Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#52 Dec 20 2010 at 6:12 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Quote:

Noooo... you're not a homophobe at all!


Wow, you're a tool... so, now thinking that someone's *** make you a homophobe as well? I guess there's no limit to the stupidity of that word. Hmmmm. I think that you're white, does that make me racist?

You people need to grow up, this is life. I can talk about being black, white, man, woman, heterosexual, homosexual, Muslim, Jewish, etc. without any negative connotation.

Sir X wrote:
Oh, so the privacy isn't actually your argument then. I don't see the connection making the same as with women, please explain how this is.


No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".

Sir X wrote:
If you didn't treat someone differently based on what you thought about them, why would what you thought being true or not change how you treat someone?


Dude, what part of ASSUMPTION don't you understand?

Have you seen the movie Crash? Sometimes your stereotyping is accurate, sometimes it isn't. You shouldn't just go around judging people based off stuff that you aren't sure on.

Besides, that's the beauty of DADT, even if an individual DID treat someone differently, that individual can't say "I don't want to room with him/her b/c s/he's ***" with no proof.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#53 Dec 20 2010 at 6:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,461 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You people need to grow up, this is life. I can talk about being black, white, man, woman, heterosexual, homosexual, Muslim, Jewish, etc. without any negative connotation.
Talking about how you take pride in not treating 'lesbos' and *** men any differently despite knowing about their sexual preference certainly has a negative connotation and makes the statement itself implausible. For example, "I can think that Almalieque is a substandard thinker exemplary of everything that is wrong with current society, but hey, that doesn't affect the way I treat him." You believe me? Hint: You shouldn't.

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Oh, so the privacy isn't actually your argument then. I don't see the connection making the same as with women, please explain how this is.


No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".
I'm female. Any female lives with the occasional man leering and catcalling in the street unless she's a complete mess. In the workplace, sexual harassment policies exist to protect the workplace as a non-threatening environment. I can take someone to HR for slapping my ***, but simply thinking it's a hot *** and that they would like to tap it is not actionable, and therefore irrelevant to policy. A man can think you're hot and yet somehow restrain his mouth and eyes and hands from molesting you in the workplace. If he can't, then you have an actionable offense. The fact that he is hetero doesn't even come into play.

____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#54 Dec 20 2010 at 7:17 AM Rating: Decent
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Canada, [...] ****, practically every other military on earth worth mentioning has figured out how to make it work. I'm sure we'll figure it out somehow.
Something's wrong with this.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 8:19am by Uglysasquatch


LOL seemed odd to me too but I thought it was just a typo.

Besides as a Canadian thats I give my oil to the US for basically nothing jut so their War machine is always able to come to my aid. Just like the promised us back in the 50's. P.S. **** you Diefenbaker.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#55 Dec 20 2010 at 7:27 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,866 posts
Canada's army is actually kind of bad *** at times.

Example 1.

Example 2.

And Alma, you made an assumption that we've all given evidence against. Why are you defending it again? I can't just assume gravity doesn't exist and ignore evidence to the contrary.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#56varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 9:09 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Just one more thing our young soldiers are going to have to think about.
#57 Dec 20 2010 at 9:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Most of the military didn't want this.

Whether or not this is accurate is irrelevant. Most of the civilian public did want it. The military works for the civilian public, not the other way around. If you want a country where the military calls the shots, there's plenty of options available to you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Dec 20 2010 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,866 posts
Quote:
Whether or not this is accurate is irrelevant. Most of the civilian public did want it. The military works for the civilian public, not the other way around. If you want a country where the military calls the shots, there's plenty of options available to you.


And it actually is inaccurate to begin with. The vast majority of the military said they wouldn't mind or wanted the repeal. This is according to a study released by the Pentagon, not some fanatical, untrustworthy group. Only some of the top-tier generals and most combat-stationed forces were against it.

And Joph is right--the military doesn't get to create its own rules. Well, actually, it often does, but that's a separate problem. It exists to serve the nation--not the other way around.

[EDIT]

Also,

A. Since when is it part of the liberal agendy to weaken the military? You act like they are actively trying to kill off soldiers.

B. What some liberals (myself included) would like to see is a more focused and smaller military. We spend more on ours than all the rest of the world combined. And it is retarded. Until WWII, we were a nation that avoided military conflict when possible (well, minus killing off those disgusting savages!) Since then, we've been perpetually at war.

I would not be opposed to a military with less external presence in favor of a strong national defense. And that means we would stop being the policemen of the world and our soldiers would stop dying in other peoples' fights.

C. MOST politicians are all for cutting excess spending of the military. The problem is that none of them want to bring that up, and the ones who do can't make a direct case because most programs are classified. There's tons of spending that could be cut without hurting the military at all because they are research programs for technologies everyone is fairly sure will never work. Cutting them, or at least redirecting the funds to a project that is expected to yield usable results, seems like a good idea to me.

D. I'm not really sure why I responded to varus at all...

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 10:39am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#59 Dec 20 2010 at 9:45 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".


So... your opinion is that it shouldn't be repealed because of a privacy issue, but you don't really understand and can't explain why privacy would be an issue?

Alrighty then... Smiley: rolleyes
#60varusword75, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 9:48 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) idiot,
#61 Dec 20 2010 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,866 posts
Wow, I'm happy you're as racist as you are retarded.

A. A stronger national defense as a trade-off to less international presence does not mean I want a weaker army. It means I want the army to focus more on protecting the US than every other nation. Because all that does is ensure that every corrupt gov't on the planet has us as the enemy.

B. Of course the democrats are forcing through votes. We're about to have a lame duck congress. We'll see little to no policies passed on either side in the next 2 years. If they don't pass now, they won't pass at all.


Hey, I have an idea, how about we give varus a potato gun and ship him to Afghanistan? A human shield would certainly be useful in at least one fire fight, no? And he's all for making the military stronger.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#62 Dec 20 2010 at 10:20 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Atomic Flea wrote:
Talking about how you take pride in not treating 'lesbos' and *** men any differently despite knowing about their sexual preference certainly has a negative connotation and makes the statement itself implausible. For example, "I can think that Almalieque is a substandard thinker exemplary of everything that is wrong with current society, but hey, that doesn't affect the way I treat him." You believe me? Hint: You shouldn't.


You got lost in the train of thought.

My statement was a response to questions on how people treat other "assumed" homosexuals. I responded that I don't treat them any differently. I wasn't talking in pride, I was answering questions.

Atomic Flea wrote:
I'm female. Any female lives with the occasional man leering and catcalling in the street unless she's a complete mess. In the workplace, sexual harassment policies exist to protect the workplace as a non-threatening environment. I can take someone to HR for slapping my ***, but simply thinking it's a hot *** and that they would like to tap it is not actionable, and therefore irrelevant to policy. A man can think you're hot and yet somehow restrain his mouth and eyes and hands from molesting you in the workplace. If he can't, then you have an actionable offense. The fact that he is hetero doesn't even come into play.


I don't even want to get into the "sexual harassment" discussion. I'm not sure how's it like in the civilian world, but in the military EVERYTHING is sexual harassment. Because of that, I try to limit my interaction with female coworkers all together. It's much safer.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#63 Dec 20 2010 at 10:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,969 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Because of that, I try to limit my interaction with female coworkers all together. It's much safer.


Understandable, one might overhear you calling her a ***** and get ****** or something.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#64 Dec 20 2010 at 10:34 AM Rating: Good
varusword75 wrote:
idiot,

Quote:
I would not be opposed to a military with less external presence in favor of a strong national defense. And that means we would stop being the policemen of the world and our soldiers would stop dying in other peoples' fights.



Thanks for proving my point; we know you, and every other Dem/liberal, on this board hate the military. Doing things like this drives an even greate wedge between the two factions in this nation.

The only reason Obama and congress are working late now is because they know the american people are sick of this type of sh*t and it's going to stop when the new congress is sworn in.

And for the record i'm not so sure Obama is going to sign off on this to begin with. The black community likes the homosexual community even less than their white counterparts.


Edited, Dec 20th 2010 10:51am by varusword75


? I didn't think being opposed to a useless war meant you hate your military. I don't like paying for my countries soilders in Afghanistan, payin to help people who do not appreciate or want our help, paying to help people who after 8 years are not even attempting to help themselves. Does that mean I hate my military? No it means I hate the mission. Put them someplace like the Ivory Cost and help the people there that are about to go through a hella ****** time, people who can not help themselves and people who have always been vry grateful for assistance in dealing with rogue warlords.

Supporting troops doesn't mean you have to like what they do. I support american troops and I am canadian, I do not support their mission, the reasoning behind the mission, nor the people that decided that they would send these sons, fathers, husbands, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, daughters off to fight in a place they are not wanted or appreciated. Just because people do not support the War means they want to see the men and women serving in it to die. Quite the contrary they want them to come home and stop dieing for a needless cause. Unless you can give me a reason to be in afghanistan that doesn't include, Osama Bin Laden, Terrorist Cell, Al Qaeda, or democracy.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#65 Dec 20 2010 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".
I don't think the issue is the same privacy issue with men and women. If you can't explain what you mean by that, or why you think that it's exactly the same it's sort of a strange point to make.

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
If you didn't treat someone differently based on what you thought about them, why would what you thought being true or not change how you treat someone?
Dude, what part of ASSUMPTION don't you understand?

Have you seen the movie Crash? Sometimes your stereotyping is accurate, sometimes it isn't. You shouldn't just go around judging people based off stuff that you aren't sure on.

Besides, that's the beauty of DADT, even if an individual DID treat someone differently, that individual can't say "I don't want to room with him/her b/c s/he's ***" with no proof.
Well, from your initial posts, including in past threads you seemed to be very confident that people generally knew who was *** and who wasn't, that it wasn't just a WAG. I also don't think you can somehow separate what you think the way you're saying. If someone has a problem rooming with gays, and is fairly certain the person he's sharing a room with is ***, then whether or not that person admits it won't really have too much impact on what he thinks. You're attributing some magical significance to the ability for someone to confirm publicly, and I don't see that.

I don't know the details, do people have a lot of choice generally in who they room with? What would be an acceptable reason to ask for a change of roomate? Why would being *** without DADT allow someone to complain and change their room?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#66 Dec 20 2010 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,064 posts
Almalieque wrote:
SuperAtheist wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
idiggory wrote:

The whole argument stems from the idea of the *** as a sissy who can't be trusted in war, which is why they are claiming that it would destroy unit cohesion (with the tough straight soldier unwilling to trust the guy with gaga playing on his ipod in the middle of a fire fight). Of course, they conveniently forget that there are plenty of super masculine *** guys. You know, all those *** guys who were in the military for years before getting caught...


o.O Source? From my experiences, that has been the least of anyone's concerns. Sounds like you're making stuff up.

According to the big brass who agreed to the repeal on certain circumstances stated a whole other argument. Coincidentally, the same one I later used...


There is no argument for DADT that doesn't stem from bigotry, so would you care to elaborate your position?


Sure, at first I had my own personal opinion, then I heard a 4 star mention something that I didn't ever realize.

The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together. So, the conclusion would be to either have separate billeting or have everyone live, sleep and shower together, regardless of *** or sexuality. This is why they agreed to the repeal, just at a later date.
God are you that stupid? Our soldiers are living, showering and billeting together under DADT?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#67 Dec 20 2010 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Flea wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote, to idiggory: wrote:



And Alma thinks gays are icky, which is fine as it is his right to do so. There is no need to "argue" with him about other reasons why he doesn't support DADT repeal, as the "Alma thinks Gays are icky" is the root cause & everything else is BS.
So please stop.




Whoa, sparklepony. Who died and made you Alla? I find it humorous that you are asking for a halt to upstanding debate (if you can call taunting a moran debate, which in here, you certainly can) when you yourself are sitting in the back of the metaphorical point bus.

The focus of his argument is the total lack of comprehension of what constitutes an enforceable policy or law vs. public ideology. Someone can think all day long that brown people are lawnmowing jobstealers who shoot out anchor babies like fireworks, but as long as they don't violate a policy or break a law by doing so, then I have jacksh*t to say about it. You can't regulate thought, so the fact that anyone thinks that gays are icky is ******* POINTLESS.


My post was directed at idiggory, as his gbaji length responses to alma ******* up threads on here seems to elicit gbaji-er responses from Alma himself which may one day lead to an actual gbaji response so long it will create one of the mini-black holes that even the LHC failed to create.

Even if that would help support string theory.

The rest of you can & should continue throwing shit at the monkey.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#68 Dec 20 2010 at 10:41 AM Rating: Default
Ya but you don't know who is *** and who isn't. So that means it is entirely safe.Smiley: rolleyes Of course its not like suddenly thousands gays are going to come out of the word work just because they can. I mean why put yourself in the line for unnecessary persecution if you don't have to.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 11:42am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#69 Dec 20 2010 at 10:44 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
The bottom line is, while the exclusion of homosexuals might have been due to prejudice and there might be people who still support those reasons, those have been the minority of what I've seen in my experiences in the military. This has also been stated by the generals in question, there's no denying that, so I'm not sure why people are trying to argue against me.

So, there is no addition in throwing in articles from the past, because I'm talking about my personal experiences and the generals who "just so happen" express the same thing.

Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".


So... your opinion is that it shouldn't be repealed because of a privacy issue, but you don't really understand and can't explain why privacy would be an issue?

Alrighty then... Smiley: rolleyes


This has been nothing but a game the entire time with Sir X.

I want him to accept the similarity. He's trying to lure me into saying something to be the basis of his argument. He doesn't want to admit the similarity first, because that would take away from his argument. You have to keep up Belkira!

Locke wrote:
Understandable, one might overhear you calling her a ***** and get ****** or something.


oooorrrrr something more realistic like get offended by a joke, sexual reference, a compliment or a date request... since the word "***" is somehow sexual harassment. I know I didn't want get in this discussion, but it's better than replying to people like Idiggory making up crap to argue that he hasn't any clue what he's talking about. Besides all I did was correct a false claim made and then I get thrown on the "hots seat" as defending x,y and Z.


The problem with sexual harassment isn't the *** part, it's the harassment part. People ASSUME that every sexual reference, rather if it's a natural biological reference or not, is harassment even though no one was actually harassed.

Sexual harassment for one person isn't the same for someone else.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#70 Dec 20 2010 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
Seems to remind me of when blacks were first allowed to join openly the military, and the complaint was they wouldn't care as much as whites, and they would be a distraction and lead to good clean white boys getting killed. Of course they could still be drafted.


just for fun:

Quote:
when blacksgays were first allowed to openly join the military, and the complaint was they wouldn't care as much as whitesstraights, and they would be a distraction and lead to good clean whitestraight boys getting killed. Of course they could still be drafted.


Quote:

Seems to remind me of when blackswomen were first allowed to openly join the military, and the complaint was they wouldn't care as much as whitesmen, and they would be a distraction and lead to good clean white boys getting killed. Of course they could still be drafted.


whoa double deja vu.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 11:48am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#71 Dec 20 2010 at 10:48 AM Rating: Decent
*
53 posts
varusword75 wrote:


Most of the military didn't want this. This is all you need to know. But because a few radicals think otherwise I guess we need to change what's worked to create the most effective and most powerful military on the earth.





Most of the military didn't want to integrate in the 40s either; was that a valid argument against de-segregating the military back then?

Majority does not rule when it comes to civil rights. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner and it's not going to be the sheep.
____________________________
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
#72 Dec 20 2010 at 10:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,064 posts
Wonder Gem rdmcandie wrote:
Seems to remind me of when blacks were first allowed to join openly the military, and the complaint was they wouldn't care as much as whites, and they would be a distraction and lead to good clean white boys getting killed. Of course they could still be drafted.


just for fun:

Quote:
when blacksgays were first allowed to openly join the military, and the complaint was they wouldn't care as much as whitesstraights, and they would be a distraction and lead to good clean whitestraight boys getting killed. Of course they could still be drafted.


Quote:

Seems to remind me of when blackswomen were first allowed to openly join the military, and the complaint was they wouldn't care as much as whitesmen, and they would be a distraction and lead to good clean white boys getting killed. Of course they could still be drafted.


whoa double deja vu.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 11:48am by rdmcandie
I've never heard anyone use the argument that gays and/or women shouldn't be in the military because they wouldn't care as much.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#73 Dec 20 2010 at 10:51 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Sir X wrote:
I don't think the issue is the same privacy issue with men and women. If you can't explain what you mean by that, or why you think that it's exactly the same it's sort of a strange point to make.


The comparison to women is the best explanation because it's the same thing. Let's start here then. Explain to me how they are different.

Sir X wrote:
Well, from your initial posts, including in past threads you seemed to be very confident that people generally knew who was *** and who wasn't, that it wasn't just a WAG. I also don't think you can somehow separate what you think the way you're saying. If someone has a problem rooming with gays, and is fairly certain the person he's sharing a room with is ***, then whether or not that person admits it won't really have too much impact on what he thinks. You're attributing some magical significance to the ability for someone to confirm publicly, and I don't see that.

I don't know the details, do people have a lot of choice generally in who they room with? What would be an acceptable reason to ask for a change of roomate? Why would being *** without DADT allow someone to complain and change their room?


You're overlooking the fine detail. You can be 100% sure that a person is a homosexual, but you can't ask for another roommate because your roommate is ***, because there is no proof. It's really that simple. If the dude is banging his bf in your room, then now you have proof and a potential reason for a new roommate.

How that person acts towards their roommate will vary for each person. I cant speak for everyone, but I do know you can't kick a guy out for wearing a pair of skinny jeans.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#74 Dec 20 2010 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
The majority of the military isn't opposed to having gays openly serving with them, so I'm not sure why Varus is making the blatantly false statement that they are.

He could bring up that the majority of marines and combat troops specifically are opposed, but then it's trivially easy to also point out that the vast majority of marines and combat troops who knowingly served with a *** service member had no issues with it.
#75Almalieque, Posted: Dec 20 2010 at 10:55 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) 1. Only idiots think sexuality is equivalent to your skin color and ***.
#76 Dec 20 2010 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,581 posts
Almalieque wrote:
1. Only idiots think sexuality is equivalent to your skin color and ***.

It's a sad thing that we can fix our past mistakes while learning nothing from them.
#77 Dec 20 2010 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".


So... your opinion is that it shouldn't be repealed because of a privacy issue, but you don't really understand and can't explain why privacy would be an issue?

Alrighty then... Smiley: rolleyes


This has been nothing but a game the entire time with Sir X.

I want him to accept the similarity. He's trying to lure me into saying something to be the basis of his argument. He doesn't want to admit the similarity first, because that would take away from his argument. You have to keep up Belkira!


So... privacy isn't an issue, and you're fine with the repeal?
#78 Dec 20 2010 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,866 posts
Alma, legitimate question (and I'm not even going to insult you in this post).

You say that soldiers won't want to room/shower with a *** guy because he is sexually attracted to men, right? You think that would make him uncomfortable? And you think the gays should have separate quarters?

Okay, then let me ask you this. What about the *** men and women who are now living exclusively with *** men/women?

They are now in a situation where everyone would be attracted to everyone (insofar as *** alone is an attractor).

Why is it okay to segregate them into another situation where they alone might be super uncomfortable? Unless you attribute blame to them for making the others uncomfortable, you have no right to do this. And if you *do* attribute blame to them, it can only be because you are prejudiced in favor of straight units.

*All this has been assuming you are right and it is the sexual attraction, not the sexuality itself, that people object to.*

So you would be choosing to place two groups into super awkward situations to save the rest from being in a slightly awkward situation. How is that going to encourage combat unity? It seems to me like having one or two *** guys using the same shower is less awkward for everyone.

[EDIT]
Quote:
1. Only idiots think sexuality is equivalent to your skin color and ***.


If by "only idiots" you mean "every *** person on the planet and many, many straight ones" then fine.

But the fact is that we have no scientific evidence supporting homosexuality as a choice, and a veritable ton of evidence saying it is.

Examples:
-*** men react to male pheromones and lesbians to female ones. This is subconscious and occurs once puberty starts. Straight men/women react to the opposite sexes'.

-When dealing with identical twins, if one of the two is *** the other is also 70% of the time.

-Genetic transplants in fruit flies from "***" to "straight" ones have managed to turn the "straight" ones "***."

-The x chromosomes in a mother switch on and off (one on, one off). This is normally a random process. But data of women with *** sons shows that their switches are far skewed. I don't know what that means specifically, but it is a sign of another factor).

-The more male children a mother has, the more likely a latter one will be ***. It is believed this is because the mother's system works up an auto-immune defense to males. So, one potential factor (remember that sexuality is the result of many different things, and there are multiple ways a child could end up ***) is that the mother's antibodies attack an antibody known as the HY antibody, which has been linked to sexuality. The reduced number of these causes the male's sexuality to remain unchanged, rather than emasculation (remember that the female is the standard state of a human fetus and that the Y chromosome changes the genetic blueprint).

-Evolution is able to tell a story involving how homosexual men contribute the good of the family group (as social animals) which has led them survive against natural selection despite not passing on their own genes. Even in modern times, sisters with *** brothers are more likely to have more children.

-Then there are specific studies that show differences in the brain.

I'm not criticizing you for not knowing this--few straight people bother trying to. But there's literally no evidence for homosexuality being a choice but a ton for it being the result of involuntary biological processes.

It isn't something a *** guy can change, and it isn't something he chooses. It's part of who he is--no different than your *** or your race. It all boils down to the biological processes that make you who you are.

If you are interested, I will give you sources. I didn't bother here because you haven't read anything else I've linked.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 12:24pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#79 Dec 20 2010 at 11:12 AM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
1. Only idiots think sexuality is equivalent to your skin color and ***.

It's a sad thing that we can fix our past mistakes while learning nothing from them.

It's a sad thing that we can fix our past mistakes without really knowing what they were.

Skin color and *** are genetic. Homosexuality has not been proven to be.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#80 Dec 20 2010 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
I'm not sure why Varus is making the blatantly false statement that they are.

Liar.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Dec 20 2010 at 11:19 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
The only meaningful point I have heard on the issue is the question of recruitment difficulties. I have seen no study on it, so I have no data, but it was an interesting question posed by my brother last night.

How does this impact the large percentage of the American military that enlists from "the Bible Belt" and will it matter if it does? Outside of that all of the other issues are pretty petty.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#82 Dec 20 2010 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
MoebiusLord wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
1. Only idiots think sexuality is equivalent to your skin color and ***.

It's a sad thing that we can fix our past mistakes while learning nothing from them.

It's a sad thing that we can fix our past mistakes without really knowing what they were.

Skin color and *** are genetic. Homosexuality has not been proven to be.


It also hasn't been proven as a choice either.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#83 Dec 20 2010 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,866 posts
Moe, there's tons of scientific evidence suggesting that sexuality is the result of a series of biological processes. It's also scientific fact that there are biological ways in which *** men differ from straight men (tests on females are way less common). I edited an above comment to include many of these.

Unless you are going to hold that you are able to choose your sexuality and, as a result, the body physically changes to suit it, then there really is no reason to believe it is a choice. Have they been able to say "A person becomes *** under these conditions?" No.

But that's like arguing that we shouldn't believe in gravity because all we have is evidence of its existence. Some scientists hold we don't understand it perfectly, but they all agree that it is an actual force within the universe.

Honestly, with there being literally no evidence for sexuality as a choice and a ton for it being biological, it seems fairly clear that one party is clearly favored.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#84 Dec 20 2010 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,969 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Locke wrote:
Understandable, one might overhear you calling her a ***** and get ****** or something.


oooorrrrr something more realistic like get offended by a joke, sexual reference, a compliment or a date request... since the word "***" is somehow sexual harassment. I know I didn't want get in this discussion, but it's better than replying to people like Idiggory making up crap to argue that he hasn't any clue what he's talking about. Besides all I did was correct a false claim made and then I get thrown on the "hots seat" as defending x,y and Z.


Hi, referring to one's (presumed) sexual orientation is a sexual reference. People take offense to such things. It happens, it's not uncommon. Instead of segregating yourself, you might want to just think before you speak?


Quote:
The problem with sexual harassment isn't the *** part, it's the harassment part. People ASSUME that every sexual reference, rather if it's a natural biological reference or not, is harassment even though no one was actually harassed.

Sexual harassment for one person isn't the same for someone else.


Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Just because you don't think it's harassing doesn't mean others agree. And know what? That's how the law works. Your view honestly seems like more of an issue of not thinking out what you say; or perhaps lack of knowledge on social norms and/or the English language.

Did you watch Bambi as a kid? Remember the phrase "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all"? If you think they might take offense, don't say anything.

It seems your own view might be the one needing adjusting though, as "People ASSUME" is pretty darn vague and seems to imply a systemic problem. Personally I've gotten to know people a bit before popping potentially upsetting comments. Maybe 5% of people you talk with will be jerks who would complain about anything; 10% will take being called a ***** (for example) as legitimate harassment; and 85% just don't like you, Alma, in particular.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#85 Dec 20 2010 at 11:34 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".


So... your opinion is that it shouldn't be repealed because of a privacy issue, but you don't really understand and can't explain why privacy would be an issue?

Alrighty then... Smiley: rolleyes


This has been nothing but a game the entire time with Sir X.

I want him to accept the similarity. He's trying to lure me into saying something to be the basis of his argument. He doesn't want to admit the similarity first, because that would take away from his argument. You have to keep up Belkira!


So... privacy isn't an issue, and you're fine with the repeal?


Once again, I merely corrected the false assumption that everyone who is against the repeal is because of prejudice. I only used the privacy issue because that's what the generals and big politicians are stating in their defense. The entire point is that while some people are just bigots, that isn't true for everyone. The privacy issue is a legitimate point. You all just refuse to accept that because that's how society is making homosexual gains, by calling everyon bigots and homophobes if they disagree.

RDD wrote:
It also hasn't been proven as a choice either.


Neither is being born blind and they still can't join, so what's your point?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#86 Dec 20 2010 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
The comparison to women is the best explanation because it's the same thing. Let's start here then. Explain to me how they are different.
Smiley: lol Ok, men and women are men and women, men and men aren't. Clearly they are different.

Almalieque wrote:
You're overlooking the fine detail. You can be 100% sure that a person is a homosexual, but you can't ask for another roommate because your roommate is ***, because there is no proof. It's really that simple. If the dude is banging his bf in your room, then now you have proof and a potential reason for a new roommate.
You don't seem to be understanding what I was saying but whatever. You're getting caught up in the legality of DADT which wasn't my point at all.

belkira wrote:
So... privacy isn't an issue, and you're fine with the repeal?
Given how he can't explain or quantify the privacy issue, I don't think he really understands it beyond "it's an argument he's heard from some top people" We'll see, I'm playing his 20 questions game he loves so much, so maybe he'll let me in on the secret. I think he agrees with the privacy argument, but it's hard to tell, maybe he doesn't and he's just arguing it for no reason.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 11:38am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#87 Dec 20 2010 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
The only meaningful point I have heard on the issue is the question of recruitment difficulties. I have seen no study on it, so I have no data, but it was an interesting question posed by my brother last night.

How does this impact the large percentage of the American military that enlists from "the Bible Belt" and will it matter if it does? Outside of that all of the other issues are pretty petty.


I reckon they'll either get over it, or get a dishonerable discharge by acting out in an idiotic manner. It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a ***** in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them.
#88 Dec 20 2010 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Once again, I merely corrected the false assumption that everyone who is against the repeal is because of prejudice. I only used the privacy issue because that's what the generals and big politicians are stating in their defense. The entire point is that while some people are just bigots, that isn't true for everyone. The privacy issue is a legitimate point. You all just refuse to accept that because that's how society is making homosexual gains, by calling everyon bigots and homophobes if they disagree.


It's not an issue, though. There are homosexuals in the military right this second. You probably showered with one when you last took a communal shower. All the yammering about privacy is just a way to stall and keep people from getting rid of an archaic and stupid rule.
#89 Dec 20 2010 at 11:40 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,866 posts
#90 Dec 20 2010 at 11:41 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Locke wrote:
Hi, referring to one's (presumed) sexual orientation is a sexual reference. People take offense to such things. It happens, it's not uncommon. Instead of segregating yourself, you might want to just think before you speak?


Uh... no.

It's not that simple. Because you'll be talking to a female who make sexual comments and everyone laughs. Then you might respond one way, thinking she's cool with it because of the stuff she says and does, and then all of the sudden you offended her.

Well, that's like the girls who wear shirt skirts and tops and get offended when you look at their chest and legs. How about I just remove myself from them. Every other normal girl interacts the way I'm used to being around. There's no reason in taking chances at work.

Locke wrote:
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Just because you don't think it's harassing doesn't mean others agree. And know what? That's how the law works. Your view honestly seems like more of an issue of not thinking out what you say; or perhaps lack of knowledge on social norms and/or the English language.

Did you watch Bambi as a kid? Remember the phrase "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all"? If you think they might take offense, don't say anything.

It seems your own view might be the one needing adjusting though, as "People ASSUME" is pretty darn vague and seems to imply a systemic problem. Personally I've gotten to know people a bit before popping potentially upsetting comments. Maybe 5% of people you talk with will be jerks who would complain about anything; 10% will take being called a ***** (for example) as legitimate harassment; and 85% just don't like you, Alma, in particular.


I'm not grasping your point. Maybe my reply above is relevant to this.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#91 Dec 20 2010 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Well, that's like the girls who wear shirt skirts and tops and get offended when you look at their chest and legs. How about I just remove myself from them. Every other normal girl interacts the way I'm used to being around. There's no reason in taking chances at work.


You've got issues, Alma.
#92 Dec 20 2010 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,866 posts
Quote:
It's not that simple. Because you'll be talking to a female who make sexual comments and everyone laughs. Then you might respond one way, thinking she's cool with it because of the stuff she says and does, and then all of the sudden you offended her.


Girl- Hahaha, he should keep it in his pants!
Alma- Yeah... Hey, can I motorboat you?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#93 Dec 20 2010 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
That privacy thing and the showers... it has nothing to do with being straight or ***. If I, as a straight female, am showering with other straight females, my privacy is being violated. Having a ******* or two in there isn't going to make my privacy any more violated.
#94 Dec 20 2010 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,969 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Locke wrote:
Hi, referring to one's (presumed) sexual orientation is a sexual reference. People take offense to such things. It happens, it's not uncommon. Instead of segregating yourself, you might want to just think before you speak?


Uh... no.

I'm not sure if you were responding to "People take offense to such things"; "It happens, it's not uncommon"; or "You might want to just think before you speak?"

Let's break them down!
1. Yes, they do. It's YOUR fault if you said it. So, don't say potentially harassing things.
2. Again, it's not uncommon. This isn't my argument to back up, as you've been saying "People ASSUME", thus implying more than one person.
3. If you don't believe you should think before you speak... well, I think we just clarified almost all of your posts here! Smiley: lol

Quote:
It's not that simple. Because you'll be talking to a female who make sexual comments and everyone laughs. Then you might respond one way, thinking she's cool with it because of the stuff she says and does, and then all of the sudden you offended her.

Then don't make a sexual comment or a comment that might be considered inappropriate? Goodness, it's not a hard concept. Self-moderation is a great thing, and if you cannot (or will not) use it, why would you complain when it bites you?
Quote:
Well, that's like the girls who wear shirt skirts and tops and get offended when you look at their chest and legs. How about I just remove myself from them. Every other normal girl interacts the way I'm used to being around. There's no reason in taking chances at work.

This is so startlingly close to the "She deserved it for wearing that" rape argument that I'm really getting creeped out by you. You hit the nail on the head though - don't take chances AT WORK. It's work, stop popping off-color jokes that could be offensive. Who cares if others are doing it? If you're offended, report them; if you're afraid you'd get in trouble for doing the same, uh, don't do it!

Alma wrote:
I'm not grasping your point. Maybe my reply above is relevant to this.

Point was right in my part you quoted: "If you think they might take offense, don't say anything."
Also,
LockeColeMA wrote:
85% just don't like you, Alma
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#95 Dec 20 2010 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,866 posts
Quote:
This is so startlingly close to the "She deserved it for wearing that" rape argument that I'm really getting creeped out by you. You hit the nail on the head though - don't take chances AT WORK. It's work, stop popping off-color jokes that could be offensive. Who cares if others are doing it? If you're offended, report them; if you're afraid you'd get in trouble for doing the same, uh, don't do it!


Right? He should TOTALLY say that to a female coworker--she would be so flattered!

[EDIT]

It's bullsh*t that I can't rate up Xsarus or Locke anymore. >:(

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 1:09pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#96 Dec 20 2010 at 12:13 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
idiggory wrote:
Moe, there's tons of scientific evidence suggesting that sexuality is the result of a series of biological processes. It's also scientific fact that there are biological ways in which *** men differ from straight men (tests on females are way less common). I edited an above comment to include many of these.

Bilogical processes can be impacted and effected by behavior and environment.
idiggory wrote:
But that's like arguing that we shouldn't believe in gravity because all we have is evidence of its existence. Some scientists hold we don't understand it perfectly, but they all agree that it is an actual force within the universe.

Yeah, they're really nothing alike, what so ever, but if you feel the need to take the conversation in a different direction, who am I to try and stop you.
idiggory wrote:
Honestly, with there being literally no evidence for sexuality as a choice and a ton for it being biological, it seems fairly clear that one party is clearly favored.

400 years ago it seemed pretty clear that Earth was the center of the universe, too. Then we gained a better understanding of things. Now we know that I am the center of the universe.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#97 Dec 20 2010 at 12:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,969 posts
idiggory wrote:

[EDIT]

It's bullsh*t that I can't rate up Xsarus or Locke anymore. >:(

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 1:09pm by idiggory


It's cool, I can rate myself up.
Quote:
LockeColeMA
9,029 posts
Score: Excellent [5.00]
LockeColeMA: 5.00
LockeColeMA: 5.00
LockeColeMA: 6.00

____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#98 Dec 20 2010 at 12:14 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
The only meaningful point I have heard on the issue is the question of recruitment difficulties. I have seen no study on it, so I have no data, but it was an interesting question posed by my brother last night.

How does this impact the large percentage of the American military that enlists from "the Bible Belt" and will it matter if it does? Outside of that all of the other issues are pretty petty.


I reckon they'll either get over it, or get a dishonerable discharge by acting out in an idiotic manner. It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a ***** in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them.

I reckon you should read before you write. Recruitment difficulties don't really relate to people on active service.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#99 Dec 20 2010 at 12:19 PM Rating: Excellent
9,030 posts
Score: Default [2.11]
LockeColeMA: 5.00
LockeColeMA: 5.00
LockeColeMA: 6.00
Xsarus: 1.00
Xsarus: 1.00
Xsarus: 1.00
Xsarus: -2.00
Xsarus: 1.00
Xsarus: 1.00


Muhahahaha. Of course then I felt bad and rated him back up to excellent. Smiley: lol
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#100 Dec 20 2010 at 12:25 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,866 posts
Except that it is awkward that these differences may be observed at the very onset of sexuality.

Is it possible that someone "chooses" their sexuality before sexuality actually influences biological developments? Yes.

But does that really give any more weight to the "it's a choice" argument against self-identification? I don't think so.

Even if it is a choice, it's one that we make at an extremely young age before we even begin to develop sexual tendencies. A child can't comprehend what being *** actually means, because they can't even understand what being straight is. Sure, they might know that *** guys like guys and straight guys like women, but they have no ability to relate to the feelings of it.

So now you are judging someone for a choice they made as a child, when they were literally incapable of understanding the ramifications of either. Furthermore, it is HIGHLY unlikely it is a choice in the conscious sense, as no *** or straight person I have ever met remembers the moment they "chose" their sexuality.

So now that choice leads to their biology to literally shift, so that their brain develops the one sexuality over the other.

Can you, Moe, imagine actually switching sexualities? Because I can't. I can imagine sleeping with women and such. But I can't imagine actually forcing myself to become sexually attracted to them.

So if the choice isn't something you can actually change, why bother discriminating against them?

Furthermore, your argument at the very least has to account that the choice is heavily influenced by situations outside the child's control, or else there would be no way to correlate the increase in homosexuality in subsequent male children or in twins.

So now we have a choice made subconsciously, due to heavy environmental influence, at an extremely young age, with no scientific data suggesting that you can actually change it after the fact.

Yeah, that seems like something blameworthy.

[EDIT]

And your analogy is retarded. This isn't a case of assumption, it is a case of extrapolating the best possible answer from the data provided. The data DOES NOT suggest that homosexuality is purely genetic. It does heavily suggest that homosexuality is due to many factors outside the subject's control.

There was no reason to assume the earth was flat. And no scientific authorities in the last 2k years actually believed that (it's an old wives tale). They were wrong about the structure of the cosmos of course, but that about sums it up.

Will science EVER fully explain anything? Probably not. That's no reason to assume that you should never lend credence to what your data suggests. It's a reason to investigate the other options. I've never heard of a study looking for evidence of choice and being successful. Please link one if you do.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 1:30pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#101 Dec 20 2010 at 12:37 PM Rating: Decent
*
53 posts
@Homosexuality being a choice:

When did all the heterosexuals making the argument it isn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Did you actively CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite gender, or did you just sort of naturally feel attracted to the opposite gender?
____________________________
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help