Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

This pretty much sums up why you are an idiot.

So let's take this one.

You seem to be saying A) No-one in the military knows what each other's personal life it. If you aren't saying that, you seem to be saying few people in the military know anything much about each other's personal life.

B) In conjunction with other posts of yours, you seem to be saying that IF superior officer discovers a homosexual in the military, they won't kick them out anyway.

C) If a superior officer suspects someone is homosexual, they cannot question them about it, and the homosexual doesn't have to incriminate him or her self. That is true under DADT, and I don't challenge that.

A) As a proportional thing, I'll believe many personnel don't know much about each other's personal life. However, you've admitted that things like one person walking in on gays having sex are things that happen occasionally. Secondly, if the housing officers don't know, what about the censors? You're expecting gay personnel never to say anything loving or intimate in their correspondence, to keep their romance alive while away? How about the network administrators. There's a lot of traffic, but I REALLY hope that there is a little security oversight dipping in and out of all the personnel communications, to check for spying activities, or genuine stupidity in the face of national security.

Thirdly, my lieutenant then captain buddy in the Australian army, who I usually saw weekly for 9 years, had a heap of army stories to share with us, I'd say they'd come up on an average of a monthly basis. These stories usually involved the activities of himself, his friends and his wider workmates, out to battalions he wasn't even part of. Said activities included hi-jinks and shenanigans during duty and missions; the personal and sex lives of fellow personnel; and sexual and mild sensual or fore-play activity indulged in while on extended wilderness training or long term consecutive base hours.

The most notorious of those I'd say would be the company finger-sucking-each-other-and-grading-performance competition, during a mixed personnel camp-out, which had no repercussions, and the Daisy-Chain incident, which got every private except for one in a company sacked. But personally my favourite story had no sex in it at all. It involved the shit storm when some soldiers at the start of a convoy removed and temporarily stowed some road signs as a joke that went horribly wrong, and not only got the rest of the convoy lost as intended, but had their heavy vehicles thunder hundreds of kilometres off into the outskirts of Darwin as not intended, onto public roads not designed to bear the weight. And the manoeuvres the miscreants went through to successfully sneak back and re-attach the signs without being missed from their own vehicles and the base, or being detected with any other vehicle.

My army friend knew who was making desperate night-time scrambles over the in-town base perimeter fences and why. He certainly knew the basics about everyone in his company, and who they were going out with, who was getting married, divorced, or having a child. He knew the eye colour of each of the people he went on patrol or training with.

But he was a very gregarious chap, charming and friendly. Very dark skinned, a Sri Lankan-Australian, with big liquid brown eyes. Maybe he picked up all the scuttle-but when he was on one of his several potato peeling duties, during that long period he was a less than perfect officer about punctuality and maintaining physical fitness standards, especially the run-time limit.

Fourthly, don't privates and officers have graduation, medal and military ceremonies during which family, especially partners usually attend? What about those occasional officer formal dinners, or formal balls, with partners?

B) both military and civilian societies have laws around which aren't enforced, but are kept around for "just in case THIS time it's important", or "just in case there's no other way to nick him". Jay-walking laws are like that in Australia, and so are many of the road-worthy laws. Police officers pulling over suspected drug carriers will charge them for having rust on their cars, or nicks, scratches or dents in the panels, or a chip in the windscreen, if they can't find any drugs. While they won't pull over any other car for the same defects. And if they pull you over for an alcohol breath test, they won't charge you for the rust, nicks, scratches, or dents.

But being gay isn't like having rust on your car. There's no reason not to be gay, while there is some reason not to have a rusty car. Just because officials usually ignore both, doesn't mean that the first should bear the stigma and risk of an outlaw.

Did he really compare homosexuality to pedophilia? Really?

If it's mentally competent adults in privacy, then there's no reason to discriminate against that sexuality, and no reason for the law to discriminate. That position IS thought out, and the people agitating for SSM, and for homosexuals to have full legal equality as heterosexuals in all areas of life HAVE thought out the repercussions, and think that they are at the best beneficial, or at the worst better in consequence than the alternative.

I don't see where he did, but I've seen that argument made many times against legalising SSM, or adoption by gay parents, or heaven forbid, homosexual teachers. There's a lot of people out there who don't see the moral difference between homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality. I think their minds are dark and scary places.

They probably also can't distinguish between the sorts of group relations that happens between that mormon sect, old-style muslim marriages between poor child brides and very older men, newer style muslim marriages involving tertiary educated adult women who marry men and fellow wives their own age for love or companionship and keep their jobs and their own income, and western style polyamouries that are dependent on equality of power and much truthfulness.

I opted out of the thread for a bit because I am exasperated by your disingenuous debate tactics. Deep down, I know that you know that; you're just posturing to help bolster that defensive shell.

Keep going, we might hit 50. Is this Zam's longest thread evar now?

Bored Druid Thread is about 3k replies, WoW Beta giveaway contest thread reached 6.5k or so posts in a week.

Nothing was said here.


Edited, Sep 27th 2010 7:53pm by ShadorVIII

I asked you a simple question, you made your own comparison.. so answer the question. Quoted again for your convenience.





So, you believe that there shouldn't be any laws that prevent people from expressing their sexuality as long as it's mentally competent adults in privacy? Is that right or are there any more personal restrictions that you would like to add to that?



If that is true, then it hasn't been expressed on this forum. People have came up with various arguments on SSM, non of which were exclusive to homosexuals. That's not a problem, but then they turn right around and get all pissy when someone mentions another group that their argument also supports. Saying things like "Did he really compare homosexuality to @#%^philia? Really?". If it were so thought out, no one wouldn't be able to interject those groups if they were unwanted.



I never made any complaints against the sodomy laws, I made complaints of overlooking the sodomy laws to attack DADT. Besides, receiving oral sex from a girl doesn't make me gay.



That's hilarious, I would have made me a trophy or a plaque that said that so when other people come over they could see it.

To be honest, I found out during my tour in korea, most people cheat. Some people tell their spouses that they are still not authorized to come for that very purpose. At the same time, I've heard that people go to the clubs in the states and pick up wives of deployed Soldiers all the times. So it definitely works both ways...



I don't see it that way. I asked you a very specific question. Given your definition of "personal trait", wouldn't a person's size be considered a "personal trait"? Why or why not?

So, are you going to answer the question or not? Forget the explanation, just a simple yes or no would suffice.. You can't say that you're "done" with me when not only did you take the bait, but you replied a second time as well...



Is there really a difference in respect to my image?

How can an ostensibly American black man possibly make this statement without being the biggest ******* hypocrite on the planet?

Really, Alma....REALLY?

You keep saying that the military needs a solid image, corps cohesion and discipline and that gays in the military are a disruptive force of same. You realize that exact same argument was made to keep colored folks out years ago, right?

Or at least out of combat: "Golly, them Niggra boys sure can haul ammo, but goddam if we'll let 'em carry a rifle!"

The only possible way to justify your attitude is homophobia.

That is only because you have the belief that there are no logical explanations to discriminate against homosexuality. So, in your mind, you have created this false image of me having a negative attitude towards homosexuals, which simply isn't true.

The reality is, there can exist logical explanations to discriminate based on, sex, race, nationality, height, weight, hair color or any other physical or personality trait. This doesn't mean that you have to agree with them, but they can exist. With that being said, you can't just assume that people have malignant views on others because they support something that just so happens to discriminate others. Well, you can, but you could very well be mistaken, like you are here.