Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The bottom line is that military isn't your typical job, so applying the same thoughts will more often than not fail in comparison.
How is it that every other nation that's allowed homosexuals to openly serve hasn't had any setbacks but you think the US military will? Why is it, the supposed gold standard of world militarys, can't accomplish what many other nations have? Why6 do you think the US military is so incompetent?
We went over this already. If you hold the belief that the U.S military is the best military, then it's silly to want to emulate an inferior military. As what I proved to RDD, it's the people that make up the military, not the equipment. The equipment is a nice bonus, but the discipline, minds, courage, leadership,etc. of the service members are the things that make the U.S. successful.
Sweetums wrote:
I don't think this is generally a problem with a dude hitting on another dude, because gay men generally don't feel entitled to a straight dude's attention. So excuse me if I'm not offended on some guy's behalf when some man has the gall to call him attractive and then let it be if he says he's not interested.
Answer me this. How much attention would you give a guy that you aren't interested in as compared to a guy that you are interested in?
Your nice and/or quick dismissals that you mentioned in your post answers my question. If you're not interested in that guy, you probably wont continue conversing with him over drinks. When women do that, it makes many men think that the woman is interested in him, no matter what her Facebook status says. Some men are incapable of differentiating when a woman is being nice to him vs a woman actually liking him.
So, why would you think it would be any different with a homosexual?
Gaxe wrote:
You also can't fire Ms. Wilson for sucking her husband's **** when they're at home. Under DADT you could fire Mr. Wilson for sucking ****. Your and gbaji's being stupid doesn't change that fundamental point.
????
That point wasn't even being mentioned... Nice attempt to be relevant in this discussion.
"Ms Wilson" was used to demonstrate how society has always looked down on people for having certain sexual experiences, legal or not. This was not a direct comparison to DADT, but to counter the belief that the only people who should care are the people involved.
Sweetums wrote:
Ah, the Madonna-***** complex thing
Also total *********
NEXT
Oh, such a compelling argument.
*clears throat*
Your counter is complete bull
NEXT..
Elinda wrote:
It's not special. Derrr, that's the point.
So why are you treating it as such? Just about every other sexual nature is judged with no negative repercussion, yet simply implying non acceptance of homosexuality and you're a homophobic bigot.
Please explain...