Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

While I totally don't give a rats **** whether a person is gay or not, don't particularly understand why anyone wants to talk about their sexual preferences while at work, why anyone would care about someone elses sexual orientation while at work, and I struggle to comprehend why anyone with half a brain would want to join any branch of the military in the first place, and why the fUck anyone is still bothering to post in this verbal **** of a thread, I totally had to rate up Gbaji for the above quote.

You're late.

Well, You don't seem to understand most posts the first time, so it's necessary to repeat myself. and no I identified the whole discussion, but keep on with that martyr complex.

That's interesting. Based on what I can read of your post I have to wonder why you'd go to the trouble of putting things in colour if you just want me to edit them.

Edited, Sep 21st 2010 3:13pm by Xsarus

by your perception bit, but this doesn't make it hypocritical.


But I thought that everyone was fine with sharing barracks with them, and that it was basically common knowledge? That is what you were asserting a while ago.

Just as an aside....

Isn't there any brown folk that you need to go and kill Alma? You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time hanging around the Arsylum when you could be out there getting shot at for your country.

Has the USA won all the wars its started and no one has mentioned it or something? The liberal press needs to pass that info along if its true, and the money could be diverted somewhere where it could be doing something useful for a change.

Answer the question..



Where did I say that people were fine sharing barracks with them? I said it was common knowledge that many servicemen are gay. Completely two different issues. How can you change rooms on the possibility that someone's gay if they haven't came out and authorities aren't allowed to ask? That means, that person just has to deal with it or find another reason to move. Try again...



It's not, you're just telling yourself that. I gave you an article that supports the claim about perception, I gave you legitimate reasons on how someone could logically discriminate based on sexuality other than bigotry, hatred, etc., there is absolutely nothing left for you but denial.



You said earlier that it would be dumb to stop progress of the DADT to try something else, well the repeal was denied, so you're back at square one. So there is no reason for you not to support the more logical approach.

Actually, after hearing the 4 star talk, I think my opinion has changed or up for change. I didn't really care about DADT as long as it wasn't done by society creating a hypocrisy, but the 4 star made some interesting points against it.... hmmmmm.. what to think.....



I'm in school... well waiting for my class to start next week..

Well, whats this about then?



I'm confused.

Well, if there's any record of you having attempted to marry someone of the same sex, that can also get you booted. Or whatever that article was earlier about the air force pilot who was tattled on by the police force or whatever happened. Don't feel like going back to hunt down the specifics.

Edited, Sep 21st 2010 7:47pm by Siesen

I don't have a damned clue of what you're talking about.

Oh, I don't know. Looking at naked pictures of people of the same sex in the barracks. Commenting on an actor or actress you think is cute. You know, things people who are close do from time to time.



Two men can do plenty of other things and be sexually active without their ***** being inserted into an **** or a mouth.

Two women can do even more without needing to resort to oral sex.

I'm not going to go into detail here. You're an adult, you can figure that out on your own. But while we're on the topic, most heterosexual couples, I am even going to say the vast majority of heterosexual couples engage in oral sex. So if the military is going to be seen as hypocritical by saying that homosexuals can be openly gay, but sodomy and oral sex is a no-no, then I think it's just as hypocritical to allow openly heterosexual individuals to join.

Not being privy to the details of the cases in which soldiers have been discharged, I'm just kinda guessing here. However, it would be interesting to see what kinds of evidence is actually used in cases of discharge on grounds of homosexuality. Aren't we both just kinda speculating here? I somehow doubt that "he had a copy of playgirl in his locker" ends out being a significant piece of evidence, or has a significant impact on the odds of being discharged.

Even comments about people is unlikely to. Lots of soldiers horse around. I suspect that it takes more than that.



Kinda missing the point though.




Yes. Which is why I have stated at least three times now that the correct course of action is to address the conduct rules in the military globally, instead of making what is effectively an exception case for gay soldiers. That way the rules are the same for everyone and it's all fair. You want things to be "fair", right?

You're aware that straight soldiers can be discharged for conduct if there's sufficient evidence that they've engaged in sodomy as well (such as a letter from a girl friend describing said acts). But, just as with gays in the military, you pretty much have to have pissed someone off, or be a ***** up that someone wants drummed out, in order for anyone to actually do this. The same "OMG! A letter from home, or comment about one's life can get you discharged" applied to both groups. It's just that there is no activist group fighting for straight soldiers rights not to be discharged on sexual conduct grounds.

If the issue is that conduct for people serving in the military precludes sodomy, and homosexual relationships are assumed to include sodomy, then get rid of the archaic rules about sodomy. Problem solved! It would certainly make the case for ending prohibition against gay people in the military a hell of a lot stronger, wouldn't it? Why is that not the route we're going then?


I'd toss in my patented "because the left wants the issue", but that would just be repeating myself.

Edited, Sep 21st 2010 5:47pm by gbaji