelings towards homosexual men. This double standard proves that it is possible to not want to share rooms or showers with homosexuals and not be bigots, which is what women do all of the time, which is my point. Therefore, that is 115% relevant.

I would like for you to show otherwise or even better yet just admit that it's a double standard.

I'm not naive, I realize that there might be scenarios where double standards maybe "better", but you wont even admit that it exists in this situation or that it is relevant.



Oh, so now you agree with my previous argument about "image" and that the rules would have to change first and not just allow homosexuals in... Wow, you guys are really agreeing with me now.. 2011 is going to be a good year. That's two 40+ threads that has ended in agreement.



I'm not failing at all. You're just ignoring all the points and labeling them as "irrelevant" when you can't counter them.

You stated that men have been sharing with homosexuals all the time before so it wouldn't be any different.

I countered to say that they have been sharing rooms and showers, but under the assumption that they were heterosexual and that was the whole point of DADT.

You countered with the nonsense that DADT was stating "You WILL be showering with homosexuals"..

I countered that nonsense to point out that wasn't the point of DADT, else sodomy and homosexuality wouldn't be punishable under UCMJ. Instead of you admitting that you were wrong on the concept of DADT, you decided to say that the rules will change anyway, which was never the point of the discussion.

Nice try. It really isn't that hard to say "My bad, I was wrong". You actually become more credible that way.



As I told Sir X earlier. The point in equality is to treat everyone the same unless there is some form of justification. Your only reason is that men are men and women are women. What is the justification of the discrimination? If we start treating people different because they have vaginas and plump, tender, nice and round breasts, where does it stop? There has to be some justification beyond that.

Side story.. I was talking with a co-worker and she was saying that she hopes that she doesn't get put in admin because she doesn't have a *****. Typically, women do that position more than men. According to your logic, you approve of such nonsense. "Administration.. That's a WOMAN's Job! We can't have men and women sharing jobs or offices!" Taking a step back aren't we?



You're right, I didn't make an argument to maintain DADT because that was never my goal. You're just attaching your own feelings to my argument. Once again, my point is that it is possible for people not to want to room and shower with homosexuals and not be a bigot.




My entire point is for these posters just accept the fact that there is nothing wrong with a man not wanting to shower or room with a homosexual. That's all.. Nothing more and nothing less. People are just making a big deal out of nothing.

If you're showering with the rest of the army, you sure are.

So, like I said, I am not showering with homosexuals.. If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.

Accept what? There's nothing to accept. There is no privacy issue.

Everyone lives in a barracks at some point. If he's in the service he's had a butt-f'ucker staring at his gaping rusty sheriff's badge.

Maybe Alma is handicapped and gets one of them special shower stalls.

Hahaha... that must be it.


To the repeal of DADT? Nope, not even a little.


Nothing in it for me. The Commander-in-Chief decided it doesn't wash. The Dept. of Defense decided it doesn't wash. A majority of service members decided it doesn't wash. A super-majority of Congress decided it doesn't wash.

Any convincing needs to come from you, not me.


I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. The DADT repeal legislation has always said that the repeal would follow a review and revision of the military rules given that the current rules were based on the DADT legislation in the 93-94 appropriations bill; that's just a simple issue of procedure. I haven't posted much in this thread... perhaps you were arguing with someone else? I have said that people like Gbaji and Varrus were wrong when they insisted that there was some other legislation that we were thrust back into with the passage of the DADT repeal act. Maybe you were misunderstanding that. Anyway, beats me.

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 3:32pm by Jophiel

Of course we do. You just won't accept it. You can't seem to understand that the showering situation has to do with anatomy and not sexual attraction.

That's not our problem.

No, they are, at least in their mind.

You don't seem to know much about how the majority of bigots tend to think and act. They don't gallivant around in white robes, yelling nigger, and throwing bricks through windows.

If you happen to be bored, I suggest you take some time to browse around the stormfront message boards (a self proclaimed white nationalist and racial realist community). These are what the vast majority of bigots are like. They are generally decent people who aren't typically violent towards nonwhites. They largely advocate political and personal change. They are interested in having discussion and debates about race, and have facts and data they believe supports their opinions and arguments. Honestly, they're fairly reasonable people; they just happen to be wrong about a few things and unwilling to change their opinion on those topics. They're very much aware many other people think they're bigots, and they think those people are wrong.

Modern bigots are very much in denial, because being a bigot is seen nearly universally as a negative quality. Bigots don't think they're bigots. They think they are those who have examined the facts more closely than others and come up with a better, more correct answer. They take a statistic that could very reasonable be taken to support their stance, and choose to use it. A disproportionate number of crimes are committed by blacks, and without considering many other factors could be reasonably used to justify separating blacks and whites.

Modern bigotry is mostly about cognitive biases.

edit: I really can't say nigger here? Was this because of Varus?

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 4:35pm by Allegory

I believe the asylum has a separate set of word filters that allow for more crude speech. I assumed we could write almost anything in here.

I also have the nagging feeling I've mentioned and forgotten this very thing before.

You sir are an idiot. Unless your elaborate costume is going to contain a set of ******* and a va-jay-jay instead of your current tackle your point makes no sense.

You have a *****, therefore you creep chicks out by showering with them. Gay men also have a *****, therefore gay or not they would creep chicks out. Gay women have a ******, they can shower with other women because they won't creep them out. Put that same gay women in a shower with men and some might be uncomfortable do to "fear of small ****".

Your analogy is stupid. You are not a woman and women would know this. Unless of course you went full out, and got the works.

Quit being a ******.

Alma's obsession with showers is much more disturbing than his being a bigot.