Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Because Nudity was made to be taboo. By the church. What was the first thing Adam and Eve did when they gained knowledge. Covered their junk. It has been made so by the church and continued to be expressed throughout the generations for thousands of years. Which is why I said find me a nude office, clothing is an acceptable counter to the taboo. It has always been this way, forever and ever amen.



Make stuff up? It is fact, and should likely be common knowledge, even to hardcore religious types. The Church enforced the doctrine they wrote chose to include in the bible. They did so in order to control society. Nudity was taboo'd because it said so in the bible. Back in the days where there was no such thing as rights.

Previously men and women shared communal baths, were nude infront of one another, a simple read through any history book will tell you all about historical societies and any read through a recent history book (last 1000 years or so) will tell you of the wonderous things the church did to suppress people and force them to live by rules they deemed were appropriate.



Some people don't feel comfortable being nude in front of anyone, does that mean we should separate the entire world (its a bigger number) into 7-8 billion little personal compartments so everyone is treated the exact same, everyone gets to avoid being social, because maybe 20% of that population was uncomfortable.

It is illogical and inefficient. There are programs in place that allow for the people who are uncomfortable to get comfort. In the military society and in civilian society. There is no special Gay rules, because they are not any different. Gay men are men, Gay women are women. In Canada (because I can't use an example from your *** backwards land of lolliberty) gays and straights have the exact same rights, the exact same rules, and the exact same opportunities. If a straight man is uncomfortable around a gay man in a workplace he tells his super he is uncomfortable working with that person. This is then dealt with. It would be the same if he had an issue with a Straight man, woman or lesbian.



I wouldn't personally, but if the majority chose it to be so than it would be so. I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality in any aspect of society, they are just as capable as a straight person and deserve the same rights and opportunities in their lives as I do.




Nude beaches are private, they are outside the domain of public interference. It is the same as if I opened my property to be a nudist colony. There is nothing anyone can do to me. Now if one of my nudist friends decided to go to the store and went naked they could be charged with indecent exposure because of laws that are enforceable on public property.



I am not on a team, I am calling you an idiot on my own. Your idea of separation based on a insignificant amount of real data from your own country, at the same time denying years of data from other countries is ridiculous. You are basing your entire position on hypothetical situation you have concocted to support your ridiculous case that Homosexuals will cause comfort issue for straight people. The data provided to the US by places like Canada, the UK and Australia who have had gays in the military for years does not support your hypothetical situations. It is business as usual. The only way that business won't be as usual is because of preconceived notions that gays are icky or evil. There is nothing that can change peoples mind set on that, not even seperation. These people are bigots and they will remain so until the very end.

No I am not saying you should be comfortable with nudity, that is entirely up to you. All I am saying is that the reason for separation and clothing is because the Church made it Taboo to see the naked body. It made seeing the opposite sex sinful as well, as stated numerous times in the bible.

These rules were enforced on people at a time when they had no power to change them. The rules were upheld generation after generation after generation. Previous organized cultures such as greek and roman held women and men on equal footing, often times women had more authority than men. These cultures also had communal baths where men and women liberally were seen naked in front of each other.

It was not until the Church gained power that these things began to change.




Because influence from our ancestors were taught than men and women should not be together unless married, this was a result of years and years of being told that the fraternizing or displaying ones self around the opposite sex was wrong. While our current society has knocked some barriers down (women working, women voting) we still hold to those middle age values that women and men should not be naked around each other.


I am not fighting for homosexual gains, I am arguing with you over your ineffective solution to a non existent problem.



Why should there be any special rules? Gay men are still men, and Gay women are still women. They don't magically alter in to a 3rd and 4th sexual distinction. They follow the same rules men follow, and the same rules women follow, which is the same rules everyone follows. They should not have a special rule list, because that is discrimination.



It is not the same, homosexual men are men, they should be treated like men and the same as men. They are not women. Stop using that as a comparison.


and if you actually read the data posted (by joph i think) you would see it states specifically terms which involved harassment from gays, or to gays. Which is directly related to this. If Comfort/Privacy is your only argument then ill refer you to this rebutle.

Grow up.

Not everything is perfect, deal with it, you don't want to shower/room with a homosexual, you don't shower or room with a homosexual. You use the same avenues that people have been using for years to avoid people that make them feel uncomfortable.

A. Avoid said person
B. Notify a superior of your discomfort around said person
C. DEAL WITH IT
D. Leave the place and find something new to do.

Why does there have to be anymore than that. There doesn't.

It amuses me how it's almost a guarantee to find Alma in every gay thread in the OOT/Asylum.

I understand a fair amount of leniency is involved in casual writing, but a coma separating that dependent clause is incredibly helpful for ease of reading.

On a completely related note, I need to use less commas and more periods. I am the king of the run on sentence.

D,o,e,s, ,i,t, a,t, l,e,a,s,t, k,e,e,p, you fr,,,,,,,,om wan,t,i,n,g to giv,e po,st,e,r,s r,and,o,m comM,a,s?

Edited, Jan 9th 2011 5:09pm by Kaolian

Nice edit.


Serenity Now. Serenity Now. Serenity Now.

lol, my short responses are only an attempt to waste as little time with you as possible. Nor has my argument changed. I talk about different things from time to time because it bores me to hear you say the same stupid things over and over-- I like to get to the new ones.



No, they are ALLOWED to join as long as they keep it secret. Can you ******* read? That's what the military says. ****, you're especially thick.




I don't think I forgot. If anything, I was ignoring it, but I'm pretty sure I already said that there was a difference between a fear or anxiety of sexual assault and anxiety from being around someone who might be attracted to you are patently different.

I did have a nice trip to Vegas though. Saw an awful lot of ***** and *** in the spa with my fellow males, and everyone seemed ok with it!

You do realize the difference between being ABLE to join and allowed to join, right? What you're saying makes no sense.. Just because you break a rule and keep it a secret, that doesn't mean that you're allowed to do it. It means that you're able to do it without getting caught.

You said the following:

No, that IS what the DOD says. You're confusing (probably intentionally) homosexual CONDUCT with homosexual orientation. The DOD says very clearly that people are not to be discharged for their sexual orientation. They can, however, be discharged for homosexual conduct, which really just means that they can be discharged for sodomy, just like straight service members can be.


You were making the argument that homosexuals don't get discharged for their sexual orientation, but because of homosexual conduct. I quoted from the policy that clearly stated otherwise. Now you're just trying to spin it and say "oh, if they keep it a secret".. OF COURSE... That has always been the case even before DADT. That doesn't mean that they were ALLOWED. You know this, you just don't want to admit that you're wrong.



And I've also said that I never mentioned sexual assault in that question, so answer the question. "So, you're saying that a woman who expresses anxiety about a man checking her out makes her a heterophobe?" No where in that statement did I mention, robbery, aliens, rape, assault, The boogy man, Big Foot or leprechauns. So quit adding crap into the scenario and just answer the question.



If they didn't seem ok with it, then they probably wouldn't have gone. How about that.. people voluntarily engaging in public nudity and not having a problem with it... amazing...

this

Liar, Liar...