Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

#552 Oct 09 2011 at 2:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Learn to perceive reality better.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#553Almalieque, Posted: Oct 09 2011 at 2:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Finally.
#554Almalieque, Posted: Oct 09 2011 at 2:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) As I said, it's not necessarily a personal thing, it's just how things are. People can fully believe that you're not having an affair, but if you two are constantly together beyond what should be necessary, then it *can* very well end up with at a minimum of some form of counseling.
#555 Oct 09 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
it's just how things are
That makes it right? That's what the military for the shining city on a hill should shoot for? Status quo?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#556 Oct 09 2011 at 3:05 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,211 posts
I just want to point out that Alma's "the gays can bunk but breeders can't" argument is transparent for anyone that knows anything. The chain of command is in charge of those types of decisions, so if they choose to not let the gays live together it is entirely in their power.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#557Almalieque, Posted: Oct 09 2011 at 3:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Apparently that's good enough for separating men and women.
#558 Oct 09 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
Almalieque wrote:


Nadenu wrote:
It's the military. WE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND.


Finally.

Learn to sarcasm, idiot. I have never agreed with anything you've said. About anything. Ever.
#559 Oct 09 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
If the people in power are ignorant, bigoted fools, then it's time for them to retire.


It's not just the people, that's how the military operates. "Perception is reality". Do I agree with it? Not really, but that's how it's done.

Edited, Oct 9th 2011 10:45pm by Almalieque


So you are a homophobic bigot then, because I am perceiving it as such.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#560 Oct 09 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
So you are a homophobic bigot then, because I am perceiving it as such.
I think the current perception is that he's a closeted homosexual that just feigns homophobia. But that's just perception, so it must be reality.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#561 Oct 09 2011 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
The military isn't (or at least wasn't supposed to be) a place to freely express yourself. If you want to freely express yourself then you're in the wrong career.

I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to grasp.

It's not. But the military shouldn't be a place to arbitrarily take away rights and freedoms just because "It's the military!"

Maybe the body of people supposedly tasked with defending our freedoms should have a slightly more justifiable reason for taking freedoms away.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#562 Oct 09 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,835 posts
I said that like ten pages ago: the military's justification for this behavior is that it has a completely different set of morals (or, say, rights) than civilians, and Alma scoffed at it then, but that appears to be his argument now.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#563 Oct 09 2011 at 11:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Omega wrote:


True- to an extent. But while the military is allowed to discriminate based on gender (Womans' roles in combat, for example), they are NOT allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation or race.


Alma wrote:
Says who?


Your commander in Chief & a court order.

Alma wrote:
This whole battle was to REMOVE the discrimination.


It has been removed.

Omega wrote:

False: Because the military allowed straights to be open about their sexuality & disallowed homosexuals from being open about theirs (by kicking them out if they were gay), this caused an issue in regards to equal rights.

Alma wrote:
Uhhhh.... that translates into "that's not fair". Besides, I've already mentioned that heterosexuals aren't free to talk about their sexual preferences, encounters and/or desires. So you're wrong on both accounts.


It is a fact that a heterosexual, before DADT repeal, could talk about their "sexual preferences, encounters and/or desires" without fear of being kicked out of the military while a homosexual could not. Not only is it unfair, but it's wrong considering our country was founded on the notion that "all men are created equal".

Alma wrote:
False: The concept of DADT is beyond sexuality. You're not allowed to do "x", we're not going to ask or pursue you about doing "x", but if we find out about it, then we will take actions. That doesn't mean it's "ok" to do "x". an "obvious lesbian" isn't a "lesbian". This was nothing more than a compromise. If you were "ALLOWED" to be homosexual, then you wouldn't discharged for it.


Close: In reality, it's similar to what Christian Church's believe in regards to homosexuality. It's ok to be "gay", it's not ok to act upon it. Sodomy was/is against the military code of conduct, "being gay" was not. Furthermore, since at least 1999, active duty National Guardsman & Reservists were allowed to be homosexual & serve (In fact, this was allowed to stop straight men from pretending to be gay in order to not get deployed!)

Alma wrote:
I'm not sure if you fail to see the compromise or if you just don't want to accept it. In any case, you're still just saying "it's not fair".


I understand that DADT was a compromise & believe it was unfair to homosexuals. If DADT banned everyone from discussing sexual orientation (it didn't, it banned asking about it), then it would have been a fair compromise. Unreasonable? Sure, but more fair since it didn't single out one sexual orientation as acceptable & another as not.

[quote-Alma]You're such a hypocrite it's ridiculous. Just above, I'm telling you how homosexuals have ALWAYS been discriminated against and you're saying "well that's just not right". Here we're talking about segregation of men and women and how that's not right and you're saying "well it's ALWAYS been that way".[/quote]

Homosexuals have been discriminated against since 1942, in the military. It has never been "right". The separation of men & woman in situations where their naughty bits could show isn't "wrong" because it doesn't disenfranchise either group. Heck, segregated schools would have been upheld in Brown vs The Board of Education if those schools were equal. Since men's & women's showers are equal, it does not violate the constitution, unlike the racially segregated schools. It HAS always been this way.

Alma wrote:
Is long lasting previous practices a foundation to continue the said practices? If so, then DADT should remain based on previous practices. If not, then provide a logical reason on why men and women are separated other than "because it's always been that way".


It is logical to segregate restrooms by sex because men's rooms have urinals to accommodate a man's needs & woman's rooms have sit down toilets & tampon machines to accommodate women's needs. Gender segregated restrooms are a tradition that disenfranchises neither sex, while DADT singles out a single sexual orientation & disenfranchises that group.

Alma wrote:

The bottom line is that Joe can room with his boyfriend John, but Jack can't room with his girlfriend Sarah (for the most part, not always).


Cite? Evidence? First hand experience? Do you have anything at all to support this? lolgaxe says you're wrong & since he is both military & able to convey his thoughts by using the written word effectively I'm going to have to agree with him, that you're @#%^ing lying, until such a time that you can PROVE otherwise.

Alma wrote:

If you're all about ending discrimination, then it might be nice not to create additional discrimination. Obviously you're not about ending discrimination, just allowing homosexuals to freely express themselves. There's nothing wrong with that, but just say so. Stop pretending that you're about "discrimination" when you don't care.


Until such time that you can prove that the military now allows homosexual couples to bunk up together & disallows heterosexual couples from doing the same, I'm going to have to say there is NO discrimination against heterosexuals in the military resulting from DADT repeal. Prove otherwise & that argument may hold some weight.

Alma wrote:
Lastly, but not all, the government realizes the previous statement. That is why homosexual couples (at least from my last thread) would not get any additional benefits that a heterosexual couple would receive. Doing this creates yet another discrimination between the couples. Only this time, it's against the homosexuals. Are you willing to say "suck it up" now? Or is that only when it's against heterosexuals?


What does the US military realize? (Use a complete sentence). Homosexuals are still discriminated against because of the DOMA, which is why they don't get the federal benefits that heterosexual married couples get. This is also wrong.

Alma wrote:
I mean unless you support SSM with no benefits being the same as heterosexual marriages with benefits, then there's a difference.


There is a difference & it's wrong, but this is a separate subject.

So, since DADT was repealed last month, what's changed Alma? How has it effected you, personally? How do you feel about those changes? And, just what are your overall thoughts on homosexuals, in general?

Also, do you love the cock, hate the cock, or fear the cock?
____________________________
"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


#564Almalieque, Posted: Oct 10 2011 at 4:17 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read above. That's why it was a compromise. It wasn't to be "fair", but to allow someone to be something that they aren't supposed to be in the military. The military do background checks, you can't be things like "registered sex-offenders, convicted murderers, etc. The compromise was that they weren't going to check,ask or pursue our sexual orientation.
#565 Oct 10 2011 at 4:24 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Ran out of time, will have to do your post in breaks, but this is important to be a stand alone.

Omega wrote:
The separation of men & woman in situations where their naughty bits could show isn't "wrong" because it doesn't disenfranchise either group. Heck, segregated schools would have been upheld in Brown vs The Board of Education if those schools were equal. Since men's & women's showers are equal, it does not violate the constitution, unlike the racially segregated schools.


So how is that different from "SSM isn't discrimination because both sexes are treated equally. Separation but Equal was wrong because the schools weren't equal. Since both sexes are treated the same, there is no discrimination on sexuality."

I've been arguing this same exact argument forever and you were no where to be found. Well, I'm glad that someone else has agreed with me. So next time when we start talking about SSM, don't go changing your tune. You agree with me.

Omega wrote:
It HAS always been this way.


That doesn't make it logical. Now are you or are you not going to give me a logical explanation on why men and women have ALWAYS been separated by sex? For the Pete's sake, will you just admit that it's the same reason why some heterosexual men don't want to shower with homosexual men?

It's the same exact thing. It's just a double standard. I accept it. I don't expect it to change, nor do I really want it to change. Just man up and admit that it's the same reason as opposed to trying to talk around it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#566 Oct 10 2011 at 4:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:

False. You're just making stuff up. People are relieved of duty and forced to retire all of the time due to their heterosexual encounters.

We have Soldiers now getting UCMJ actions for having heterosexual sex.

So you support rules that say "No sex, unless with your spouse" and in some cases just "NO SEX", but think its absurd to support DADT?!?!


Cool story, but we weren't talking about the act of sex while being in the military, we were talking about discussing sex while in the military. Pretty big difference, eh? Try as you might, I will not be discussing the act of sex while in the military with you as this is about your thoughts on DADT. Mine are pretty clear, yours are all over the place. Please stay on topic, thanks.

Alma wrote:
So as I said, you're just saying "wah, wah wah, it's not fair" in an organization that blatantly and openly discriminates as if you and your "group" is somehow special.


Besides a woman's role in combat & the physical requirement needed to join the armed forces (neither of which are the equivalent of discrimination solely based upon ones sexual orientation), how does the military blatantly & openly discriminate? Be specific.

Alma wrote:
Incorrect


What is "incorrect"? That it was never ok to be gay while in the military? That Guardsman & Reservist could be openly gay since 1999? Wouldn't one presume that under DADT provided one wasn't openly gay, that it was ok to be gay while in the military? Wasn't that the compromise?

Alma wrote:
The compromise was that they weren't going to check,ask or pursue our sexual orientation.


So if they found out you were straight you were kicked out too? I thought it was only if you were openly gay you were kicked out...

Alma wrote:
So how is that different from "SSM isn't discrimination because both sexes are treated equally. Separation but Equal was wrong because the schools weren't equal. Since both sexes are treated the same, there is no discrimination on sexuality."

I've been arguing this same exact argument forever and you were no where to be found. Well, I'm glad that someone else has agreed with me. So next time when we start talking about SSM, don't go changing your tune. You agree with me.


False equivalency, thy name is Alma. Know what is the equivalent in regards to SSM & separate but equal? That outside of the full legal recognition of marriage between same-sex partners "civil unions" remain separate & unequal!

Alma wrote:
Now are you or are you not going to give me a logical explanation on why men and women have ALWAYS been separated by sex?


Plumbing.

Alma wrote:
will you just admit that it's the same reason why some heterosexual men don't want to shower with homosexual men?


Homo's have the same plumbing as hetero's, so it's cool if they shower together, provided their the same gender. If you're uncomfortable showering with homo's, that's on you. Do feel free to explain why, though.





____________________________
"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


#567 Oct 10 2011 at 5:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Alma wrote:

You haven't provided any reason other than "it's not fair" for why DADT shouldn't ever exist.


Provide a reason other than "it's not fair" against me owning you. Fairness and equality(such as it is) are the basis of most of our human rights you moron.

Edited, Oct 10th 2011 7:15am by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#568 Oct 10 2011 at 5:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,670 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Provide a reason other than "it's not fair" against me owning you.
Then you'd have to listen to him in person.
____________________________
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

#569 Oct 10 2011 at 5:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Provide a reason other than "it's not fair" against me owning you.
Then you'd have to listen to him in person.

I take your point.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#570 Oct 10 2011 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'm not. But the military shouldn't be a place to arbitrarily take away rights and freedoms just because "It's the military!"

Maybe the body of people supposedly tasked with defending our freedoms should have a slightly more justifiable reason for taking freedoms away.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
Because "slightly" isn't enough nor is it a standard unit of measure. It's something that you arbitrarily accept pending on how you are affected. If every freedom were restored except that, it would be considered "slightly" and you still would disagree/

I sure hope you didn't think a bit of semantic prattle over me using the word "slightly" was adequate justification for taking away someone's freedoms.

Quote:
We have Soldiers now getting UCMJ actions So you support rules that say "No sex, unless with your spouse" and in some cases just "NO SEX", but think its absurd to support DADT?!?!

Sure. Have the same rules apply to everyone and problem solved. And no one believes you when you try to pretend that was the case before since then we wouldn't have needed the law anyway. If bunking up with romantic partners is against the rules then there's no reason to cry about how "unfair" it is; just discipline those who break this rule.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#571Almalieque, Posted: Oct 10 2011 at 11:17 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read my first long post, you know the original response to that question. Most of it is quoted in post 206.
#572 Oct 10 2011 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
You know, I wouldn't mind a combined restroom, so long as I have a lockable door on my stall. It would probably be more uncomfortable for a man to hear the crinkle of paper from a sanitary napkin than it would ever be for me.
____________________________
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.
#573 Oct 10 2011 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
You know, I wouldn't mind a combined restroom, so long as I have a lockable door on my stall. It would probably be more uncomfortable for a man to hear the crinkle of paper from a sanitary napkin than it would ever be for me.

Yeah, that's the thing. Alma can wring his hands all day over how there should be just one bathroom, but I don't know ANY men that want to hear or see what a woman is doing in there. My husband doesn't even want to be around that stuff. I'm guessing Alma doesn't really know what a period is, what goes on during said period, and how it can be uncomfortable for everyone involved.
#574 Oct 10 2011 at 12:21 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
ITT men are pussies.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#575 Oct 10 2011 at 12:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,466 posts
After adding a wife and two daughters, every bathroom is now a shared bathroom. Un-discarded soiled pads and such is just another fun part of life.

Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#576 Oct 10 2011 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,211 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
After adding a wife and two daughters, every bathroom is now a shared bathroom.
I have a wife and a two year old daughter, and I have to ask you how you managed to even get that much? All I have is a hole in the toothbrusher holder and a shelf for my ibuprofen and my razor. Smiley: crymore
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#577 Oct 10 2011 at 12:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,466 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
After adding a wife and two daughters, every bathroom is now a shared bathroom.
I have a wife and a two year old daughter, and I have to ask you how you managed to even get that much? All I have is a hole in the toothbrusher holder and a shelf for my ibuprofen and my razor. Smiley: crymore


I hide my toothbrush on the top shelf of my dresser so it doesn't get 'borrowed'. Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#578 Oct 10 2011 at 12:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
After adding a wife and two daughters, every bathroom is now a shared bathroom.
I have a wife and a two year old daughter, and I have to ask you how you managed to even get that much? All I have is a hole in the toothbrusher holder and a shelf for my ibuprofen and my razor. Smiley: crymore


I hide my toothbrush on the top shelf of my dresser so it doesn't get 'borrowed'. Smiley: frown

I'm nice. I give my husband one half of the bathroom counter. All the drawers and cabinets are mine, though.
#579 Oct 10 2011 at 4:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,382 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:

So you think men would get away with raping women in a military shower?
Get away with? No. Would it be much more likely than a man on man rape in a military shower? Absolutely.


I've been trying to stay the heck out of this one, but I have a hard time accepting this statement. Do you have any evidence for this? I would think that in todays military, women are vastly more likely to come forward if a rape does occur than men. Your claim assumes some kind of vast good-ol-boy network of hiding assaults on women within the military that just does not exist.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#580 Oct 10 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hrm

Edited, Oct 10th 2011 6:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#581 Oct 10 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,382 posts
Jophiel wrote:


Ok. According to a link from that source, 87% of reported sexual assaults were male on female, and 7% were male on male.

Yet, in the source you linked, it said that "But women aren’t the only victims; statistics from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs indicate that more than half of those who screen positive for Military Sexual Trauma are men."

Obviously, the ratios are skewed among the populations themselves, with assault odds being higher for women than men, but the issue I'm talking about is the likelihood of the assault being reported in the first place to even have a chance of being dealt with. For that analysis, the above stats are pretty significant. They suggest that there's a dramatic underreporting of sexual assault on males in the military.

Which is exactly what I said above, and to be honest, more or less exactly what most people would expect. Men tend to be less likely to report being raped in general, and if anything, I'd expect this to be even more prevalent among men in the military.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#582 Oct 10 2011 at 6:05 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
because all male on male sexual violence is due to homosexuality...
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#583 Oct 10 2011 at 6:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,382 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
because all male on male sexual violence is due to homosexuality...


And all male on female sexual violence is due to heterosexuality. If we're going to be mind-numbingly simplistic, that is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#584 Oct 10 2011 at 6:20 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,211 posts
All arguments against DADT Repeal have nothing to do with DADT Repeal. This is easy!

Edit: Actually, twelve pages and I can safely say that all discussion about DADT has nothing to do with DADT.

Edited, Oct 10th 2011 8:28pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#585 Oct 10 2011 at 6:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:


Ok. According to a link from that source, 87% of reported sexual assaults were male on female, and 7% were male on male.

Yet, in the source you linked, it said that "But women aren’t the only victims; statistics from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs indicate that more than half of those who screen positive for Military Sexual Trauma are men."

Obviously, the ratios are skewed among the populations themselves, with assault odds being higher for women than men, but the issue I'm talking about is the likelihood of the assault being reported in the first place to even have a chance of being dealt with. For that analysis, the above stats are pretty significant. They suggest that there's a dramatic underreporting of sexual assault on males in the military.

Or that males are much more likely to report MST afterward for whatever reason. Or men make up such a large percentage of the armed forces that a much lower incidence rate still creates the same total numbers in screening. Correlation, causation, etc etc.

Edited, Oct 11th 2011 7:19am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#586 Oct 10 2011 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
because all male on male sexual violence is due to homosexuality...


And all male on female sexual violence is due to heterosexuality. If we're going to be mind-numbingly simplistic, that is.

What does this mean, gay men are raping women? I'm lost.
#587 Oct 10 2011 at 10:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:

I can't believe that you're being such a p@$$y that you can't just admit that the only reason why they are separated because we are modest about being naked in front of each other. The average woman doesn't want to be googley eyed all over why she is taking a shower


It's certainly part of the reason that bathrooms are segregated by gender, but certainly not the only reason. Regardless, since homosexuals have always used the restroom of their own gender, how exactly does DADT repeal lead you to conclude that they must now change where they do their business? Because you're now uncomfortable knowing Bob is gay, if he told you, & using the same restroom as him?

Don't get me wrong, you can't be the only "straight" male in the military that would by hypothetically uncomfortable to drop trou' in front of a gay man. However, hypothetically, let's say Bob has been in your unit for a year. DADT is repealed & Bob decides to tell you he's gay:

What's changed besides your comfort around Bob? Why is it, exactly, that you feel uncomfortable? Be specific.

Alma wrote:
Males room with males and females room with females.


But couples of either sex or orientation don't get to room together except under very special circumstances, correct? Two homosexuals in the same unit, in the same barracks, could certainly be a couple but don't have to be, correct? "Fraternization" between hetero members of the unit & homos within the unit would be frowned upon, correct?

How does this discriminate against straight couples?
____________________________
"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


#588 Oct 11 2011 at 5:36 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:

So you think men would get away with raping women in a military shower?
Get away with? No. Would it be much more likely than a man on man rape in a military shower? Absolutely.


I've been trying to stay the heck out of this one, but I have a hard time accepting this statement. Do you have any evidence for this? I would think that in todays military, women are vastly more likely to come forward if a rape does occur than men. Your claim assumes some kind of vast good-ol-boy network of hiding assaults on women within the military that just does not exist.
I kinda said just the opposite. See, I said a guy would NOT get away with raping a woman in the military. I do agree that a man will be less likely to come forward, though.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#589 Oct 11 2011 at 6:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
My comment was aimed more at Gbaji's "Good ole Boy network" comment. There's a systemic issue with sexual assault in the military that Gbaji seems to have a pretty Pollyanna view of.

Hand-wringing over man rape seems unfounded though after examination of allied militaries with open homosexuality policies showed no change from their "no gays allowed" days.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#590 Oct 11 2011 at 9:33 AM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Jophiel wrote:
My comment was aimed more at Gbaji's "Good ole Boy network" comment. There's a systemic issue with sexual assault in the military that Gbaji seems to have a pretty Pollyanna view of.

Hand-wringing over man rape seems unfounded though after examination of allied militaries with open homosexuality policies showed no change from their "no gays allowed" days.
I think what gbaji is saying that american soldiers are more likely to rape than their allied counterparts. In fact, the only thing stopping the gay rape was DADT.

Trust him, he's an expert on these things
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#591 Oct 11 2011 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Well, before a gay can rape someone they have to declare that they are gay, it's just the way it works. Since that wasn't allowed there would be much less rape. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
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
#592 Oct 11 2011 at 11:31 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Omega wrote:
Cool story, but we weren't talking about the act of sex while being in the military, we were talking about discussing sex while in the military. Pretty big difference, eh? Try as you might, I will not be discussing the act of sex while in the military with you as this is about your thoughts on DADT. Mine are pretty clear, yours are all over the place. Please stay on topic, thanks.


I was referencing both. You're purposely trying to make a non existing difference. If you want to deny the fact that people can't openly talk about sex without repercussions, then so be it. Just don't project your ignorance unto others.

Omega wrote:
Besides a woman's role in combat & the physical requirement needed to join the armed forces (neither of which are the equivalent of discrimination solely based upon ones sexual orientation), how does the military blatantly & openly discriminate? Be specific.


Easy, I'll break it down by categories.

A. Sex/sexual:

1. A woman is not authorized to participate in every role as a man can. I don't know of any action which has a penis requirement. If a man can't meet the standard, then he is either recycled, re-classed or kicked out. So, if a woman can meet those standards, then why is she not allowed to participate?

2. A woman is authorized to have longer hair along with other aesthetic and uniform rules and regulations that is not applicable for a man.

3. In certain environments, sexual encounters are only authorized to married couples. So, if you're single, no sex for you.

4. Married servicemen or people with dependents get paid more money

5. #4 doesn't apply to homosexual couples (except for children)

6. Just the other day, our local translators were moved from one unit to another unit for being too attractive and being a "distraction".


B. Religion

1. People of certain faith can be authorized to have facial hair.

2. People of certain faith can be authorized to wear different head gear, i.e. Turbans, Kippas.

3. Previously in some of my training environments, Jews were given alternate choices of food (Kosher). If you weren't Jewish (had to have had "Jewish" on your dog tags), then you didn't have that option.

4. Previously in some of my training environments, time was made on Sundays for people to attend Church. If you chose not to go to Church or worshiped on another day (Wednesday/Friday)then you didn't have that time off.

5. The military only acknowledges certain religions, therefore there are not Chaplain representation or practices for those religions not acknowledged.

C. "Fat" People

1. The Army has height and weight standards that if you don't make it, you must get tapped for body fat percentage. If you don't make tape, then you can get chaptered. It doesn't matter if you meet every physical requirement (which many do) and the best at your job, you can get kicked out. Just like LolGaxe said with vaginal sex, this is typically only used on "dirt bags" that we want out anyway, but it's still a rule. Even if you meet the body fat percentage, you will more than likely be treated like trash, openly in your face.

2. Along that note, from my PERSONAL OBSERVATION, women seem to be affected the most. Unless you're a skinny track star, you will be taped. If she has a J-Lo booty, Beyonce thighs and/or Shakira hips, then she probably wont make height and weight. Now, she isn't treated the same way as the dude that's a fatty-fat-fat-fat, but she's sweating during weigh in.

D. Nationality/skin color/ethnicity/family background

1. Your nationality and/or family relatives might prevent you from obtaining a clearance which is important for positions/jobs.

2. Foreign born citizens can't be the Commander-in-Chief

3. People of certain nationalities will be more desired to do any foreign local activities/positions.



I'm sure there's much more than I'm not thinking about, these are just what came to mind.

Omega wrote:
What is "incorrect"? That it was never ok to be gay while in the military? That Guardsman & Reservist could be openly gay since 1999? Wouldn't one presume that under DADT provided one wasn't openly gay, that it was ok to be gay while in the military? Wasn't that the compromise?


No. The compromise was that no one was going to ask or pursue your sexuality, not that it was ok to be gay. Once again, if it were "ok", then you wouldn't be kicked out. There's a difference between being "openly gay" and gay. If SGT Smith was caught kissing another woman on the sly, that isn't the same as being "openly gay".

Omega wrote:

So if they found out you were straight you were kicked out too? I thought it was only if you were openly gay you were kicked out...


Read above.

Omega wrote:
False equivalency, thy name is Alma. Know what is the equivalent in regards to SSM & separate but equal? That outside of the full legal recognition of marriage between same-sex partners "civil unions" remain separate & unequal!


No where did I mention "civil unions". I'm talking about marriages. A heterosexual man is bound to the same marriage laws as a homosexual man. They are the same exact argument. I'm saying exactly what you're saying.According to your logic, the repeal of DADT is equal because it affects both sexes equally. That's the same argument that I've used for SSM. The difference is that I acknowledge the difference between equality and fairness. They are equal, but not fair.

You agree with me.

Omega wrote:
Plumbing.


How is that logical? Are you separated in the work office because of plumbing? What's the difference? How is sitting on a chair different from sitting on a chair?

Omega wrote:
Homo's have the same plumbing as hetero's, so it's cool if they shower together, provided their the same gender. If you're uncomfortable showering with homo's, that's on you. Do feel free to explain why, though.


Read above. That is not a logical explanation. Our plumbing doesn't change outside the shower. So why are we segregated in the showers but not outside the shower?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#593 Oct 11 2011 at 11:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
I guess Alma must regularly drop his pants and pee in the middle of offices. The list of what's wrong with this kids just keeps growing and growing...
#594 Oct 11 2011 at 12:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I sure hope you didn't think a bit of semantic prattle over me using the word "slightly" was adequate justification for taking away someone's freedoms.


No, being the U.S. military is adequate justification for taking away someone's freedoms. As I said, if people don't like it, then there should be a plan to change the foundation, not nit-picking certain things. That only makes it worse.

Jophiel wrote:
Sure. Have the same rules apply to everyone and problem solved. And no one believes you when you try to pretend that was the case before since then we wouldn't have needed the law anyway. If bunking up with romantic partners is against the rules then there's no reason to cry about how "unfair" it is; just discipline those who break this rule.


? What? men room with men, women room with women. I'm not sure what you don't believe.

Quote:
Yeah, that's the thing. Alma can wring his hands all day over how there should be just one bathroom, but I don't know ANY men that want to hear or see what a woman is doing in there. My husband doesn't even want to be around that stuff. I'm guessing Alma doesn't really know what a period is, what goes on during said period, and how it can be uncomfortable for everyone involved.


Almalieque wrote:
It's the same exact thing. It's just a double standard. I accept it. I don't expect it to change, nor do I really want it to change. Just man up and admit that it's the same reason as opposed to trying to talk around it.


Learn to read?

Nadenu wrote:
I've been trying to stay the heck out of this one, but I have a hard time accepting this statement. Do you have any evidence for this? I would think that in todays military, women are vastly more likely to come forward if a rape does occur than men. Your claim assumes some kind of vast good-ol-boy network of hiding assaults on women within the military that just does not exist.


That's true in or out of the military. Most men are not willing to admit to being raped.

Omega wrote:
It's certainly part of the reason that bathrooms are segregated by gender, but certainly not the only reason.


It's the only reason.

Omega wrote:
But couples of either sex or orientation don't get to room together except under very special circumstances, correct? Two homosexuals in the same unit, in the same barracks, could certainly be a couple but don't have to be, correct? "Fraternization" between hetero members of the unit & homos within the unit would be frowned upon, correct?

How does this discriminate against straight couples?


Because of DADT. How does anyone know that you're a couple? Many barracks forbid people of the opposite sex in there without being signed in and/or door being opened. If you're a homo, you can do whatever you want in your own privacy. A homo can request to change out roommates with his "battle buddy" and it CAN get approved. If his "battle buddy" is a female that is highly unlikely to happen.

That's how that's discrimination. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#595 Oct 11 2011 at 12:10 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I guess Alma must regularly drop his pants and pee in the middle of offices. The list of what's wrong with this kids just keeps growing and growing...


Funny you mention that. We are currently going over Equal Opportunity and part of the discussion is the confirmed and confronted "peepers" in the male showers. The point was to tell us that we can't attack any guy that peeps us in the shower because we would be charged with an assault even if he touches our junk. I thought that was pretty funny.

I'm not sure how people are being "peeped" as most of the guys that I've seen in the showers are pretty modest and change in the shower before stepping out. There are some guys who choose to dry and change out in the open, but I"m not sure exactly what happened, but I do know that someone almost got knocked the eff out. Good thing he approached him like a man first.

At this rate, DADT will be re-instated before 2012 lol...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#596 Oct 11 2011 at 12:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,211 posts
Alma wrote:
Something about looking in showers [...] At this rate, DADT will be re-instated before 2012
Two unrelated topics.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#597 Oct 11 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Alma wrote:
Something about looking in showers [...] At this rate, DADT will be re-instated before 2012
Two unrelated topics.


But alas, in the swirling, incomprehensible mass of thought-like entities that populate Alma's brain, they are one-and-the-same. Incidentally, I think they float around in the part of his mind that he activates when he's trying to avoid confronting his own self-loathing and sexual inadequacy.

Sad, really.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#598 Oct 11 2011 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Alma wrote:
Something about looking in showers [...] At this rate, DADT will be re-instated before 2012
Two unrelated topics.

I just can't figure out what peeing in the middle of an office has to do with showering.
#599Almalieque, Posted: Oct 11 2011 at 1:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) "LOL" was denoting a joke. I wasn't serious.... I don't think "peepers" will suffice for a change. When people start getting sexually assaulted, then changes will occur. Peeping is just the "gateway" drug.. I wonder who's going to take one for the team?!?!?!Smiley: laugh
#600 Oct 11 2011 at 1:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I sure hope you didn't think a bit of semantic prattle over me using the word "slightly" was adequate justification for taking away someone's freedoms.
No, being the U.S. military is adequate justification for taking away someone's freedoms.

No, the fact that it's the military allows it the latitude to take away someone's freedoms; it doesn't provide the justification. If they decided tomorrow that Catholics have to sleep on the floor or Asians aren't allowed to eat four days out of seven, it wouldn't be allowed "because it's the military!" without some strong justification as to why this is required. On the other hand, if they had some stellar reason, it could be potentially allowed whereas a private employer wouldn't ever get away with it.
Quote:
I'm not sure what you don't believe.

Maybe you should read the quoted text I was referring to instead of just word-vomiting defenses.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#601 Oct 11 2011 at 1:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:

No, the fact that it's the military allows it the latitude to take away someone's freedoms; it doesn't provide the justification. If they decided tomorrow that Catholics have to sleep on the floor or Asians aren't allowed to eat four days out of seven, it wouldn't be allowed "because it's the military!" without some strong justification as to why this is required. On the other hand, if they had some stellar reason, it could be potentially allowed whereas a private employer wouldn't ever get away with it.


You are correct. The justification was noted on post 206 and supported in the repeal of DADT. That seems contradictory, only because it wasn't a smart move. It was something done to appeal to the people.

Jophiel wrote:

Maybe you should read the quoted text I was referring to instead of just word-vomiting defenses.


I did. I was pointing out that you missed the point of my statement. As you noticed, they are totally different. So, maybe you should read what I originally wrote.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CDT
aghorisai, Kavekk, Anonymous Guests (54)