Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

You having a beard is no substitution for fixing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

Dude, WTF are you talking about? I didn't say that those two articles said homosexuality was "unbecoming of an officer", I said that's how everyone ELSE get's kicked out for something that is as irrelevant as being a homosexual.

You're painting a picture that this type of stuff only happens to homosexuals and I'm telling you that you're wrong. I don't know what type of comparison that you want then. People get kicked out for having relationships deemed improper OR JUST SAYING it.

They're still getting the boot as long as they don't find any evidence that they're actually heterosexual. Take note: that doesn't even mean that they've commited any other acts that would be deemed offensive to the military, as was the case of the USAF lesbian mentioned before. In fact, the investigation doesn't even need to find evidence of homosexual acts.

So yes, I was right all along. You can get booted if the only evidence against you is that you said that you were homosexual.

How does it feel to watch your arguments get slaughtered helplessly the minute they come out? Do you get a visceral reaction to it? Does it feel like an ulcer? I'd love to know.

Edited, Sep 17th 2010 5:07pm by Eske

I usually rate Yossarian down because I think his name sounds too Jewish.

You're not gay unless you leave marks.

I didn't think you'd do it, but sure as hell, you went for it. At least you're consistent.

Edited, Sep 17th 2010 6:15pm by Eske

How many gay people do you know who have never engaged in sexual activity with a member of the same sex? I'm just not sure what you're trying to defend here. So, let's say someone is a virgin and in the military. He's thinks he might be gay, but he's never acted on any sexual urges in his life. He does not plan to, and does not do so. However, for some inexplicable reason he apparently tells everyone he meets that he's gay. Why? Um... No one knows.

Yeah. I'm thinking that person deserves to get tossed for being a moron. Or he's making a political point for no real reason other than to be disruptive. I covered this in my post if you'd bothered to read the whole thing. If you *aren't* acting on your sexuality, then declaring it becomes just declaring it for the sake of making some kind of point. And guess what? The military frowns on that pretty much no matter what it is.

Edited, Sep 17th 2010 3:23pm by gbaji

bah, not worth my time trying to make senxe of my own thoughts.


Edited, Sep 17th 2010 10:39pm by ElneClare

nope, but then I was feeling lazy and didn't want to be giving a lot of thought to my post which is one reason on second thought I may just leave it blank. Then Alma can wonder why he did this time to make me spew gibberish at him.

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. I'm not resting any argument on whether or not "only homosexuals can get kicked out for claiming homosexuality." I don't think that has anything to do with the debate, actually. My point is simply that these other examples that you keep bringing up are not comparable to homosexuality. I'll explain in a sec, since your next excerpt goes right to that:



There certainly are shared reasons for the military's rules on both homosexuality and other "offenses". I'll even agree that "image" is a main one of those reasons. Unfortunately, that doesn't make them the same thing. The nature of homosexuality and such "offenses" are fundamentally different. What's an example: sodomy? Sodomy is an action, one which can be easily avoided. Homosexuality is a personal quality, and one which might be uncovered about a soldier without them committing any other dischargeable offenses (as in the example of the USAF lesbian). And in the case of sodomy, I don't think that should in-and-of-itself a dischargeable offense, either.

So yeah, both things are about image. But are they the same? No. Should they fall under a blanket category together? Certainly not. Does having one rule justify the other? Nope.



By "issue", I clearly was referring to DADT discharging. I reread the section where I said this, and it should be pretty easy to understand that. I think you need to read a little harder, honestly.



What is good and what is bad are always opinions. They're subjective. Thankfully, we don't let that stand in the way of progress. We didn't stop the civil rights movement because the belief that blacks and whites are equal is just an opinion.

Your argument that others believe in other forms of discrimination is presumptuous (you never heard my opinions on the examples that you used for that back in the thread, so I don't think you've got any ammunition here, anyway). But suffice to say, I acknowledge that I have my biases too. Everybody does.

Personally, I don't like to restrict the actions of people unless a negative consequence can be proven. And even if that consequence is proven, I believe that you still have to weigh the pros and cons before placing those restrictions. In the case of DADT, I believe that the restrictions are not sufficiently justified.



Is the thought process that a heterosexual grunt has automatically earned the right to mention his sexual preference, while a homosexual grunt will never? Where are you going with this, and how on earth does it help your case?



Who cares? What does it matter if it's the image that the military prefers? Your physical fitness examples are irrelevant. They can be argued for their merit on their own; if they're justified, then they stay, if they're not, then they get adjusted or thrown out. The Army's preferred image relating to homosexuality needs reevaluating, because it's fallen behind our cultural standards.

Let's use the civil rights example again: in the South, they preferred the image of segregated races. Does that make it right?

The argument "But it's what they want!" is really, really weak. At least try to justify DADT by showing the consequences of repealing it. Try and tell me that homosexuals are worse combatants, or that they sissify the other soldiers, or that they'll cripple the army with fraternization.

I mean, you'd be wrong, but you'd at least be trying to show that there are negative consequences to repealing DADT. The Army having a "less manly" image ain't good enough.

Edited, Sep 17th 2010 11:28pm by Eske

Edited, Sep 17th 2010 11:35pm by Eske

He knows he's gay, but has never acted on sexual urges or never found anyone to act on them with. Did you not realize you were straight until you had sex or something? Cause that's remarkably stupid.

Of course, you could just stand around insisting that everyone has to have had some sort of sexual experience by the time they're in the army. In which case... no. Just stop.



1. You don't have to tell everyone you meet you're gay to be discharged from the army.
2. Heterosexual relationships aren't forbidden. So I guess he should just, ya know, lie to any interested women. Rather than just say he's gay. No biggie!

You're not a homophobe, we're just misunderstanding you!

Posting in a thread. Again.