Rules are Rules... I am Certain the Liberals who...

[rightwinger]

there are ships sailing around right now... peacetime sailing conditions... men and women in the crew... gays in the crew... and if it's not a foxhole, it's a fan room or some other out of the way nook of which there bunches on ANY ship. It happens today... gays AND straights are getting it on and if they get caught, they get punished. And if it's not on a ship, it's in some supply closet on some air force base.... it happens in all the services all the time. The only difference, if straights get caught, they get punished, but not discharged.

Get your ass over to the NBA championship thread and cover your losing end of the bet, dammit!

Like I said, never bet a liberal. They don't have the spines to pay up.

Pay up, SUCKER!......You owe me!

The NBA is gay.

Magic Johnson did not get AIDS through gay sex

Not that theres anything wrong with that

 

[bodecea]

Get your ass over to the NBA championship thread and cover your losing end of the bet, dammit!

Like I said, never bet a liberal. They don't have the spines to pay up.

Pay up, SUCKER!......You owe me!

The NBA is gay.

Magic Johnson did not get AIDS through gay sex

Not that theres anything wrong with that

Are you sure...I thought AIDS was all about the gays.

 

[bodecea]

I have to agree with CL here it really does not matter whether it is a choice or genetic. It is a fact that there are human beings that are attracted to the same gender. I also have to agree with Maineman later in the thread when he says that sexual contact happens in military life but the military deals with it. If such contact (straight or gay) happens in the military and such contact is in defiance of the rules and regulations of the military, then the military deals with it appropriately.

It is funny when you think about Maineman's reply in this case. Think about the conservative response to hate crime legislation. I and my friends are opposed to hate crime legislation partly because we believe there are already laws to prevent crime in place and a victim should be treated with the same protections regardless of the motivation of the crime. In this case, my conservative friends seem unwilling to accept that there are rules and regulations concerning sexual contact in the military and seem to think that additional rules and regulations are required to prevent certain types of sexual contact from happening.

Do we really need additional rules and regulations in this regard?

Immie

Currently, the Military doesn't Bunk those who are Naturally Attracted to each other together...

At least not Out in the Open, so to Speak.

There are Additional Issues that Surface when it's Known who are Homosexual and who are Not.

The extra Burden for the Number of People who Choose to Defy their Design shouldn't be Carried by the Military, it's Members or the Taxpayer that Funds it.



peace...

I understand your argument, but to me it seems as if you are stating that all homosexuals are incapable of containing their "urges". That is like saying every straight male will commit rape given an opportunity to do so. I'm sure there are some homosexuals that might attempt rape in a military environment, but I doubt they would get very far or last very long.

Immie

It is amusing to watch those who were never in the military tell us what military life is like, should be like, or would be like in the future. I always get a chuckle over that.

 

[rightwinger]

Currently, the Military doesn't Bunk those who are Naturally Attracted to each other together...

At least not Out in the Open, so to Speak.

There are Additional Issues that Surface when it's Known who are Homosexual and who are Not.

The extra Burden for the Number of People who Choose to Defy their Design shouldn't be Carried by the Military, it's Members or the Taxpayer that Funds it.



peace...

I understand your argument, but to me it seems as if you are stating that all homosexuals are incapable of containing their "urges". That is like saying every straight male will commit rape given an opportunity to do so. I'm sure there are some homosexuals that might attempt rape in a military environment, but I doubt they would get very far or last very long.

Immie

I've said no such thing about all...

I don't Believe the Military, the Inlisted or the Taxpayer should have to Burden a Minority's Sexual Choices...

That's what's being Asked.

If their Homosexuality isn't at Issue while in Uniform then DADT is fine as it is.

Otherwise, this is about Exhibitionism... Which from any "Pride" event around the Country, ANYONE can tell that's EXACTLY what this is about.



peace...

Actually, you are right...... it is about Exhibitionism
Who wants to know about their sexuality?

So as long as DADT is applied equally to all soldiers, there should not be a problem with the policy

So when a soldier comes home from leave and brags about all the chicks he banged..he should be outprocessed

When a soldier announces he is getting married...it is a violation of DADT

If a soldier is seen kissing or holding hands with his wife he is flaunting his sexuality and should be discharged

 

[maineman]

Currently, the Military doesn't Bunk those who are Naturally Attracted to each other together...

At least not Out in the Open, so to Speak.

There are Additional Issues that Surface when it's Known who are Homosexual and who are Not.

The extra Burden for the Number of People who Choose to Defy their Design shouldn't be Carried by the Military, it's Members or the Taxpayer that Funds it.



peace...

I understand your argument, but to me it seems as if you are stating that all homosexuals are incapable of containing their "urges". That is like saying every straight male will commit rape given an opportunity to do so. I'm sure there are some homosexuals that might attempt rape in a military environment, but I doubt they would get very far or last very long.

Immie

I've said no such thing about all...

I don't Believe the Military, the Inlisted or the Taxpayer should have to Burden a Minority's Sexual Choices...

That's what's being Asked.

If their Homosexuality isn't at Issue while in Uniform then DADT is fine as it is.

Otherwise, this is about Exhibitionism... Which from any "Pride" event around the Country, ANYONE can tell that's EXACTLY what this is about.



peace...

to suggest that somehow "bunking together" is the issue is ridiculous. We have men and women serving on deployed units all over the globe. and THEY sometimes find a way to have sex with one another even though it is detrimental to the unit mission. ANd if they get caught, they are punished. To suggest that gay servicemen are incapable of (1) controlling their urges and (2) discerning who is or is not of their similar sexual orientation is just plain stupid. Gay soldiers are no more uncontrollably attracted to heterosexual soldiers than I am uncontrollably attracted to some man hating dyke.

 

[CurveLight]

Currently, the Military doesn't Bunk those who are Naturally Attracted to each other together...

At least not Out in the Open, so to Speak.

There are Additional Issues that Surface when it's Known who are Homosexual and who are Not.

The extra Burden for the Number of People who Choose to Defy their Design shouldn't be Carried by the Military, it's Members or the Taxpayer that Funds it.



peace...

I understand your argument, but to me it seems as if you are stating that all homosexuals are incapable of containing their "urges". That is like saying every straight male will commit rape given an opportunity to do so. I'm sure there are some homosexuals that might attempt rape in a military environment, but I doubt they would get very far or last very long.

Immie

It is amusing to watch those who were never in the military tell us what military life is like, should be like, or would be like in the future. I always get a chuckle over that.

Empirical arguments obviously have more practical value but it doesn't mean those who have not served are incapable of presenting viable solutions.

 

[CurveLight]

The main problem is the one that is rarely discussed. The active awareness of gays presents significant economic and training issues because the military is designed around warehousing and dehumanization. To accomodate gays would require a complete architectural make over for Basic Training and AIT to create logistical buffers between heteros and homos. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. As an American, I support spending that money for the same reasons businesses are forced to have handicapped parking spaces and wheel chair ramps: equal access for all Americans.

The military is fundamentally built upon dehumanization through abdicating the idea of the individual. This is how you successfully train a lot of people to work in unison to kill many other people they have never seen, regardless of an actual national security threat. Homosexuals break from the norm and this highlights the indisputable fact the military is made up of individuals. Once that door is open you have a whole canyon of problems on everything from control to training soldiers to unquestionably follow orders. The "brotherhood" that is designed to have soldiers protect each other in combat is largely developed by the intimacy of close quarters with open bays housing 20 beds and open showers allowing 30 people at a time to use them. Being concerned about gays in the military does not necessitate homophobia but it is largely homophobia that has caused the problems.

How do you create the environment so gays and heteros can be comfortable in such close quarters?

 

[Immanuel]

Currently, the Military doesn't Bunk those who are Naturally Attracted to each other together...

At least not Out in the Open, so to Speak.

There are Additional Issues that Surface when it's Known who are Homosexual and who are Not.

The extra Burden for the Number of People who Choose to Defy their Design shouldn't be Carried by the Military, it's Members or the Taxpayer that Funds it.



peace...

I understand your argument, but to me it seems as if you are stating that all homosexuals are incapable of containing their "urges". That is like saying every straight male will commit rape given an opportunity to do so. I'm sure there are some homosexuals that might attempt rape in a military environment, but I doubt they would get very far or last very long.

Immie

It is amusing to watch those who were never in the military tell us what military life is like, should be like, or would be like in the future. I always get a chuckle over that.

Um, Me?

I was in the Military. Coast Guard Reserve, although I only spent six months on active duty so I am not what one would call an expert.

Immie

 

[maineman]

The main problem is the one that is rarely discussed. The active awareness of gays presents significant economic and training issues because the military is designed around warehousing and dehumanization. To accomodate gays would require a complete architectural make over for Basic Training and AIT to create logistical buffers between heteros and homos. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. As an American, I support spending that money for the same reasons businesses are forced to have handicapped parking spaces and wheel chair ramps: equal access for all Americans.

The military is fundamentally built upon dehumanization through abdicating the idea of the individual. This is how you successfully train a lot of people to work in unison to kill many other people they have never seen, regardless of an actual national security threat. Homosexuals break from the norm and this highlights the indisputable fact the military is made up of individuals. Once that door is open you have a whole canyon of problems on everything from control to training soldiers to unquestionably follow orders. The "brotherhood" that is designed to have soldiers protect each other in combat is largely developed by the intimacy of close quarters with open bays housing 20 beds and open showers allowing 30 people at a time to use them. Being concerned about gays in the military does not necessitate homophobia but it is largely homophobia that has caused the problems.

How do you create the environment so gays and heteros can be comfortable in such close quarters?

where does it say the military needs to make sure that people are "comfortable"? Gays and straights have been serving together for hundreds of years. Most everyone knows who the gay guys are and most everyone knows that they have to hide it...

YOu don't have to be COMFORTABLE... just do your damned job.

 

[bodecea]

I understand your argument, but to me it seems as if you are stating that all homosexuals are incapable of containing their "urges". That is like saying every straight male will commit rape given an opportunity to do so. I'm sure there are some homosexuals that might attempt rape in a military environment, but I doubt they would get very far or last very long.

Immie

It is amusing to watch those who were never in the military tell us what military life is like, should be like, or would be like in the future. I always get a chuckle over that.

Um, Me?

I was in the Military. Coast Guard Reserve, although I only spent six months on active duty so I am not what one would call an expert.

Immie

I wasn't referring to you specifically, Immie...BTW...love the Coasties. Thank you for your service.

 

[CurveLight]

The main problem is the one that is rarely discussed. The active awareness of gays presents significant economic and training issues because the military is designed around warehousing and dehumanization. To accomodate gays would require a complete architectural make over for Basic Training and AIT to create logistical buffers between heteros and homos. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. As an American, I support spending that money for the same reasons businesses are forced to have handicapped parking spaces and wheel chair ramps: equal access for all Americans.

The military is fundamentally built upon dehumanization through abdicating the idea of the individual. This is how you successfully train a lot of people to work in unison to kill many other people they have never seen, regardless of an actual national security threat. Homosexuals break from the norm and this highlights the indisputable fact the military is made up of individuals. Once that door is open you have a whole canyon of problems on everything from control to training soldiers to unquestionably follow orders. The "brotherhood" that is designed to have soldiers protect each other in combat is largely developed by the intimacy of close quarters with open bays housing 20 beds and open showers allowing 30 people at a time to use them. Being concerned about gays in the military does not necessitate homophobia but it is largely homophobia that has caused the problems.

How do you create the environment so gays and heteros can be comfortable in such close quarters?

where does it say the military needs to make sure that people are "comfortable"? Gays and straights have been serving together for hundreds of years. Most everyone knows who the gay guys are and most everyone knows that they have to hide it...

YOu don't have to be COMFORTABLE... just do your damned job.

Okay. You skipped over everything to latch onto what you perceived to be the weakest point.

 

[maineman]

The main problem is the one that is rarely discussed. The active awareness of gays presents significant economic and training issues because the military is designed around warehousing and dehumanization. To accomodate gays would require a complete architectural make over for Basic Training and AIT to create logistical buffers between heteros and homos. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. As an American, I support spending that money for the same reasons businesses are forced to have handicapped parking spaces and wheel chair ramps: equal access for all Americans.

The military is fundamentally built upon dehumanization through abdicating the idea of the individual. This is how you successfully train a lot of people to work in unison to kill many other people they have never seen, regardless of an actual national security threat. Homosexuals break from the norm and this highlights the indisputable fact the military is made up of individuals. Once that door is open you have a whole canyon of problems on everything from control to training soldiers to unquestionably follow orders. The "brotherhood" that is designed to have soldiers protect each other in combat is largely developed by the intimacy of close quarters with open bays housing 20 beds and open showers allowing 30 people at a time to use them. Being concerned about gays in the military does not necessitate homophobia but it is largely homophobia that has caused the problems.

How do you create the environment so gays and heteros can be comfortable in such close quarters?

where does it say the military needs to make sure that people are "comfortable"? Gays and straights have been serving together for hundreds of years. Most everyone knows who the gay guys are and most everyone knows that they have to hide it...

YOu don't have to be COMFORTABLE... just do your damned job.

Okay. You skipped over everything to latch onto what you perceived to be the weakest point.

don't make weak points.

bottom line:

guys in the military know who is gay and who is not... they serve along side them and they are aware of their sexuality. It is nowhere near as big a deal as folks would like to make it seem.

 

[Immanuel]

It is amusing to watch those who were never in the military tell us what military life is like, should be like, or would be like in the future. I always get a chuckle over that.

Um, Me?

I was in the Military. Coast Guard Reserve, although I only spent six months on active duty so I am not what one would call an expert.

Immie

I wasn't referring to you specifically, Immie...BTW...love the Coasties. Thank you for your service.

It was nothing... honest.

At times I miss being involved, but then I remember that I was not suited for the rigors of military life. I despise "Hurry up and wait" and that was what it became for me. As reservists we would go through months of weekend duties where the regs decided they didn't want us touching the boats because we might smear the paint. So we'd go to our duty station and watch the football games. We'd been in the middle of that for about nine months when my time to re-up came along... at that point, deciding not to re-up was an easy choice.

Now, I'm too old, over weight and out of shape. They wouldn't take me back if I paid them to.

Immie

 

[ConHog]

another unsupported opinion.

I think that when gays can serve openly, many many long serving professional military personnel, who state they are opposed to gays serving in the military, will be amazed at all the former colleagues of theirs coming out of the closet whose dedication and professionalism they never questioned.

By and large you are wrong about that. The military is not chock full of gays just waiting to make their gayness public.

by and large, unless you wore the uniform for 25 years like I did, then who the fuck are YOU to be telling me ANYTHING about the subject? I never said that the military was "chock full" of gays. I DID say that there are plenty of gays serving right now and serving bravely and honorably and that have put their lives on the line to protect their compatriots and those compatriots know them and respect them and that respect was EARNED and will NOT be withdrawn simply because their sexuality becomes public knowledge at some point in time in the future.

ooh, you served for 3 years longer than I did, that must have given you special insight. Yes I have said the same thing there are gays serving, there have been gays serving, there will always be gays serving, in fact I told a very personal story that changed my mind about gays serving. The fact is though you make it seem like half the military is gay, and that is incorrect.

 

[ConHog]

I come from a strongly military family and members of my family have fought in every war and skirmish that this country has ever had. That includes Afghanistan and Iraq where I have friends and family serving now. Many of those from WWII on at least have been officers. I am quite aware of the dedication to duty and the intense professionalism that exists.

Heterosexual is natural in that it occurs in nature.
Homosexuality is natural in that it occurs in nature.

And both heterosexual and homosexual people are thoroughly sexual creatures. That is a huge component of human nature. And it manifests itself in the military as much as it does anywhere else.

I just generally don't see any profit in unnecessarily creating situations and relationships that are unnatural in the grand scheme of things and it is definitely unnatural--against human nature--to expect men and women to not experience sexual feelings when they are constantly placed in situations that usually generate such feelings.

that happens today in our armed forces where men and women serve deployed in the same unit. The armed forces deals with it. just like they will deal with gays being able to acknowledge their sexuality. Two guys caugtht having sex in a foxhole will still get punished today the same as a guy and gal having sex in a foxhole.... the reality is... if you're in a FOXHOLE, sex is not really at the top of your priority list!

I know all that. But it wasn't foxholes I had in mind. It was more bunking together in close proximity, showering together, spending long lonely stretches together on watch and such. And yes people are able to keep their natural instincts and urges in check, and even 18, 19, and 20 year old can demonstrate high professionalism.

But nobody much expects folks in civilian life to forego doing what comes naturally in such circumstances.

I said I would regret posting in this thread because I knew there would be those who think 18, 19, 20 yr olds won't get it on if they're told not to even if there is mutual attraction and opportunity.

So I'll just leave it at that. I just don't see much profit in putting them into such unrealistic situations emotionally when they already have so much to deal with.

And I could be wrong.

You are wrong. Sure the number of incidents will go up, but not my near the number you seem to think. Gays are gay, they are not sex crazed animals, at least not any more so than non gays.

I personally find gayness to be disgusting, but it's a simple fact that the gay who is willing to join the military is usually going to be cut from a different cloth than the gay who is out shouting about gay rights while his ass hangs out of his assless chaps.Just the same as any military recruit is generally more responsible than his civilian peer group. And if they aren't , well boot camp will either correct that or weed them out. So you're not going to have rampant instances of gay sex. I would wager that percentage wise the numbers would be no higher and no lower than the instances of straight sex. And here's a secret for you, the military sometimes has a way of correcting bad behavior without the UCMJ ever being brought up. IE if a gay man makes unwanted advances on straight men he's going to get his ass kicked.

And I promise you that the very last thing a fighting man is thinking about in a fire fight is the sexual preferences of the guy next to him.

Silly debate, just end the policy and let them serve, kick the ones out who make a spectacle of themselves, just as you would do with any other person who does so.

 

[Shogun]

Nor do you speak for the sum total of humanity through history whose personal choices break from your narrow misguided opinion.

^Personal Choices... Glad to see you Understand what's at Issue...

Excellent Observation, CH.



peace...

choices that are not narrowed by your opinion. you know, LIKE WHITE WOMEN FUCKING BLACK DUDES.

another decade, another "it's just not natural for blah blah blah".



face it. your entire schtick is left over tripe forty years old.

 

[Shogun]

Race and Chosen Sexual Deviation are NOT Analagous... Try again.



peace...

You assume that sexual orientation is a choice. That's your first mistake.

They are both immutable factors in humanity.

Too late several queers have already refuted your claims by admitting in this very thread that they CHOSE to be gay.

funny.. I don't see that anyone posted any such thing. Perhaps you can quote them..

 

[Shogun]

When Making Analogies from Sexual Choice to Skin Color it is.

So when you guys Stop Molesting the Honest Civil Rights Struggle of People of Color, I'll stop Illustrating how Fucking Dishonest it is.



peace...

civil rights are for ALL Americans, not just WHITE, CHRISTIAN, HETEROSEXUALS.

the words...."ALL white christian heterosexuals have equal rights and everyone else does NOT" do NOT appear inthe constitution.

you're an ignorant bigot.

I know MANY homosexuals and they are ALL better people than most conservatives

Marriage is NOT Denied to Homosexuals... The Ability to Refine it in Law is what is being Denied...

They Deny their Natural Design... They get Denied Marriage.

Find Validation elsewhere.



peace...

HAHAHA!

once again, regurgitated logic strait from the failure of the opposition to the civil rights era.

awesome.


blacks fucking whites is NOT NATURAL!

 

[Shogun]

Too late several queers have already refuted your claims by admitting in this very thread that they CHOSE to be gay.

Really? Where did they say they chose to be gay? Which posts?

One was Shogun... He was Eluding to it as he Defended you guys...

Don't Know if he is a Homosexual, but I Sure that's who CH is Referring to.



peace...

HAHAHAHA!

"eluding to it"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

did you just feel the bubble of your argument burst?

 

[Shogun]

One was Shogun... He was Eluding to it as he Defended you guys...

Don't Know if he is a Homosexual, but I Sure that's who CH is Referring to.



peace...

I want to see the posts that Conhog mentioned.

I only saw Shogun's Comment...

Doesn't matter, it's a Defiance of the Natural Design, Chosen for Pleasure or based in Bad Wiring... Or both.

In that, it's NOT Equal to how the "Homosexual" is Designed and Equipped, and NOT Equal to that which Creates us...

Shouldn't be Criminal, but it doesn't Require a Dishonest Validation in Law as Equal to something it Factually is NOT.



peace...

homosexuality is a historic norm. THIS is a fact. Such behavior can be found in the animal kingdom as well as numerous historic cultures.

I guess this is what happens when one relies upon what he thinks is alluded to.