Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Why don't you reference your source and we can start from there. I *believe* 1 of 3 things has occurred, but I can't know either way unless you reference your source.

1. You reading this out of context.

2. You pulled this from a bad source, i.e. a Pro-**** site with bad information.

3. You just made it up.

Assuming what you wrote is legit, I'm assuming the first option is what has occurred. I quoted, with a reference, directly from the Homosexual Policy that stated that sexual orientation is enough to be removed from service. So either there's a date issue, one being outdated or there's a comprehension issue. I quote again for you...





That's BS..

I've been asking you the same question before we even gone down to this route and you've be ignoring them ever since and that was only one of the questions that you've eluded. I ask again,"So, you're saying that a woman who expresses anxiety about a man checking her out makes her a heterophobe?"

If you're going to ignore it, you should at least have a legit justification, because now you seem as if you just don't want to admit the double standard.

Oddly enough, your quote there proves his point.

Help me out here as I'm not following too closely on this anymore. How doe sit prove Kachi's point that you can't be discharged?

Being gay is fine, but you can't admit you're gay or have homosexual relations. That's what Kachi said, and exactly what Alma quoted.

"Being gay" is a personality trait or a mental state, it's not based on actions. Both of them say the actions (talking or doing) will get you kicked, but Alma doesn't seem to realize people can be gay and not do those things. Or he just quoted the wrong section.

This might also be Alma admitting that it's totally fine to be attracted to naked guys in the shower, as the rules say nothing about being gay (at least in the part he quoted).

Of course none of this matters. Alma will just not understand it and claim everyone else is wrong.

No. The quote says, "If you say you're gay or someone says they saw you participating in homosexual activities, you're discharged." Kachi said, "You are allowed to be gay, just not tell anyone or participate in a homosexual act."

Do you see how they are the same? If not, you're a lost cause.

This is exactly why I can disregard your opinion and think that "I'm right and everyone else is wrong". I'm telling you a fact and instead of just taking it at face value, you ASSUME that I don't know what I'm talking about when I worked there for 5 years and you probably haven't ever stepped foot in that city. What makes you think that you have a better understanding on that situation? If Jophiel, Ugly, Nadenu, Belkira, etc. said the same thing, would you make the same the assumption?

EVERYONE knew that she wasn't gay. That's the whole reason why I brought it up in the first place. When word got out that she had sex with one of the male employees, it solidified our original claim that she was just full of it. Many people have tested her, hence the reason why I mentioned it in the first place. There were a number of homosexual (open and presumed) and open bisexuals that worked there. Heck, at one point, the store manager was a flamming, cross-dressing ***** that made out with guys in public. So, the atmosphere was very welcoming if she weren't gay. That's what made her want to "fit" in even more.


So, you can throw that "You think you know everything" garbage out the window. When I get rated down on a ding thread or rated down for saying "Merry Christmas" in a freakin Merry Christmas thread, it is blatantly obvious that much of these posts are not argued for content, but simply because of my name. That was even admitted in my ding thread. So excuse me for not quickly converting to your opinion. When people grow up (i.e. Kachi stop ignoring a simple question), then I can take you more seriously. On the other hand, when people refuse to answer simple questions, it then becomes apparent that this isn't about "finding the truth", but "proving me wrong" on whatever stance that I have.




False: His argument is that you are only kicked out for homosexual conduct and not sexual orientation. Me saying "I'm gay" is not a homosexual action nor does admit to homosexual conduct. The quotes that I've presented says "propensity or intent to engage in homosexual act", that means that the person didn't actually do homosexual act. Me saying "I want to sleep with Joe's wife" isn't the same as sleeping with Joe's wife nor can you get kicked of for having the "propensity or intent to engage in adultery". I'm treating this scenario the same way everything else is portrayed in the military. You all, are treating this as some special case.



Speaking of lost cause, if you can't even interpret and or comprehend a few sentences, then this is a lost cause. You admitting that you're gay is not admitting to any homosexual act. We argued this in the last thread about sodomy, remember? I argued that allowing gays would give the image of contradicting the Sodomy rules. You, specifically, were one of the ones who argued that being gay is more than sex, it's a state of being. I agreed to that by saying that's why I said "image" and that the military has the rule of "Perception is reality". Even if it's false, if it appears to be true, then it's true.

This is consistent with that thought. You saying that you are gay is not the same thing as being gay. The whole point that I'm trying to convey to you is that DADT didn't allow homosexuals in the military, it enabled them in the military without lying. That was the compromise that was made. We wont ALLOW homosexuals in the military, but we will no longer ASK their sexual orientation because that is their personal business anyway. This is what I believe Kachi's quote is referring to, but I need to see it in context to know either way.

The bottom line is, if you were ALLOWED to join, then you wouldn't be kicked out for it. No where did it ever say in that policy or anything that I signed that you were allowed to do any of those activities. It stated that you could be discharged for those activities. If you were allowed to do those activities, especially given the touchy topic, they would have explicitly said that. What you all had done was added in verbiage that didn't exist. From my understanding, it was practically the same exact policy, minus asking your sexual orientation.

This counter argument of "you're allowed to, just keep it a secret" is just plum silly. That has always been the case in reference to be able to join. Homosexuals don't wear Scarlett Letters, so there isn't a way to tell. As long as you keep your sexual orientation, adultery, fraternization or any other activity to yourself, then you're ok. DADT, just made it official.

She was a manager, not a crew worker.

By watching the fry timer, you mean not letting the fries burn? If so, that's pretty low standards.

lulz

Take a breather sparky. You're wrong on multiple accounts. I'm glad to know that, among other things, you hold no respect for me. It makes me feel warm inside

When I said you made up the scenario... you did. Did you make up the story? No idea, but I'll assume no. Your scenario was exactly what you gave and I quoted. I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my meaning - I don't think you made it up out of thin air, if that's how you took it. You did make it up for us though, with your own view on it. A girl said she was gay, you said she's ugly, and she went after guys. I agree, there could be a disconnect, and likely is. But saying you know someone better than they know themselves is unlikely, especially given the level of disconnect you display day-to-day in here. I already explained the situation, and if you don't accept it, that's fine. If you don't like my story, fine too. I just wanted to show a counterpoint to your idea that "We all knew she was straight even though she said she was gay."



Ah, this is so tough, you're sooooo close to understanding! Yes, actions don't dictate your homosexuality. That's the point! Hence in your story why I said "It doesn't matter if she went after a guy, if she's only attracted to girls." The codes say that you can get kicked for actions, NOT for being gay... that was Kachi's point. You have to say or do or act in some particular fashion to get kicked out. But your sexual orientation itself is not listed as grounds for dismissal. Kachi was completely right - you can be gay and be in the military before DADT was repealed. You just couldn't let anyone else know.

And lastly,

What impersonation? Last time I checked, we're all people here. Or trolls. Mostly people though?

 

because working at Mcdonalds requires high standards at all right. There is a reason that the majority of employees are 15 and 16 years old. It is a joke job.