Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#552 Jan 03 2011 at 10:35 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jo wrote:
No one's argued against that. Itwould actually be a relatively cheap solution were the issue what Alma claims it to be.


No, so you may not have argued against it, you (all) just called everyone a bigot/homophobe for suggesting it.


I'd like to see an instance of each one of us saying that, please.

Also, that was Ugly, not Jophiel that you were responding to.


Ugly wrote:
Only if you're a bigot/homophobe, or homosexual. To everyone else, it's business as usual.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#553 Jan 03 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I didn't say that you were attracted to a certain percentage of men. What I'm saying is that you have an attraction to a "type" of male and it would be silly for anyone to think it would be wrong for you to sneak a peak at something you like.


So, what you're saying is, there's a very, very strong possibility that the homosexual men in the shower are not checking the straight guys out because they aren't attracted to straight guys? I'll buy that. So there's no issue, right?

Almalieque wrote:
So, you see how it feels. Anyway, if I mistakenly involved you in the infamous "y'all", then I apologize, but my entire argument was that it was possible and all you have done this entire time was argue against it, claiming that the two scenarios are not the same.


You seem to do this a lot. What you did was you specifically said to me that I am a bigot because I have stated that a man who feels uncomfortable showering with a homosexual man is a bigot. There was no "y'all" about it. You quoted me. You replied directly to me. I would like a more sincere apology.

And I'm right. A man being uncomfortable showering with a gay man is different than a man or woman being uncomfortable showering with someone of the opposite sex. I never once said nor implied that made anyone a bigot. That's been your line.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#554 Jan 03 2011 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
There's a huge difference between being able to join as opposed to being allowed to join. The only difference between DADT and the time before DADT is the military asking our sexual orientation. Authorizing homosexuality in the military creates an entire new environment.

According to the allied militaries studied by the Pentagon, it didn't create a whole new environment at all. Your refusal to accept that is silly.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#555 Jan 03 2011 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jo wrote:
No one's argued against that. Itwould actually be a relatively cheap solution were the issue what Alma claims it to be.


No, so you may not have argued against it, you (all) just called everyone a bigot/homophobe for suggesting it.


I'd like to see an instance of each one of us saying that, please.

Also, that was Ugly, not Jophiel that you were responding to.


Ugly wrote:
Only if you're a bigot/homophobe, or homosexual. To everyone else, it's business as usual.

This is why I don't like dealing with people who are defensive.

Because

1. You do that thing where you lump everyone who has made the smallest slight against you in together, and it becomes impossible to to converse with you without being constantly forced to take responsibility for others' comments.

2. More importantly--you have zero interest in being wrong. It would have taken 5 seconds for you to think about Belkira's comments, go check to see that it was actually Ugly you were quoting and not Jophiel, and say "oops, minor mistake that really doesn't affect the core of any of my arguments." No, instead of doing the most basic research you automatically jump to the conclusion that Belkira was entirely wrong about something you invented for her to mean and responded to that instead. You are fully uninterested in being wrong about absolutely anything here. For you, contradictory facts are only things to be argued against and not things to be considered.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 10:45am by Allegory
#556 Jan 03 2011 at 10:41 AM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jo wrote:
No one's argued against that. Itwould actually be a relatively cheap solution were the issue what Alma claims it to be.


No, so you may not have argued against it, you (all) just called everyone a bigot/homophobe for suggesting it.


I'd like to see an instance of each one of us saying that, please.

Also, that was Ugly, not Jophiel that you were responding to.


Ugly wrote:
Only if you're a bigot/homophobe, or homosexual. To everyone else, it's business as usual.




That's not what he said, but I won't argue that point. Now, on to everyone else, please. I mean, you specifically said "you (all)."
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#557 Jan 03 2011 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
It would have taken 5 seconds for you to think about Belkira's comments, go check to see that it was actually Ugly you were quoting and not Jophiel

Misattributing me for some other "liberal" poster? We have a Gbaji trifecta! :D
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#558 Jan 03 2011 at 10:58 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jo wrote:
No one's argued against that. Itwould actually be a relatively cheap solution were the issue what Alma claims it to be.


No, so you may not have argued against it, you (all) just called everyone a bigot/homophobe for suggesting it.


I'd like to see an instance of each one of us saying that, please.

Also, that was Ugly, not Jophiel that you were responding to.


Ugly wrote:
Only if you're a bigot/homophobe, or homosexual. To everyone else, it's business as usual.


Once again, you fail to comprehend the words laid out for you.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#559 Jan 03 2011 at 11:08 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,909 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jo wrote:
No one's argued against that. Itwould actually be a relatively cheap solution were the issue what Alma claims it to be.


No, so you may not have argued against it, you (all) just called everyone a bigot/homophobe for suggesting it.


I'd like to see an instance of each one of us saying that, please.

Also, that was Ugly, not Jophiel that you were responding to.


Ugly wrote:
Only if you're a bigot/homophobe, or homosexual. To everyone else, it's business as usual.


Once again, you fail to comprehend the words laid out for you.


What Joph said.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#560 Jan 03 2011 at 11:09 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Belkira wrote:
So, what you're saying is, there's a very, very strong possibility that the homosexual men in the shower are not checking the straight guys out because they aren't attracted to straight guys? I'll buy that. So there's no issue, right?


???

If a person is attracted to a "type" of a person, it's natural to check that person out. You can't put a percentage on that because each person is different. I find most women attractive in their own way, so I would be more likely attracted to a random female as opposed to someone who has a more specific type of interest.

Belkira wrote:

You seem to do this a lot. What you did was you specifically said to me that I am a bigot because I have stated that a man who feels uncomfortable showering with a homosexual man is a bigot. There was no "y'all" about it. You quoted me. You replied directly to me. I would like a more sincere apology.


I've explained this numerous times before. When multiple people argue against me (which is in every thread), "you" turns into "You all". If you don't like it, stop arguing with me or be the minority and agree with me, that way I will probably remember who "you" are.

You are substantiating my claim below. I'll reserve my more "sincere" apology once we're clear on each other.

Belkira wrote:
And I'm right. A man being uncomfortable showering with a gay man is different than a man or woman being uncomfortable showering with someone of the opposite sex. I never once said nor implied that made anyone a bigot. That's been your line.


So you agree that a man can feel uncomfortable and not be a bigot/homophobe?

That was my entire argument from the beginning, so I'm not sure why you would argue with me if you agree. But since you claim that you don't disagree, but you believe that the two scenarios are not the same, then why do think a man would be uncomfortable showering with gay men if they aren't the same reasons similar to women?

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#561 Jan 03 2011 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jo wrote:
No one's argued against that. Itwould actually be a relatively cheap solution were the issue what Alma claims it to be.


No, so you may not have argued against it, you (all) just called everyone a bigot/homophobe for suggesting it.


I'd like to see an instance of each one of us saying that, please.

Also, that was Ugly, not Jophiel that you were responding to.


Ugly wrote:
Only if you're a bigot/homophobe, or homosexual. To everyone else, it's business as usual.


Everybody's not Ugly.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#562 Jan 03 2011 at 11:18 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
There's a huge difference between being able to join as opposed to being allowed to join. The only difference between DADT and the time before DADT is the military asking our sexual orientation. Authorizing homosexuality in the military creates an entire new environment.

According to the allied militaries studied by the Pentagon, it didn't create a whole new environment at all. Your refusal to accept that is silly.


Didn't we go over the quotes where the military personnel said that they need time, even asking for more than a year? That's a whole lot of time for no changes, especially given that DADT was implemented in 40 days... The USMC general that I quoted stated that there would have to be changes made and would need time to implement them. Your refusal to accept this is silly.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#563 Jan 03 2011 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
A few changes does not equate to an entire new environment.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#564 Jan 03 2011 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jo wrote:
No one's argued against that. Itwould actually be a relatively cheap solution were the issue what Alma claims it to be.


No, so you may not have argued against it, you (all) just called everyone a bigot/homophobe for suggesting it.


I'd like to see an instance of each one of us saying that, please.

Also, that was Ugly, not Jophiel that you were responding to.


Ugly wrote:
Only if you're a bigot/homophobe, or homosexual. To everyone else, it's business as usual.


Everybody's not Ugly.
Even if they were, that's not was said there anyway.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#565 Jan 03 2011 at 12:02 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I actually agree with Alma about privacy considerations here. Frankly, I'm surprised that y'all are picking that point to argue.

I don't think anyone is denying that there's men out there terrified by the thought of another guy taking a gander at their doodle. Folks just don't think it should be a factor regarding DADT. Alma keeps insisting it's not about that but he's having a one-man discussion or something because that's the context everyone else is talking about.


All true. I was just surprised that people were playing alma's game and trying to make a case based on anatomy, or whether or not gay dudes actually check out guys in the shower. I don't think that's the way to crack this one. It's almost a self-inflicted strawman.

My head's a little fuzzy today though. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding anything in this already-hard-enough-to-follow thread.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 1:04pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#566 Jan 03 2011 at 12:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Didn't we go over the quotes where the military personnel said that they need time...

The time when you refused to accept the numerous quotes saying it could happen relatively quickly and glommed onto a single line that supported your already decided view?

Yeah, that sounds familiar. I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove though. The Pentagon could spend six years dorking around with it and that wouldn't mean it was amazingly complex but just that they spent six years on it. Numerous modern militaries which have already made this exact same change have reported that it's business as usual with nothing significant to report. But let's ignore these real life examples and whine about guys in the shower maybe thinking you're so hot they just can't help but stare at your junk.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 12:23pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#567 Jan 03 2011 at 12:38 PM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
???

If a person is attracted to a "type" of a person, it's natural to check that person out. You can't put a percentage on that because each person is different. I find most women attractive in their own way, so I would be more likely attracted to a random female as opposed to someone who has a more specific type of interest.


So those homosexual men who are only attracted to other homosexual men are not an issue, then. So, I reiterate, where is your problem?

Almalieque wrote:
I've explained this numerous times before. When multiple people argue against me (which is in every thread), "you" turns into "You all". If you don't like it, stop arguing with me or be the minority and agree with me, that way I will probably remember who "you" are.

You are substantiating my claim below. I'll reserve my more "sincere" apology once we're clear on each other.


That's not how it works. When you're talking to someone and you insult them, you can't just pretend you weren't really talking about them. You know good and well who I am. You also know that I'm right. I have never, not once, said that a man is a bigot simply because he's uncomfortable in a shower with a gay man. But you wanted to insult me, and you knew you could revert to your, "Oh, I meant the forum as a whole. So sorry if you got lumped in, but you were carrying on a conversation with me, after all. Surely you can understand how I would get confused!"

Let me requote you so you know exactly what I'm talking about:

Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
So, in other words, you're just going to pretend that the reasons we've given are exactly the same. Smiley: laugh

Yeah, you're hopeless. It was a nice try. No, actually, it was lazy.


I'm hopeless? You're the bigot not accepting that some people are just different. Just accept the fact that there men who have similar feelings to women when it comes to these measures.

I'm not naive. As I said, I know some people are just bigots and there exists some differences in the scenarios, i.e. if a woman gets raped by a man, she can get pregnant while a man can't. At the same time, I'm realistic. You can't have a sexual interest in something and not be attracted to it. That doesn't make any sense.

I just wish you would put away your bigotry and just accept that people are different or in this case, the same...


You were talking to me, specifically. I'm not excusing you for going on a rant about how I am saying unequivocally that someone is a bigot when I am often extremely careful not to bandy about the terms "bigot" and "homophobe." You bitch all the time when someone makes an inference into one of your posts, but then you expect me to infer into this one because you're wrong and you know you owe me an apology? Like a Marine in the shower, it doesn't go both ways, Alma.

Almalieque wrote:
So you agree that a man can feel uncomfortable and not be a bigot/homophobe?


I think it's possible, sure. I've never said otherwise, nor have I implied otherwise. My argument has always been that (1) a straight person and a homosexual person sharing a communal shower and their feelings about the situation is not the same as two people of the opposite sex sharing a shower and their feelings about the situation and (2) this so-called "privacy issue" that the military brass and yourself want to pretend is a reason not to repeal DADT is a bunch of bullsh*t.

Almalieque wrote:
That was my entire argument from the beginning, so I'm not sure why you would argue with me if you agree.


No. Your entire argument from the beginning has been that the repeal of DADT should be held off until these "privacy issues" that don't really exist can be ironed out.

Almalieque wrote:
But since you claim that you don't disagree, but you believe that the two scenarios are not the same, then why do think a man would be uncomfortable showering with gay men if they aren't the same reasons similar to women?


I honestly hadn't given it much thought. I was honestly asking you to back up your claims that a person could remain unbigotted in that situation. You were unable to articulate your point (again) so I remain undecided. I think there are a vast number of guys who are uncomfortable in that situation because of a bigotted viewpoint, but I don't think that's the only explanation. I would have to think on it some more, honestly.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#568 Jan 03 2011 at 12:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,901 posts
What I've learned so far is that straight men are terrified of being looked at by gay men, even though they look at women in the same way all the time without regard for their comfort.

Actually, no, I haven't learned that at all, because the straight guys I know are much more secure in themselves than whatever representative of military men Alma has conjured up to support his position.

If straight men in the military are freaked out by the idea of knowing that they are serving with gay men (which apparently they already do know), then they need to grow up. 'S all I have to say about that.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#569 Jan 03 2011 at 2:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:

Oh, so you're just being a hypocrite for chiding someone for enjoying something that you admit to enjoying yourself.

No surprise there.


?? Come again?


You talk in large, convoluted circles. It takes multiple people forever to figure out what your point or position is, because you treat it as if it were a riddle or a secret. Then once they finally peg it down, you chide them for having wasted so much time-- a lot less time than you spend raveling these messy mysteries in the first place. But for you, it's all a game! Haha, those mortal fools!

Little did you realize (though I've said it to you outright?) that I only talk to you for my own amusement. So essentially, at best, you think you're the mastermind of this cat and mouse game, when in reality you're like the Wile E Coyote to my Roadrunner. More likely, you just don't know how to have a discussion like a mature adult.


Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Gee, it's almost as if that discomfort comes from a perceived threat of some kind, like the kind that comes from the presence of a more physically aggressive and powerful entity, rather than a similar one.


Didn't we already go over this as well? Gee. Not all men are the same sizes. Your implication is that men don't fight each other, only women, because they are less physically aggressive and powerful entity.

WTF difference does it matter if a woman is in the shower next to The Rock vs Chris Rock? They are equally innocent (unless they have a known history) until proven guilty. You assuming that The Rock is likely to assault you because he's big is stupid.


Not all women are the same size either, genius. A small man has to deal with whatever discomfort he feels given that he lives in a world where he is constantly surrounded by men who are larger than he-- men who's of likeliness to cornhole him are among the least of his worries (again, unless he's in prison). If as a smaller man, you can deal with the constant, far greater threat of being in a physical altercation with a larger man, then showering with teh gheys should really be pretty far from your list of concerns.

Your observation is that the difference between a small and large man is in many cases the same as the difference between the average man and woman. Are you really too stupid to realize then that the difference is double between a larger man and the average woman? That in many cases, there's a difference of 100 lbs rather than 50? Does that in any way help you to understand the distinction between a man's fear of showering with men and a woman's?

Quote:
This is why I don't like dealing with people who are defensive.

Because

1. You do that thing where you lump everyone who has made the smallest slight against you in together, and it becomes impossible to to converse with you without being constantly forced to take responsibility for others' comments.

2. More importantly--you have zero interest in being wrong. It would have taken 5 seconds for you to think about Belkira's comments, go check to see that it was actually Ugly you were quoting and not Jophiel, and say "oops, minor mistake that really doesn't affect the core of any of my arguments." No, instead of doing the most basic research you automatically jump to the conclusion that Belkira was entirely wrong about something you invented for her to mean and responded to that instead. You are fully uninterested in being wrong about absolutely anything here. For you, contradictory facts are only things to be argued against and not things to be considered.


The latter is really all the reason you need to treat the person as a plaything, but an excellent articulation of why you shouldn't treat Alma as the variety of person you would engage in an actual discussion with (e.g., normal).
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#570 Jan 03 2011 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You can't have a sexual interest in something and not be attracted to it.?


As a straight female, I am sexually attracted to straight men. Not ALL straight men. So yes, I can have a sexual interest in something, but not find all of that something attractive. (the "something" in question here are straight males)
#571 Jan 03 2011 at 2:32 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
Samira wrote:
What I've learned so far is that straight men are terrified of being looked at by gay men, even though they look at women in the same way all the time without regard for their comfort.

Actually, no, I haven't learned that at all, because the straight guys I know are much more secure in themselves than whatever representative of military men Alma has conjured up to support his position.

If straight men in the military are freaked out by the idea of knowing that they are serving with gay men (which apparently they already do know), then they need to grow up. 'S all I have to say about that.



I've learned that Alma doesn't personally know one single gay man.
#572 Jan 03 2011 at 3:02 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Nadenu wrote:


I've learned that Alma doesn't personally know one single gay man.
He thinks he doesn't;)
____________________________
LOOK here.
#573 Jan 03 2011 at 3:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,708 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Didn't we go over the quotes where the military personnel said that they need time...

The time when you refused to accept the numerous quotes saying it could happen relatively quickly and glommed onto a single line that supported your already decided view?

Yeah, that sounds familiar. I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove though. The Pentagon could spend six years dorking around with it and that wouldn't mean it was amazingly complex but just that they spent six years on it. Numerous modern militaries which have already made this exact same change have reported that it's business as usual with nothing significant to report. But let's ignore these real life examples and whine about guys in the shower maybe thinking you're so hot they just can't help but stare at your junk.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 12:23pm by Jophiel


The (most) ludicrous part about this is that it's not an argument against gays in the military, but against DADT.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#574 Jan 03 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Allegory wrote:
This is why I don't like dealing with people who are defensive.

Because

1. You do that thing where you lump everyone who has made the smallest slight against you in together, and it becomes impossible to to converse with you without being constantly forced to take responsibility for others' comments.

2. More importantly--you have zero interest in being wrong. It would have taken 5 seconds for you to think about Belkira's comments, go check to see that it was actually Ugly you were quoting and not Jophiel, and say "oops, minor mistake that really doesn't affect the core of any of my arguments." No, instead of doing the most basic research you automatically jump to the conclusion that Belkira was entirely wrong about something you invented for her to mean and responded to that instead. You are fully uninterested in being wrong about absolutely anything here. For you, contradictory facts are only things to be argued against and not things to be considered.


I'm argumentative, not defensive. There's a difference

I don't care about being wrong. Knowing when you're wrong only betters yourself to be right next time.

Besides Belkira, who else is claiming to be arguing something different? Who here believes the two scenarios of comfort issues with women and men are the same with heterosexual men and homosexual men? Who are these people? Let me know and I will gladly admit that I was wrong about not having anyone agreeing with me. Until you present me that person, "you all" will be lumped as "y'all".

I think Ugly wrote:
A few changes does not equate to an entire new environment.


Well, if DADT was implemented in 40 days, please tell me what possible changes could take over a year without affecting the environment? I'm sure there will be a lot of revisions of rules beyond "No homosexuals". I mean, it even stated that in the quote I presented you.

Jo wrote:
The time when you refused to accept the numerous quotes saying it could happen relatively quickly and glommed onto a single line that supported your already decided view?

Yeah, that sounds familiar. I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove though. The Pentagon could spend six years dorking around with it and that wouldn't mean it was amazingly complex but just that they spent six years on it. Numerous modern militaries which have already made this exact same change have reported that it's business as usual with nothing significant to report. But let's ignore these real life examples and whine about guys in the shower maybe thinking you're so hot they just can't help but stare at your junk.


I didn't refuse to accept "numerous quotes". I pointed out that all of those quotes came from politicians and all of the active duty military personnel claimed that it would take longer. You merely chose a side. You trust the politicians, because you know they never lie, I placed my allegiance with the military, because they have the best concept of the current military.

The Army Chief of Staff, General Casey, doesn't agree with you or your politicians.

Washington, D.C. —

Though he believes the law that bans gays from serving openly in the military eventually should be repealed, the Army’s senior officer told the Senate Armed Services Committee Dec. 3, repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law now would be a distraction during wartime.

Lawmakers heard testimony from Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the other service chiefs and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about their take on a report produced by a Defense Department working group that details how repeal of the law would affect the armed forces.

Casey told lawmakers that during wartime, implementing a new policy would be an extra burden on leadership.
“Implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would be a major cultural and policy change in the middle of a war,” he said. “It would be implemented by a force and leaders that are already stretched by the cumulative effects of almost a decade of war.”


The general said that implementation of a repeal of the law policy at this time would add another level of stress to an already stretched force, would be more difficult to implement in combat-arms units than in other units, and would “be more difficult for the Army than the report suggests.”

However, Casey also said that if the law is overturned and the armed forces must comply, the Army could do so with only “moderate risk” to service effectiveness.

“We have a disciplined force and seasoned leaders, who, with appropriate guidance and direction, can oversee the implementation of repeal with moderate risk to our military effectiveness in the short term, and moderate risk to our ability to recruit and retain this all-volunteer force over the long haul,” he said.

Casey also said that after reading the working group’s report and the results of surveys the group conducted with service members and their families, he no longer believes in the concepts that supported banning gays from serving in the first place.

“As I read through the report, it seemed to me that the report called into question the basic presumption that underpins the law,” Casey said. “That is that the presence of a gay or lesbian service member creates an unacceptable risk to good order and discipline. I don’t believe that’s true. And from the surveys, it appears that a large number of our service members don’t believe that is true either. So eventually, I believe, it should be repealed.”
The general added that while he believes the law should eventually be repealed, the services will need time to implement the change in the force.
“At this time, I would not recommend going forward, given everything the Army has on its plate,” he said.


You wanted a source about not wanting to repeal DADT during "war time", where here it is. It's obvious that he doesn't support it, doesn't know anyone who does support it and thinks this is all nonsense. Not that his opinion overrides anyone else, but just to let you know.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#575 Jan 03 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Actually I think what people want is a source that supports your position that gay men in a shower with straight men is the same as straight men in a shower with women. So before you change your argument for the 3rd time. Answer my question from page 2.

If you are already serving with gay men, are already living/showering with gay men. What difference does DADT make, outside allowing those gay men to come out, and in retrospect allow you to avoid those men if you feel uncomfortable. So I ask again, what is your issue, either you can tolerate gays, or you can't, either you are a bigot, or you are not.

Ill repeat this again because I am sure your mind has already tried to skew what I said for your own awkward outlook on things. You already live/shower with gay men, the only thing that is changing is those gay men can say if they are or not. So either you can tolerate being around gay men (like you do now unknowingly) or you can't (knowingly) which means you are either a bigot or you are not.



____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#576 Jan 03 2011 at 5:01 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Quote:
Well, if DADT was implemented in 40 days, please tell me what possible changes could take over a year without affecting the environment?
None that I can think of. I suspect that's one of two things going on there. A stall, to allow the homophobes to adjust or rhetoric, designed to placate the homophobes a bit.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#577 Jan 03 2011 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,708 posts
Quote:
I'm argumentative, not defensive. There's a difference


Now you're just being defensive.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#578 Jan 03 2011 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Well, if DADT was implemented in 40 days, please tell me what possible changes could take over a year without affecting the environment?

Slow moving bureaucracy? Taking X many days to do something doesn't mean that doing something requires X many days.

Quote:
You trust the politicians, because you know they never lie, I placed my allegiance with the military, because they have the best concept of the current military.

Hahaha... nice strawman but you still managed to dork it up. Politicians matter because the new regulations will be determined by them. Gates, Mullen & Obama will ultimately decide the new rules, not Casey or Amos or whoever else. But, you know, feel free to keep saying "You only believe them because you think they never lie!" That was truly a cutting remark and stuff.

For that matter, the Chiefs of Staff are politicians. They are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president as they serve in a decision-making capacity in his administration. They may not act "political" in your eyes but they are definitely politicians.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 5:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#579 Jan 03 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Nadenu wrote:

I've learned that Alma doesn't personally know one single gay man.
Just wait until he discovers himself :D
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#580 Jan 03 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
If you are already serving with gay men, are already living/showering with gay men. What difference does DADT make, outside allowing those gay men to come out, and in retrospect allow you to avoid those men if you feel uncomfortable.


The gay men can identify themselves as such, make statements about their sexual interests, toss out lewd comments and innuendo and otherwise engage in the exact sorts of things that make women uncomfortable showering with men. Regardless of whether you think the current situation is fair, removing the prohibition against serving while openly gay will change that dynamic. What do you think the difference "openly" makes? It's so important to gay rights that they be able to serve openly, but you honestly think it'll stop at the edge of social decorum? No one will mention their sexuality in any terms other than who they're dating back home? Do you honestly believe that?


Let me engage in a bit of slippery slope prediction:

It will not be long before we'll have events where a straight member of the military is made to be uncomfortable by the presence of an openly gay fellow soldier. And the straight guy will be labeled as s bigot for being uncomfortable listening to someone talk about how much he likes to suck other guys off while naked in the same shower. And when someone (like maybe me) points out that this was predicted when we had this discussion way back in 2010, the chorus of responses from people like you is that people should just get over their sexual hangups and that a straight man shouldn't have any reason to feel uncomfortable no matter what is being said around him. It'll be labeled as a violation of the gay mans rights if he's *not* allowed to openly discuss his sexual activities anywhere he wants.


I'm sure that'll never happen though.

Quote:
So I ask again, what is your issue, either you can tolerate gays, or you can't, either you are a bigot, or you are not.


Does "tolerate" mean not complaining when the guy you're showering with talks about how attracted he is to men? Where does toleration end? Where does the right of the rest of the people in the world come in?


Quote:
So either you can tolerate being around gay men (like you do now unknowingly) or you can't (knowingly) which means you are either a bigot or you are not.


There's nothing in between those two? Isn't there a reasonable expectation that straight soldiers should not be made uncomfortable? I think the very nature of fighting for gays to serve "openly" sets up the exact sort of scenario I outlined earlier. Where will you come down on the issue when something like that happens? When a straight soldier complains about a gay soldier speaking explicitly about his sexual activities, does he have a right not to be exposed to that? Or will you insist that serving openly includes that sort of behavior?

What happens when a gay soldier wants to have his partner housed on base? How do we adjust the on base visitation rules to allow for the fact that simply not allowing people of the opposite sex in the housing after a set time isn't sufficient to the purpose of those rules? There are a whole host of issues involved in this. It's not as simple a change as many of you are making it out to be.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#581 Jan 03 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
I believe you may have forgotten to make a specific point to say that you're *not* defending someone else's position just now.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#582 Jan 03 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The gay men can identify themselves as such, make statements about their sexual interests, toss out lewd comments and innuendo and otherwise engage in the exact sorts of things that make women uncomfortable showering with men. Regardless of whether you think the current situation is fair, removing the prohibition against serving while openly gay will change that dynamic. What do you think the difference "openly" makes?

According to the studies of other militaries, the majority (I'd say the large majority) of gay men choose to still not make their sexuality public because, terror in the showers aside, the risk of dealing with homophobic retards outweighs the joys of saying "nice penis" in the shower. Also, there's still harassment policies in place.

The actual benefit to repealing DADT isn't the ability to stare at penises, but that if your sexuality is discovered (intentionally or not) you don't automatically lose your career.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#583 Jan 03 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I believe you may have forgotten to make a specific point to say that you're *not* defending someone else's position just now.


Hah! I actually considered saying exactly that, then decided that would be too obnoxious and obvious. For the record, I'm not defending the entirety of Alma's argument, just the point that there is a comparison between the problems with having men and women sharing shower and housing facilities and with allowing straight and gay men (or women) sharing the same.

Why would you assume they weren't similar?

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 5:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#584 Jan 03 2011 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why would you assume they weren't similar?
Because currently, straights and gays shower together. Men and women do not. The fact that one is currently happening, while the other is not, makes them dissimilar.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#585 Jan 03 2011 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The gay men can identify themselves as such, make statements about their sexual interests, toss out lewd comments and innuendo and otherwise engage in the exact sorts of things that make women uncomfortable showering with men. Regardless of whether you think the current situation is fair, removing the prohibition against serving while openly gay will change that dynamic. What do you think the difference "openly" makes?

According to the studies of other militaries, the majority (I'd say the large majority) of gay men choose to still not make their sexuality public because, terror in the showers aside, the risk of dealing with homophobic retards outweighs the joys of saying "nice penis" in the shower. Also, there's still harassment policies in place.

The actual benefit to repealing DADT isn't the ability to stare at penises, but that if your sexuality is discovered (intentionally or not) you don't automatically lose your career.
What Joph said.

Just because the policy is changing, doesn't mean the military is going to be a slumber party full of gays talking about butt@#%^ery.

Those arguing the "gays make people uncomfortable" angle can @#%^ off anyway, since comfort isn't the primary concern of the military.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#586 Jan 03 2011 at 7:37 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Those arguing the "gays make people uncomfortable" angle can @#%^ off anyway, since comfort isn't the primary concern of the military.

It's also a bad argument that exactly parallels that of not having women or blacks serving because it makes certain people uncomfortable.
#587 Jan 03 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
... the risk of dealing with homophobic retards outweighs the joys of saying "nice penis" in the shower. Also, there's still harassment policies in place.


So, will the harassment policies you put such weight in outweigh the label of anyone who complains as a "homophobic retard"?

I don't mean this as a joke or a flippant comment. You're a JAG officer. There's been an incident where a straight soldier beat up a gay soldier for "looking at me sexually". Which one do you charge with a crime? How do you make that decision? Is there any good way to handle this?

Now. You're a liberal internet poster. Which side do you take? How will your opinion and those of all the other loud liberals looking for a bigot to blame affect the decisions of the JAG officer?


This will happen. And the straight guy *will* be labeled as a bigot by the very posters on this forum who are insisting that it wont make any difference. And the public pressure for the military to protect the rights of gay soldiers to serve openly will result in a skewing of the very sexual harassment rules you claim will prevent any problems from occurring.

You will apply a double standard to this, even if you claim now that you wont. You will view the same exact exchange between a gay man and a straight man differently than if it were between a straight man and a straight women. No matter how much you think you are an enlightened person who does not judge based on gender or sexual orientation, you will apply bias. And you wont be alone.


Some of us can see these patterns before they happen. Others will only see them after they happen. Most people, unfortunately, will continue to deny the pattern even after the fact, and thus will to fail to see the next occurrence coming. I can only point it out to you. I can't make you see.

Quote:
The actual benefit to repealing DADT isn't the ability to stare at penises, but that if your sexuality is discovered (intentionally or not) you don't automatically lose your career.


Nah. The overwhelming benefit to repealing DADT is the ability to label those who oppose it bigots, score points with gay rights groups, and make anti-military groups thrilled. And if the cost is making a whole bunch of people unhappy and disrupting our military along the way, it's a small price to pay for having the issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#588 Jan 03 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Allegory wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Those arguing the "gays make people uncomfortable" angle can @#%^ off anyway, since comfort isn't the primary concern of the military.

It's also a bad argument that exactly parallels that of not having women or blacks serving because it makes certain people uncomfortable.


It doesn't parallel at all the issue with blacks serving in the military. That's a weak analogy at best.

It does somewhat parallel the issues with women serving in the military. And guess what? There are still many posts in the military in which women are not allowed for the very same reasons I'm talking about. We don't put women in front line ground combat positions. When women were incorporated into the military, it required that we adjust things like barracks, housing, wash facilities, etc and they're only allowed to serve in those areas in which those changes can be reasonably made.

There are no women on many naval vessels for that very reason. It's not just about discomfort or bigotry and it's a cheap evasion of the issue to keep returning to that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#589 Jan 03 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Quote:
I don't mean this as a joke or a flippant comment. You're a JAG officer. There's been an incident where a straight soldier beat up a gay soldier for "looking at me sexually". Which one do you charge with a crime?
The one who decided to step outside of the chain of command and dealt with this inappropriately, while investigating the allegations of "looking at him sexually".

Quote:
How will your opinion and those of all the other loud liberals looking for a bigot to blame affect the decisions of the JAG officer?
I'd imagine he'd consider them completely irrelevant, until said posters affect a change in military law/policy.

____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#590 Jan 03 2011 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So, will the harassment policies you put such weight in...

Again, I'm speaking from having read the study. I know that's not as powerful as "you're a liberal internet poster..." but we can't all just make shit up as we go along. Some of us have to do the heavy lifting of having something intelligent to say.

Quote:
Nah. The overwhelming benefit to repealing DADT is the ability to label those who oppose it bigots...

Whatever polishes your cross, I guess.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 7:55pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#591 Jan 03 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
It doesn't parallel at all the issue with blacks serving in the military. That's a weak analogy at best.


There you go, conveniently forgetting about "separate but equal" again.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#592 Jan 03 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
I don't mean this as a joke or a flippant comment. You're a JAG officer. There's been an incident where a straight soldier beat up a gay soldier for "looking at me sexually". Which one do you charge with a crime?
The one who decided to step outside of the chain of command and dealt with this inappropriately, while investigating the allegations of "looking at him sexually".


Really? quick test: Let's say that tomorrow we mandate shared shower facilities for men and women in the military. A woman soldier beats up a male soldier in the shower for "looking at me sexually". Would your answer be the same? Be honest.


Quote:
Quote:
How will your opinion and those of all the other loud liberals looking for a bigot to blame affect the decisions of the JAG officer?
I'd imagine he'd consider them completely irrelevant, until said posters affect a change in military law/policy.


You honestly don't think that public perception of the event will affect how it's managed? That's a strange assumption given that we're discussing a change that is being driven by exactly the same sort of public perception and manufactured outrage. How do you not see this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#593 Jan 03 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't parallel at all the issue with blacks serving in the military. That's a weak analogy at best.


There you go, conveniently forgetting about "separate but equal" again.


There you go, tossing out a weighted phrase with no applicability to the subject at hand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#594 Jan 03 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
I don't mean this as a joke or a flippant comment. You're a JAG officer. There's been an incident where a straight soldier beat up a gay soldier for "looking at me sexually". Which one do you charge with a crime?
The one who decided to step outside of the chain of command and dealt with this inappropriately, while investigating the allegations of "looking at him sexually".


Really? quick test: Let's say that tomorrow we mandate shared shower facilities for men and women in the military. A woman soldier beats up a male soldier in the shower for "looking at me sexually". Would your answer be the same? Be honest.

Are you really so convinced that everyone is lying to help their argument that you can't accept the answer you were given? For me, my response would be the same either way. You don't step outside the chain of command without a pressing need to do so, such as being placed in immediate physical danger, which is not present in the scenario you presented. Gay, straight, man, woman, doesn't matter.

Edited, Jan 4th 2011 12:39am by Majivo
#595 Jan 03 2011 at 8:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
DADT Study Review wrote:
Within the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia militaries, there was a general expectation that noticeable numbers of gay men and lesbians would reveal their sexual orientation to fellow military personnel after the policy change, but in fact very few did so. As a result, commanders and senior officials have generally concluded that the policy change has had little impact on their forces.
[...]
The United Kingdom’s review two years after its policy change found very few problems in units, primarily because only a small number of military members opted to disclose their sexual orientation. Those few incidents that did occur were handled at the unit level, and were comparable in scope to incidents reported as “personality clashes.” Since the time of that review, British forces have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; senior officials interviewed indicated that no incidents had occurred during these deployments and that leaders and military personnel had fully adapted to the policy.
[...]
None of the nations contacted by the Working Group or RAND indicated that there was a rise in the number of harassment incidents as a result of the policy change. Germany maintains a somewhat unique reporting mechanism for formal complaints of all kinds, which operates outside the Ministry of Defence and reports directly to the Parliament. In the five years since the policy change, 50 of the 60,000 complaints filed involved a gay man or lesbian. Of those 50, fewer than 10 involved harassment of some kind. In the United Kingdom, there was no increase in the rate of same-sex harassment. In the two years that followed the policy change, there had been one incident of an unwanted sexual advance by a gay man, which was dealt with effectively at the unit command level. Canada observed no change in the rate of same-sex harassment in the years after policy change. In Australia there were 12 complaints filed involving gay men or lesbians in the 2 years post policy change, of which fewer than 5 involved harassment of any kind.

Or, you know, we can sit and cry about scary liberal plots to call Gbaji and Alma bigots at the expense of our military which could never handle the horrific waves of gay-on-straight shower harassment looming over the horizon.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#596 Jan 03 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Quote:
A woman soldier beats up a male soldier in the shower for "looking at me sexually". Would your answer be the same?
Yes, while laughing at the guy for getting beat up by a woman.

Quote:
You honestly don't think that public perception of the event will affect how it's managed? That's a strange assumption given that we're discussing a change that is being driven by exactly the same sort of public perception and manufactured outrage. How do you not see this?
I'm sorry, has the military changed it's current actions, despite the repeal being passed and no new laws/policies actually being put in place? No? That's why I'd expect them to still follow the laws until they're actually changed.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#597 Jan 03 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Quote:
Canada observed no change in the rate of same-sex harassment in the years after policy change.
To be fair, we already had the French serving in the military, so it was always assumed there were gays everywhere.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#598 Jan 03 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Majivo wrote:
Are you really so convinced that everyone is lying to help their argument that you can't accept the answer you were given?


Yes, I am. Because the answers you are giving right now don't jive with the historical pattern.

Quote:
For me, my response would be the same either way.


No, it wouldn't. But that's because right now you're making the decision based on a hypothetical to which you know what the "right" answer is. But when something like that actually happens, you'll be using a completely different methodology to base your position on, and will not notice that your answer will have changed. That's the pattern I'm talking about.


Quote:
You don't step outside the chain of command without a pressing need to do so, such as being placed in immediate physical danger, which is not present in the scenario you presented. Gay, straight, man, woman, doesn't matter.


What if the person in question claims that he/she was about to be sexually assaulted if they didn't respond physically and remove themselves from the situation? Are you honestly trying to claim you'd put the same weight on a straight man making this claim as you would on a straight woman?


And do you honestly think that public perception would be the same?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#599 Jan 03 2011 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
To be fair, we already had the French serving in the military, so it was always assumed there were gays everywhere.

Ironically, Canada's military commissioned and released a report predicting dire consequences if they start letting homosexuals serve openly.
Canada's Charter Report wrote:
• “There should be severe problems integrating known homosexuals into the CF, particularly in the Land and Sea operational units, with a resulting adverse impact on cohesion.”
• “Any of [the predicted] impairments to cohesion and morale would cause personnel problems; taken together they constitute a serious threat to military effectiveness.”
• Allowing gay individuals to serve would have an “overall negative impact on recruiting.... There is also some evidence that allowing homosexuals in the CF will cause some current servicemembers to leave the CF.”

It also reported that there'd be fights & violent altercations, harassment and that a majority of heterosexual males (and a sizable minority of female soldiers) would refuse to share showers with homosexuals. None of those things actually came to being.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#600 Jan 03 2011 at 8:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
A woman soldier beats up a male soldier in the shower for "looking at me sexually". Would your answer be the same?
Yes, while laughing at the guy for getting beat up by a woman.


Huh. Good thing we're not applying different standards here. Would you laugh at the gay soldier in the same situation?

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 6:31pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#601 Jan 03 2011 at 8:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Because the answers you are giving right now don't jive with the historical pattern.

Unless we mean the historical pattern of western first world nations who can changed their modern military forces to allowing open homosexuality.

Not those patterns... we need to discuss the ones of liberal persecution in Gbaji's head.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 38 All times are in CDT
Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (37)