Prop 8 Overturned :: Free Realms

Sage

8,236 posts

.

____________________________

"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

#2153 Sep 18 2010 at 11:58 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1710116187678

Sage

15,952 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Belkira
wrote:

xcept the army forcing people not to talk about their personal lives or be kicked out of the military for being gay. You know, the whole point of DADT.

The whole point of DADT is to allow homosexuals to join and serve in the military without them having to lie or contradicting the conservative laws of the military. It is a compromise. You just refuse to want to see it that way.

Yes, DADT was and is a compromise. It's now time for the military to let go, and accept that homosexuals exist with the same civilian social rights as African Americans, non-caucasians generally, and women. By all means, keep your military rules and fitness entry levels for every-one who wants to enter. Just don't have a separate military rule for the gays to grudgingly enter and remain in the military as absolute and always second-class military citizens.

Almalieque wrote:

The BS is coming from everyone else in this thread. This is nothing about the freedoms and rights that you all seem to think the military should grant, but forcing people to accept homosexuality and that's all there is to it.

Ah hah. Yes, I am asking you, or rather I'm asking the military, to accept that homosexuality exists, and that homosexuals should have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals. I am not asking you, or anyone in the military to like or approve of any homosexuals, or to like or approve of any homosexual behaviour. You can accept something without approving of it, and this is what I'm asking. Accept homosexuality without approving of it. Accept homosexuality in the military, without approving of it.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 2:09am by Aripyanfar

#2154 Sep 19 2010 at 1:19 AM Rating: Good

Sage

3,362 posts

I did lol earlier at the mention of "gay lesbian soldiers."

I think the US Army should ban redundant soldiers.

#2155 Sep 19 2010 at 6:10 AM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

There's guys prancing around, twitching and shaking their hips etc. and "butch" looking females walking around with their "pretty" friends. Matter of fact, I ran into one of my obviously gay lesbian soldier dressed up like a total dude next to her "friend" that obviously took the woman role.

Even better, a Lieutenant Colonel in one of my units was a commander and she was obviously a lesbian. If I can find a good picture on her on the net tomorrow, I'll post a link and let you decide for yourself.

It's awesome that so many people in the military are fine with homosexuals. So let's get rid of DADT so that the people who are still homophobic don't have an excuse to punish someone for their sexual orientation, and nothing will change.

ALmalieque for like the Kajillionth time plus 2 wrote:

No, your argument is complete BS. If you believe that we must attack one rule, then the most logical way is to attack Sodomy and the laws that affect everyone that would lead into changing the laws like DADT. YOu wouldn't change a law that probably effects less than 5% of the population that would result in hypocrisy in the hopes that it would change the bigger picture.

The BS is coming from everyone else in this thread. This is nothing about the freedoms and rights that you all seem to think the military should grant, but forcing people to accept homosexuality and that's all there is to it.

i.e.: They're not doing it the way I want, so I'm going to staunchly oppose it just because I'm immature.

Almalieque wrote:

This isn't "catering to me", but catering to logic. If you were running late to an appointment and your co-worker said, "you might not want to take the short route, there's an accident slowing up traffic, you're better off taking the longer route because you'll end up getting there quicker", which route would you take?

Answer the question...

Arip wrote:

Yes, DADT was and is a compromise. It's now time for the military to let go, and accept that homosexuals exist with the same civilian social rights as African Americans, non-caucasians generally, and women. By all means, keep your military rules and fitness entry levels for every-one who wants to enter. Just don't have a separate military rule for the gays to grudgingly enter and remain in the military as absolute and always second-class military citizens.

I'm puzzled on why you all some how think discriminating against a physical trait is the same thing as discriminating against a personality trait.

That's besides the point.. You say "Keep your military rules and fitness entry levels for every-one who wants to enter", but I'm sure you have no idea what they are. I mentioned earlier in this thread that many (not all) women (mainly the ones with some hips or junk in the trunk) can never pass height/weight because of the military's unrealistic standards. I've yet heard anyone say anything on that.

I know you're saying "we're talking about DADT, that's why", my point is, if we want change in the military, we have to logically evaluate it as a whole, not just randomly changing things because YOU think its bad. I keep bringing up sodomy, because you all keep ignoring it. It makes no sense to allow open homosexuality but to ban sodomy. That's like banning sodomy but allowing physical contact of another person's genitalia. If you're doing the latter, you inherently contradicting the former. SO WHY JUST NOT CHANGE THE FORMER!!

Arip wrote:

Ah hah. Yes, I am asking you, or rather I'm asking the military, to accept that homosexuality exists, and that homosexuals should have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals. I am not asking you, or anyone in the military to like or approve of any homosexuals, or to like or approve of any homosexual behaviour. You can accept something without approving of it, and this is what I'm asking. Accept homosexuality without approving of it. Accept homosexuality in the military, without approving of it.

DADT does just that. It accepts that homosexuality exists and allows them the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals in reference to work. What you're complaining about is personal expression, something that the military or any military like organization doesn't cares too much for in the first place. Just like Jophiel said earlier, we just follow orders. There was no internal vote on rather or not we should go to war.

That war went against many people's personal beliefs that are fundamental to them as a person. You know what they do, they shut up and do their job.

#2156 Sep 19 2010 at 6:27 AM Rating: Excellent

Xsarus

10,601 posts

I find it interesting that Alma is so hung up on sodomy to be honest. Nor do I see this massive horrible problem that it causes.

I find it much worse to have a rule that says someone can't admit they are homosexual, then I do to have a rule that bans sodomy. Especially when there are apparently rules against oral etc. The first is still the biggest problem, get rid of it and then focus on the rest. If it creates such a massive hypocrisy as alma keeps saying, then no doubt it will go too, so problem solved.

____________________________

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

#2157 Sep 19 2010 at 6:32 AM Rating: Default

-REDACTED-

Scholar

1,150 posts

Nothing was said here.

Edited, Sep 27th 2010 7:51pm by ShadorVIII

#2158 Sep 19 2010 at 7:01 AM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Sir Xsarus wrote:

I find it interesting that Alma is so hung up on sodomy to be honest. Nor do I see this massive horrible problem that it causes.

I find it much worse to have a rule that says someone can't admit they are homosexual, then I do to have a rule that bans sodomy. Especially when there are apparently rules against oral etc. The first is still the biggest problem, get rid of it and then focus on the rest. If it creates such a massive hypocrisy as alma keeps saying, then no doubt it will go too, so problem solved.

You're assuming that the hypocrisy would lead to a change in one specific area. Which ruling has more precedence? As long as Sodomy rules exists, then there will always be a legitimate reason to not allow open homosexuality. So, if DADT was overturned, which I thought I read it was last week, then someone could easily wave the sodomy ruling to reinstate DADT. On, the other hand, if you remove the sodomy laws, then no one can use that to support DADT.

If you remove them at the same time, then sure. But, if you purposely create that hypocrisy, than you're purposely creating the same situation that you're so adamantly against, which makes you a hypocrite as well.

Besides, that hypocrisy wouldn't lead into changing the sodomy law, because if that were the case, DADT would have already done it. DADT says "yea, we know you're gay, we're just going to pretend that you're not in reference to getting chaptered out, unless you say or do something ". The hypocrisy still exists.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 4:27pm by Almalieque

#2159 Sep 19 2010 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent

Sage

19,727 posts

When I go to work, virtually anywhere, it's okay for me to talk about my wife. It is not okay for me to talk about fUcking my wife, in the *** or mouth or otherwise. This is not hypocritical, because relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.

#2160 Sep 19 2010 at 7:27 AM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Barkingturtle wrote:

When I go to work, virtually anywhere, it's okay for me to talk about my wife. It is not okay for me to talk about fUcking my wife, in the *** or mouth or otherwise. This is not hypocritical, because relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.

Have you ever worked with an employer who banned you from doing those activities?

#2161 Sep 19 2010 at 7:58 AM Rating: Excellent

Sage

19,727 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Barkingturtle wrote:

When I go to work, virtually anywhere, it's okay for me to talk about my wife. It is not okay for me to talk about fUcking my wife, in the *** or mouth or otherwise. This is not hypocritical, because relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.

Have you ever worked with an employer who banned you from doing those activities?

Irrelevant. Read what I wrote again, and see if you can figure out why. It's okay if your lips move. Read it five or six times, if you need to. I've got time.

#2162 Almalieque, Posted: Sep 19 2010 at 8:25 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) False, it is very relevant. The hypocrisy doesn't come from you, your spouse or your actions, but from the rules set forth by your employer. So, I ask again, have you ever worked with an employer who banned you from those activities?

#2163 Sep 19 2010 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good

Sage

3,362 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Barkingturtle wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Barkingturtle wrote:

When I go to work, virtually anywhere, it's okay for me to talk about my wife. It is not okay for me to talk about fUcking my wife, in the *** or mouth or otherwise. This is not hypocritical, because relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.

Have you ever worked with an employer who banned you from doing those activities?

Irrelevant. Read what I wrote again, and see if you can figure out why. It's okay if your lips move. Read it five or six times, if you need to. I've got time.

False, it is very relevant. The hypocrisy doesn't come from you, your spouse or your actions, but from the rules set forth by your employer. So, I ask again, have you ever worked with an employer who banned you from those activities?

You are once again confusing civilian work with the military...

I'm pretty sure he was using a sort of metaphor to get the point through your thick, brainwashed Army skull.

#2164 Sep 19 2010 at 8:38 AM Rating: Good

Sage

19,727 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Barkingturtle wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Barkingturtle wrote:

When I go to work, virtually anywhere, it's okay for me to talk about my wife. It is not okay for me to talk about fUcking my wife, in the *** or mouth or otherwise. This is not hypocritical, because relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.

Have you ever worked with an employer who banned you from doing those activities?

Irrelevant. Read what I wrote again, and see if you can figure out why. It's okay if your lips move. Read it five or six times, if you need to. I've got time.

False, it is very relevant. The hypocrisy doesn't come from you, your spouse or your actions, but from the rules set forth by your employer. So, I ask again, have you ever worked with an employer who banned you from those activities?

You are once again confusing civilian work with the military...

I mean it, lil negro, read what I wrote up there. I won't hold your grimy hand like these other idiots. I made my point, you failed to grasp it because you're a moron. No biggie, happens almost every time I attempt communication with you.

#2165 Almalieque, Posted: Sep 19 2010 at 8:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sooooo. Are you going to answer the question? Or are you just going to go around in circles to avoid the fact that your "metaphor"/explanation fails, like pretty much anything else you try to do in life?

#2166 Sep 19 2010 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good

Sage

19,727 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Quadkit wrote:

I'm pretty sure he was using a sort of metaphor to get the point through your thick, brainwashed Army skull.

I got his metaphor, I was trying to get the point that his metaphor fails through you all's common minded civilian brain.

That's not English, ape. Try again. And you obviously didn't get it. You never fUcking do.

Quote:

Barkingturtle wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Barkingturtle wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Barkingturtle wrote:

When I go to work, virtually anywhere, it's okay for me to talk about my wife. It is not okay for me to talk about fUcking my wife, in the *** or mouth or otherwise. This is not hypocritical, because relationships and intimacy are more than just putting your **** into things.

Have you ever worked with an employer who banned you from doing those activities?

Irrelevant. Read what I wrote again, and see if you can figure out why. It's okay if your lips move. Read it five or six times, if you need to. I've got time.

False, it is very relevant. The hypocrisy doesn't come from you, your spouse or your actions, but from the rules set forth by your employer. So, I ask again, have you ever worked with an employer who banned you from those activities?

You are once again confusing civilian work with the military...

I mean it, lil negro, read what I wrote up there. I won't hold your grimy hand like these other idiots. I made my point, you failed to grasp it because you're a moron. No biggie, happens almost every time I attempt communication with you.

Sooooo. Are you going to answer the question? Or are you just going to go around in circles to avoid the fact that your "metaphor"/explanation fails, like pretty much anything else you try to do in life?

Fine Alma, I'll answer your utterly irrelevant question:

Like everyone else who works outside the **** industry, I am forbidden by my employer to engage in any and all sex acts. I can, however, tell people I love my wife. *********

#2167 Almalieque, Posted: Sep 19 2010 at 10:10 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Thanks for answering the question. I know all of that thinking and typing must have been difficult to do.

#2168 Sep 19 2010 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good

Sage

3,362 posts

They're not trying to repeal the ban of sodomy, you dolt. They're trying to repeal the ban on homosexual discrimination. I'm sorry that's so hard to understand... Jesus ******* Christ you've got to be retarded or something.

#2169 Sep 19 2010 at 10:25 AM Rating: Default

-REDACTED-

Scholar

1,150 posts

Quadkit wrote:

They're not trying to repeal the ban of sodomy, you dolt. They're trying to repeal the ban on homosexual discrimination. I'm sorry that's so hard to understand... Jesus @#%^ing Christ you've got to be retarded or something.

I think that was his point (or lack thereof, more acurately).

Edited, Sep 27th 2010 7:52pm by ShadorVIII

#2170 Sep 19 2010 at 10:27 AM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Repealing DADT has nothing to do with sodomy laws you fucking ******.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

#2171 Sep 19 2010 at 10:34 AM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Quadkit wrote:

They're not trying to repeal the ban of sodomy, you dolt. They're trying to repeal the ban on homosexual discrimination. I'm sorry that's so hard to understand... Jesus @#%^ing Christ you've got to be retarded or something.

Really? I guess I somehow missed that... even though I brought up the topic and only mentioned that the only thing that they care about is "repealing the ban on homosexual discrimination" and not the freedoms and rights of the military a million times. Further more, that in the military, you don't have the same rights and freedoms as any other person, so if you want to make a change such as DADT, it has to be done in a certain way to avoid further hypocrisy.

Oh, wait, I guess I didn't miss that.. I guess you're just too stupid to realize what's going on.. Ok, for a second there, I thought you might have actually had a point.

#2172 Almalieque, Posted: Sep 19 2010 at 10:35 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm sorry you feel that way....

#2173 Sep 19 2010 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1636935913888

Sage

27,272 posts

The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:

me and Kavekk's flame war.

Wait, that's a flame war?
I thought it was more like you throwing lighters at each other.

#2174 Sep 19 2010 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good

Sage

19,727 posts

Almalieque wrote:

BT wrote:

Fine Alma, I'll answer your utterly irrelevant question:

Like everyone else who works outside the **** industry, I am forbidden by my employer to engage in any and all sex acts. I can, however, tell people I love my wife. Dumbsh*t.

Thanks for answering the question. I know all of that thinking and typing must have been difficult to do.

So, if everyone who has a job, outside the **** industry, is forbidden to partake in certain sexual activities within the comfort of their own home, then why did people act surprised that the military had a ban on sodomy? Why are there people on this forum who thinks that ban is stupid and should be done away with in the military, while it is still in effect every where else, to include their own job?

So, what you're saying is, banning sodomy is only bad in the military, but ok everywhere else? I guess that really isn't hypocrisy, I mean, if you're delusional or Helen Keller.

You should have done like Eske did, avoid the question to prevent looking more like a fool. Instead, you had to think of someway to get around it. Once again, you horribly failed.

Irrelevant again. I don't believe you're being genuine; no one can be this dense, even a ****-skin. I should make you fetch me a switch, boy, for acting like you can't read.

#2175 Sep 19 2010 at 10:58 AM Rating: Good

Sage

3,362 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Quadkit wrote:

They're not trying to repeal the ban of sodomy, you dolt. They're trying to repeal the ban on homosexual discrimination. I'm sorry that's so hard to understand... Jesus @#%^ing Christ you've got to be retarded or something.

Really? I guess I somehow missed that... even though I brought up the topic and only mentioned that the only thing that they care about is "repealing the ban on homosexual discrimination" and not the freedoms and rights of the military a million times. Further more, that in the military, you don't have the same rights and freedoms as any other person, so if you want to make a change such as DADT, it has to be done in a certain way to avoid further hypocrisy.

Oh, wait, I guess I didn't miss that.. I guess you're just too stupid to realize what's going on.. Ok, for a second there, I thought you might have actually had a point.

Yes, it does have to be done in a certain way. Keep the sodomy laws. No *******. Let homosexuals in the military openly. The US government does not have the "rights and freedoms" to discriminate based on sexuality, race, religion, etc. Its job is to protect rights, not hand them out as they please. Period. That includes the military. Yes, some rights in the military are restricted... but they deal with expression. Being born a certain way is not expressing yourself, any more than you express yourself by being black.

#2176 Sep 19 2010 at 10:58 AM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Barkingturtle wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

BT wrote:

Fine Alma, I'll answer your utterly irrelevant question:

Like everyone else who works outside the **** industry, I am forbidden by my employer to engage in any and all sex acts. I can, however, tell people I love my wife. Dumbsh*t.

Thanks for answering the question. I know all of that thinking and typing must have been difficult to do.

So, if everyone who has a job, outside the **** industry, is forbidden to partake in certain sexual activities within the comfort of their own home, then why did people act surprised that the military had a ban on sodomy? Why are there people on this forum who thinks that ban is stupid and should be done away with in the military, while it is still in effect every where else, to include their own job?

So, what you're saying is, banning sodomy is only bad in the military, but ok everywhere else? I guess that really isn't hypocrisy, I mean, if you're delusional or Helen Keller.

You should have done like Eske did, avoid the question to prevent looking more like a fool. Instead, you had to think of someway to get around it. Once again, you horribly failed.

Irrelevant again. I don't believe you're being genuine; no one can be this dense, even a ****-skin. I should make you fetch me a switch, boy, for acting like you can't read.

You are the one obviously lacking in the reading department. I have to honestly say that you have become my favorite poster here. Proving other people wrong is one thing, they'll just ignore me and go away like Eske did. You, on the other hand, is different. You actually believe that you are somewhat "better" than me and try to reaffirm it through your insults. So, when you're proven wrong by a ****-skin, cornrolled, chicken and kool-aid eatin' hip hop listening ape thug, it makes you feel inferior to life.

All you have done was point out misused words, you even failed at the second attempt. You add nothing to this conversation when you stray off of insults and into actually debating. You avoid my questions, labeling them irrelevant because you know you're wrong.

But hey, it's ok buddy. Maybe you should find someone who is actually inferior to you to have these types of games with. I know the fun factor for you has decreased once you realized that I actually know what I'm talking about.