I have nothing against gays...

[Yonivore]

...in the military. They have served this country with distinction, honor, and bravery. I dare say that, without them, our military would not be as efficient a killing machine as it is today.

I do have a serious question, however, regarding the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy.

Will members of the armed forces be required to declare their sexual orientation on enlistment? I mean, after all, we don't let heterosexual, opposite sex, members bunk or shower together. Wouldn't it be just as much of an issue to allow homosexual, same sex, members bunk or shower together?

If you consider the reasons why it's not allowed for heterosexuals, makes sense you'd segregate homosexuals too.

Dead serious question.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy was never about not wanting gays in the military, it was to prevent the problem of having to accommodate all the different sexual orientations.

Now, we're going to have to have men's, women's, gay men, and gay women's barracks and showers. Otherwise, you're opening yourself for harassment complaints just as if you'd bunked or made heterosexual females bunk and shower with heterosexual males.

Just saying...someone enlighten me.

Besides, this forum has gone stale since we all pretty much agree Obama is a fuck up, (even if you won't admit it). Hell, I commented on a thread two or three days ago and it's still on the first page. There's just no fire in here anymore...

[ChumpDumper]

Will members of the armed forces be required to declare their sexual orientation on enlistment? I mean, after all, we don't let heterosexual, opposite sex, members bunk or shower together. Wouldn't it be just as much of an issue to allow homosexual, same sex, members bunk or shower together?They already do.

They have for years.

They just don't tell.

So what's the problem?

[Yonivore]

Come to think of it, segregating the homosexuals isn't going to prevent the problem currently behind why we segregate opposite sex heterosexuals.

We may have to pair a homosexual males with homosexual females so they won't be tempted to engage in a sexual relationship. But, that's impractical, isn't it?

Why not just require everyone to bunk and shower with everyone else and just get over their sexual hang ups...

But, wait, that's kind of back to "Don't Ask and Don't Tell," Except that heterosexuals would be precluded from declaring their sexual orientation so that heterosexuals of the opposite sex wouldn't be uncomfortable.

Hell, I don't know the answer...

Talk amongst yourselves.

[Yonivore]

They already do.

They have for years.

They just don't tell.

So what's the problem?
So, If they don't tell that they're heterosexual, can they bunk and shower with the opposite sex?

[Spurminator]

They already do.

They have for years.

They just don't tell.

So what's the problem?


That was easy.

Good talk everyone.

[ChumpDumper]

So, If they don't tell that they're heterosexual, can they bunk and shower with the opposite sex?No.

You're an idiot.

Dead serious statement.

[Yonivore]

And, the problem is, why would a heterosexual, same sex member of the military be any less comfortable showering with a homosexual than an opposite sex heterosexual would be showering with another heterosexual?

Why do we segregate the sexes?

[ChumpDumper]

And, the problem is, why would a heterosexual, same sex member of the military be any less comfortable showering with a homosexual than an opposite sex heterosexual would be showering with another heterosexual?Heterosexuals already shower with homosexuals of the same sex in the military.


Why do we segregate the sexes?Did your parents never have this talk with you?

[Yonivore]

No.

You're an idiot.

Dead serious statement.
Why not, it's the same premise.

We don't allow opposite sex, heterosexuals to shower and bunk together because 1) we don't want sexual relationships occurring on government time and 2) it's hard to prevent unwanted advances and harassment.

I don't understand why the concerns wouldn't be the same for homosexuals sharing the shower with other homosexuals and, in fact, compounded by heterosexuals of the same sex being subject to harassment.

[ChumpDumper]

See, it all comes down to the homophobe fantasy that every homosexual wants to have sex with said homophobe.

You're an idiot, and homosexuals do not want to have sex with you.

Get over it.

[Yonivore]

But heterosexuals already shower with homosexuals of the same sex.
Yes, but because of "Don't ask, Don't tell," there's less of a chance that a homosexual would jeopardize his career doing what a heterosexual would do if allowed to shower with the opposite sexx.


Did your parents never have this talk with you?
Yeah. And, my premise is a logical extension of why we segregate the sexes.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, but because of "Don't ask, Don't tell," there's less of a chance that a homosexual would jeopardize his career doing what a heterosexual would do if allowed to shower with the opposite sexx.There's your fantasy I was talking about.

[Yonivore]

See, it all comes down to the homophobe fantasy that every homosexual wants to have sex with said homophobe.
Actually, it doesn't. That's like saying we should let heterosexuals shower together and those involved should just get over the fact that the people they're showering with have a sexual orientation that might lead them to want to have sex with you...particularly since you're standing naked, right there in front of them.


You're an idiot, and homosexuals do not want to have sex with you.
That's fine. In a shower full of girls there'd probably be a few I wouldn't want to have sex with either. But, there's a good chance there'd be a few I would.


Get over it.
I think it's a legitimate question.

We don't require women and men to shower together because heterosexuals look and the opposite sex in sexual terms...and in intimate settings like a bunk or shower, it's exacerbated.

Are you saying homosexuals don't have similar sex drives?

[spursncowboys]

They can't declare if they are homo or hetero since military pprwk is hard to change and they can just choose to switch preferences.

[George Gervin's Afro]

...in the military. They have served this country with distinction, honor, and bravery. I dare say that, without them, our military would not be as efficient a killing machine as it is today.

I do have a serious question, however, regarding the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy.

Will members of the armed forces be required to declare their sexual orientation on enlistment? I mean, after all, we don't let heterosexual, opposite sex, members bunk or shower together. Wouldn't it be just as much of an issue to allow homosexual, same sex, members bunk or shower together?

If you consider the reasons why it's not allowed for heterosexuals, makes sense you'd segregate homosexuals too.

Dead serious question.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," policy was never about not wanting gays in the military, it was to prevent the problem of having to accommodate all the different sexual orientations.

Now, we're going to have to have men's, women's, gay men, and gay women's barracks and showers. Otherwise, you're opening yourself for harassment complaints just as if you'd bunked or made heterosexual females bunk and shower with heterosexual males.

Just saying...someone enlighten me.

Besides, this forum has gone stale since we all pretty much agree Obama is a fuck up, (even if you won't admit it). Hell, I commented on a thread two or three days ago and it's still on the first page. There's just no fire in here anymore...

just ask the question yoni, will gay guys walk around with a boner in the showers?

[coyotes_geek]

It seems as if yoni is afraid that if we repeal d.a.d.t. our military will be too busy fucking themselves in the ass to defend us.

[boutons_deux]

Yoni assumes there are no homo-erotic predations, harassment, rapes by "non-gay" military on their same sex colleagues.

Yoni assumes that all gay military would be predatory sexual offenders and therefore must be segregated.

Both assumptions are blatantly wrong.

[Yonivore]

It seems as if yoni is afraid that if we repeal d.a.d.t. our military will be too busy fucking themselves in the ass to defend us.
Not at all. Seems you're saying opposite sex heterosexuals should be able to bunk and shower together. Or, you're saying homosexuals aren't sexually attracted to the same sex and being exposed to a room full of naked potential paramours would have no affect on them whatsoever.

[Yonivore]

Yoni assumes there are no homo-erotic predations, harassment, rapes by "non-gay" military on their same sex colleagues.
No, I don't. There are.


Yoni assumes that all gay military would be predatory sexual offenders and therefore must be segregated.
No, I don't. I'm merely suggesting that it doesn't make sense to not segregate if there is a legitimate reason for segregating opposite sex heterosexuals.


Both assumptions are blatantly wrong.
Yes, they are...but, they weren't my assumptions.

[Yonivore]

just ask the question yoni, will gay guys walk around with a boner in the showers?
Would heterosexual males walk around with a boner in a shower full of females?

I bet some would.

[Yonivore]

I'm betting DADT stays in place. But, of course -- as some in here will point out -- I've been wrong before.

Then again, Gitmo is still open.

[coyotes_geek]

Not at all. Seems you're saying opposite sex heterosexuals should be able to bunk and shower together. Or, you're saying homosexuals aren't sexually attracted to the same sex and being exposed to a room full of naked potential paramours would have no affect on them whatsoever.

Yep. I am indeed saying that homos and heteros of the same sex should be able to bunk together and shower together. Just as they are doing now.

[Yonivore]

Yep. I am indeed saying that homos and heteros of the same sex should be able to bunk together and shower together. Just as they are doing now.
Then, why not heteros of opposite sex?

[Wild Cobra]

Then, why not heteros of opposite sex?
Forget it Yoni. Liberals never think that far. I think they are incapable of thinking more than two steps ahead.

[Yonivore]

Forget it Yoni. Liberals never think that far. I think they are incapable of thinking more than two steps ahead.
I'm sure they have a rationale behind why it's okay to bunk homosexuals with the same sex but not heterosexuals of opposite sexes. I'd just like to hear it.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sure they have a rationale behind why it's okay to bunk homosexuals with the same sex but not heterosexuals of opposite sexes. I'd just like to hear it.
I have tried for years to get such an answer from liberals, and they never have an explaination of their bias.

[CuckingFunt]

This is seriously some of the dumbest shit I've ever read.

[balli]

lol

[balli]

I'm sure they have a rationale behind why it's okay to bunk homosexuals with the same sex but not heterosexuals of opposite sexes. I'd just like to hear it.

Actually, I think military bunks should be co-ed style.

[Yonivore]

This is seriously some of the dumbest shit I've ever read.
Why's that?

[Yonivore]

Actually, I think military bunks should be co-ed style.
At least you're consistent. I'm thinking the military and the vast majority of the public, don't share your thinking.

Which gets us back to the question of why, if it's inappropriate to bunk opposite sex heterosexuals together, why is the appropriate to bunk same sex homosexuals together?

[Wild Cobra]

This is seriously some of the dumbest shit I've ever read.
Can you elaborate? What parts?

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, I think military bunks should be co-ed style.
Now what happens to the female enrollment into the military? I love it, after partying drunk women and men in the same room...

Think about those ramifications by chance?

[balli]

Make love, not war man.

[Yonivore]

Make love, not war man.
That'll get you defeated by the enemy every time.

[balli]

That'll get you defeated by the enemy every time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb

[CuckingFunt]

Why's that?


Can you elaborate? What parts?

It's an argument/concern that is built solely on personal prejudices and biases with absolutely no basis in reality.

By even asking the question, by pondering the ramifications for even a moment, you're assuming that a) people aren't already showering/bunking with the gender to whom they are attracted and/or with people who may find them attractive; b) that homosexuals are motivated by, and exist without control of, their libido and regularly throw themselves at people who would not/could not reciprocate their feelings; c) that there aren't already people of all sexes/genders/orientations hooking up while on active duty; and d) that sexual harassment and sexualized violence are based on attraction, rather than issues of control and power. All those assumptions with literally nothing to warrant them.

[spursncowboys]

z6zDygujgj4

[spursncowboys]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb
:lmaoThe Sunshine Project. Thats classic!!

[PixelPusher]

This is seriously some of the dumbest shit I've ever read.

You should stop by the political forum more often.

[Yonivore]

It's an argument/concern that is built solely on personal prejudices and biases with absolutely no basis in reality.

By even asking the question, by pondering the ramifications for even a moment, you're assuming that a) people aren't already showering/bunking with the gender to whom they are attracted and/or with people who may find them attractive;
I never assumed that...I'm sure they are. But, once you become aware, what are your responsibilities for allowing the practice to continue?


b) that homosexuals are motivated by, and exist without control of, their libido and regularly throw themselves at people who would not/could not reciprocate their feelings;
Not all but, a percentage of heterosexuals are precisely that and, it's a damn good thing they aren't allowed to bunk and shower with the opposite sex. Why should I expect there won't be a certain percentage of homosexuals similarly inclined? Do we really have the resources to determine who will and who won't abuse the arrangement? And, if we do, why not employ similar bunking arrangements for those heterosexuals that are able to control their libido?


c) that there aren't already people of all sexes/genders/orientations hooking up while on active duty;
But, the military doesn't facilitate that by allowing heterosexuals to bunk and shower together. To lift DADT and not address the issue of homosexuals bunking and showering together is disparate treatment.


and d) that sexual harassment and sexualized violence are based on attraction, rather than issues of control and power. All those assumptions with literally nothing to warrant them.
I'm not referring to sexual violence but to consensual relationships. The military attempts to prevent them by segregating the heterosexuals, by sex, and discouraging fraternizing. I'm sure they would similarly discourage fraternization among homosexuals but, how do they segregate and, if they don't, how do they continue the practice among heterosexuals and it not be discriminatory?

[Wild Cobra]

It's an argument/concern that is built solely on personal prejudices and biases with absolutely no basis in reality.

By even asking the question, by pondering the ramifications for even a moment, you're assuming that a) people aren't already showering/bunking with the gender to whom they are attracted and/or with people who may find them attractive; b) that homosexuals are motivated by, and exist without control of, their libido and regularly throw themselves at people who would not/could not reciprocate their feelings; c) that there aren't already people of all sexes/genders/orientations hooking up while on active duty; and d) that sexual harassment and sexualized violence are based on attraction, rather than issues of control and power. All those assumptions with literally nothing to warrant them.
It forces people into conditions they may not be comfortable with. I'm sure there are women that would have no problems sharing shower and sleeping facilities with men. Not all though. The same applies to strait men. Not all would be comfortable in having to share such facilities with openly gay men. It should not be required by either, but requiring that gays be accepted openly is the same as requiring women to bunk in the same rooms and showering in the same community showers as men.

Do you think the public is ready for that?

[Stringer_Bell]

It forces people into conditions they may not be comfortable with.

That was always my understanding of why DADT was in place, to protect morale. The most important thing on the battlefield is believing the person next to you being ready to successfully execute the mission according to military values...and I don't think being homosexual limits a soldier's capacity to do such a thing. It's not right that people should be outraged at gays, or afraid of serving with them, but the uneasiness DOES exists and it's not fair to assume majority of armed forces personnel are passed their prejudices enough to be cool with it.

But really, when there are qualified individuals with language abilities and good intellect willing to fight...I feel it's wrong to kick them out for being gay. Someone needs to find a Third-way.

[CuckingFunt]

You should stop by the political forum more often.

I'm not quite that much of a masochist.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Tell me something Yoni, since all you republicans love to bitch about respecting your armed men and all... wouldn't you assuming they were all sexed crazed maniacs with absolutely no self control (like you're doing in this fucking thread) be an insult in their eyes?

Why do you insult them so? Why the hate?

[CuckingFunt]

Not all but, a percentage of heterosexuals are precisely that

What percentage? And where did you find it?

[Yonivore]

Tell me something Yoni, since all you republicans love to bitch about respecting your armed men and all... wouldn't you assuming they were all sexed crazed maniacs with absolutely no self control (like you're doing in this fucking thread) be an insult in their eyes?

Why do you insult them so? Why the hate?
Who said anything about them being sex-crazed maniacs with absolutely no self control.

The simple question is if the military lift DADT and allows gays to openly serve, don't they owe them the same discretion afforded opposite sex heterosexuals who aren't allowed to bunk and shower together?


What percentage? And where did you find it?
So, there are no heterosexuals that would bunk and shower with the opposite sex and not try and take advantage of the arrangement?

You're trying to shift the argument.

I'm simply saying it is unreasonable to expect same sex homosexuals to not to behave as would opposite sex heterosexuals if similarly situated. And, to think otherwise is discriminatory disparate treatment. Which is why DADT is in place...it removes the burden of that responsibility from the military and places it on the individual.

It's also why lifting DADT isn't going anywhere easily.

[jack sommerset]

Obvoiusly it's a argument based on reality. Not some fantasy reality gays want to define it as. Some define it as prejedices. Fucking duh. Let the fags fuck each other. I don't give a fuck. Let them have every right a married couple has. I don't give a fuck. But don't sit there and think it's normal. It's not. To have a teacher soley preach about gays fucking gays is ignorant.It's a waste of time and tax payers money. How bout this. Sex education classes cover birth protection, safe non disease sex, sex crimes but to have a movement the fags want soley concentrated of dudes fucking dudes, girls fucking girls is fucking pathetic. It's not what we want in our schools. Don't make kids take a fag class so the fags can feel better about themselves. Guess what fags, we don't give a fuck but don't spew your life style on EVERYONE!

[CuckingFunt]

So, there are no heterosexuals that would bunk and shower with the opposite sex and not try and take advantage of the arrangement?

You're trying to shift the argument.

I'm simply saying it is unreasonable to expect same sex homosexuals to not to behave as would opposite sex heterosexuals if similarly situated. And, to think otherwise is discriminatory disparate treatment. Which is why DADT is in place...it removes the burden of that responsibility from the military and places it on the individual.

It's also why lifting DADT isn't going anywhere easily.

I'm not trying to shift anything. I'm suggesting it's a non-issue.

More specifically, I'm suggesting that the only reason it would even be considered an issue by you is due to your own prejudices and assumptions about gay people, as evident in the completely unsubstantiated claim that "a certain percentage" of homosexuals are slaves to their libido and same-sex lust.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

So, there are no heterosexuals that would bunk and shower with the opposite sex and not try and take advantage of the arrangement?

You're trying to shift the argument.

I'm simply saying it is unreasonable to expect same sex homosexuals to not to behave as would opposite sex heterosexuals if similarly situated. And, to think otherwise is discriminatory disparate treatment. Which is why DADT is in place...it removes the burden of that responsibility from the military and places it on the individual.

It's also why lifting DADT isn't going anywhere easily.

Bullshit! You'd have a point if it wasn't for the fact that DODT doesn't remove the homosexual in homosexuals. You still have men who are attracted to other men bunking together. How exactly does DODT take care of that "problem" as you like to call it?

[CuckingFunt]

Obvoiusly it's a argument based on reality. Not some fantasy reality gays want to define it as. Some define it as prejedices. Fucking duh. Let the fags fuck each other. I don't give a fuck. Let them have every right a married couple has. I don't give a fuck. But don't sit there and think it's normal. It's not. To have a teacher soley preach about gays fucking gays is ignorant.It's a waste of time and tax payers money. How bout this. Sex education classes cover birth protection, safe non disease sex, sex crimes but to have a movement the fags want soley concentrated of dudes fucking dudes, girls fucking girls is fucking pathetic. It's not what we want in our schools. Don't make kids take a fag class so the fags can feel better about themselves. Guess what fags, we don't give a fuck but don't spew your life style on EVERYONE!

I take it back. THIS is some of the stupidest shit I've ever read.

[Yonivore]

I'm not trying to shift anything. I'm suggesting it's a non-issue.
Then why do they not allow opposite sex heterosexuals to bunk and shower together?


More specifically, I'm suggesting that the only reason it would even be considered an issue by you is due to your own prejudices and assumptions about gay people, as evident in the completely unsubstantiated claim that "a certain percentage" of homosexuals are slaves to their libido and same-sex lust.
A certain percentage of all people, homosexual or heterosexual are "slaves to their libido."

Why can't you tell me how it is okay for same-sex homosexuals to be bunked and to shower together but, not opposite-sex heterosexuals?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Obvoiusly it's a argument based on reality. Not some fantasy reality gays want to define it as. Some define it as prejedices. Fucking duh. Let the fags fuck each other. I don't give a fuck. Let them have every right a married couple has. I don't give a fuck. But don't sit there and think it's normal. It's not. To have a teacher soley preach about gays fucking gays is ignorant.It's a waste of time and tax payers money. How bout this. Sex education classes cover birth protection, safe non disease sex, sex crimes but to have a movement the fags want soley concentrated of dudes fucking dudes, girls fucking girls is fucking pathetic. It's not what we want in our schools. Don't make kids take a fag class so the fags can feel better about themselves. Guess what fags, we don't give a fuck but don't spew your life style on EVERYONE!

You are the very deffinition of ignorance, you know that? A stupid fucking one at that.

[clambake]

I have tried for years to get such an answer from liberals, and they never have an explaination of their bias.

i'll bet your ex-wife has an explanation regarding you.

sorry.......you said explaination.

[Yonivore]

Bullshit! You'd have a point if it wasn't for the fact that DODT doesn't remove the homosexual in homosexuals. You still have men who are attracted to other men bunking together. How exactly does DODT take care of that "problem" as you like to call it?
It removes the burden from the military from being responsible for sexual behavior among same sex members of the military. DADT puts the responsibility on the individual to make their sexual orientation a non-issue.

Every one in here has assumed I'm opposed to gays in the military or that I'm opposed to gays bunking with straight of the same sex. I think the real problem will be gays bunking with gays -- in an environment where they are allowed to reveal their sexual orientation.

As has been pointed out, all gays aren't sex-craved maniacs but, by lifting DADT, you've now made the military responsible -- just as they are for heterosexuals -- for making sure those that do have an active libido don't prey on someone else simply because they're gay.

Just as there are opposite-sex heterosexuals that would not want to be forced to bunk with the other sex because of multiple reasons, not just the sexual aspect; I'm sure there are homosexuals that are uncomfortable with being exposed in the same manner.

Are you going to suggest that a homosexual, in a shower with a bunch of the same sex individuals would not behave in the same manner as a heterosexual in a shower with a bunch of opposite sex individuals?

Why should homosexuals be exposed to that vulnerability any more readily than heterosexuals?

[jack sommerset]

I take it back. THIS is some of the stupidest shit I've ever read.

It's reality and for good reasons.

[CuckingFunt]

Then why do they not allow opposite sex heterosexuals to bunk and shower together?

A certain percentage of all people, homosexual or heterosexual are "slaves to their libido."

Why can't you tell me how it is okay for same-sex homosexuals to be bunked and to shower together but, not opposite-sex heterosexuals?

In this country, that separation has always been made according to sex/gender, and not sexual activity. I don't see that changing any time soon.

I've made no arguments in this thread as to whether or not that arbitrary method of separation makes sense, so I don't feel the need to defend that position. All I've said is that your argument doesn't follow from the evidence/reasons you have presented, and that your concern appears wholly baseless.

[jack sommerset]

:lol 6 billion people on the planet. The whole planet. Seriously does anyone think just 1 percent of them (man, woman) want to be ass fucked let alone on a daily basis. Uh NOOOOOOOOOOOO. You talk about a minority. I swear i'm not a mad guy. It's funny. Give those who do like it rights but don't make it a "must" class everyone should take

[Yonivore]

In this country, that separation has always been made according to sex/gender, and not sexual activity. I don't see that changing any time soon.
But, why do you think that is? Why are the sexes segregated?


I've made no arguments in this thread as to whether or not that arbitrary method of separation makes sense, so I don't feel the need to defend that position. All I've said is that your argument doesn't follow from the evidence/reasons you have presented, and that your concern appears wholly baseless.
But, I think the reasons of gender segregation go to the heart of my argument.

There are fundamental human behaviors shared by heterosexuals that make bunking opposite-sex heterosexuals together impractical and disruptive to the mission of the military.

For the same reasons, bunking same-sex homosexuals together is just as impractical and disruptive to the mission of the military unless you establish a mechanism that attempts to restrain that fundamental human behavior.

DADT is that mechanism.

Is it perfect? No. Homosexual relationship occur. But, so do heterosexual relationships. However, by having DADT, homosexuals can be held accountable for instigating those relationships without have the sticky mess of how do you keep them apart and not be liable. With opposite-sex heterosexuals, gender segregation is an easy, if imperfect mechanism that makes DADT that you're heterosexual unnecessary.

[ChumpDumper]

You're still an idiot.

They are showering and bunking together already.

Somehow you think male heterosexuals are going to be raped if DADT is rescinded.

Your homosexual fantasies are not reality. Quit pretending they are.

[Yonivore]

You're still an idiot.

They are showering and bunking together already.

Somehow you think male heterosexuals are going to be raped if DADT is rescinded.
Where did I ever say that? But, I do think there will be a whole lot more problems with the homosexual community, in the military, if DADT is lifted.


Your homosexual fantasies are not reality. Quit pretending they are.
Your incessant attempts to inflame the dialog and goad me into responding to your irrelevant nattering do nothing to advance the conversation.

If homosexuals want to normalize their sexual orientation and have DADT lifted, I think an appropriate question is how do you relieve the military from the responsibility to provide a non-hostile work environment to homosexuals that would now be openly bunking and showering with others who may, or may not, be sexually attracted to them and viewing them in a way that could lead to harassment or a hostile environment?

My point has been that, because of DADT, that responsibility lies with the individual. And, that only makes sense because, unlike opposite-sex heterosexuals, segregating them isn't practical -- if even feasible.

DADT gave homosexuals an avenue through which they could resolve such an environment. Without it, the military is going to have a clusterfuck that can't easily be resolved by just saying, "okay, men in that building and women in that one."

Let me turn the question around. What do homosexuals gain by having DADT lifted?

It's a distraction the military doesn't need right now. In other words, it doesn't pertain to Military or Economic Security and, thus, falls into that third category of "everything else" mentioned in the thread on Presidential priorities.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Forget it Yoni. Liberals never think that far. I think they are incapable of thinking more than two steps ahead.

Yeah like making this obama's economy and killing him with it..yet not realizingit will eventually turn around and he will all of the credit

. brilliant idea! way to think ahead..:lmao

[cherylsteele]

When someone starts of a sentence with "I have nothing against gays..." shows prejudice from the outset, usually indicates their mindset right off the bat.

It is the same when you say "I am having nothing against blacks (or any other group)...."

[rjv]

i think when hegel posited the notion of a constant human discourse ,that would slowly take humanity and history towards an enlightened apogee, he hardly could have imagined such threads initiating debates over the concerns of showering or bunking with homosexuals. if our forums are a reflection of the health of our minds then we can safely assume that the american intellect is in critical condition.

[Winehole23]

:lol 6 billion people on the planet. The whole planet. Seriously does anyone think just 1 percent of them (man, woman) want to be ass fucked let alone on a daily basis. Uh NOOOOOOOOOOOO. You talk about a minority. I swear i'm not a mad guy. It's funny. Give those who do like it rights but don't make it a "must" class everyone should takeWhy not? It's one of your main themes in this forum. I don't think you ever will be done teaching SpursTalk about gays and gay sex.

In this thread at least your contribution was topical; usually your anti-gay screeds come out of nowhere.

[boutons_deux]

"american intellect"

oxymoron

With a majority of Americans thinking evolution is not a plausible theory, one knows the forces ignorance and irrationality have gained perhaps the upper hand.

Watching TV rots your brain and wastes your life, which is what the corps and politicians want, so your brain if available to their manipulations intended to empty your pockets.

[rjv]

"american intellect"

oxymoron

With a majority of Americans thinking evolution is not a plausible theory, one knows the forces ignorance and irrationality have gained perhaps the upper hand.

Watching TV rots your brain and wastes your life, which is what the corps and politicians want, so your brain if available to their manipulations intended to empty your pockets.

add to that list talk radio. one of the other culprits largely responsible for the construction of what ortega y gasset referred to as the "mass man". as a result, threads such as this worthless subject become the focus of our public "dialogue".

[LnGrrrR]

I think Yoni and CF are talking on two levels.

Yoni is saying, as a simple "Is this fair" matter, on the separation between gender and orientation, whereas CF is talking about the world as it really is.

I would say yes Yoni, it is slightly unfair/strange that man/girl is divided up but hetero/homo isn't. However, as CF pointed out, that distinction occurs in other areas, the most prevalent probably being boy/girl bathroom division.

The major point is, repealing DADT will allow us to keep qualified individuals. Those individuals are already bunking with the same gender, and there are rules to deal with if they cross a line. As well, polls have shown a majority of Americans, AND a majority of military members, would accept repealing DADT. Seems rather open and shut to me.

[LnGrrrR]

Let me turn the question around. What do homosexuals gain by having DADT lifted?


The freedom to be who they are, openly and honestly, to express themselves. I wouldn't take this freedom lightly. After all, these people are fighting to maintain our freedoms, and anyone who's been in the military knows we voluntarily curtail some of our freedoms already; I don't think sexual orientation should be one of them.

[admiralsnackbar]

add to that list talk radio. one of the other culprits largely responsible for the construction of what ortega y gasset referred to as the "mass man". as a result, threads such as this worthless subject become the focus of our public "dialogue".

In defense of worthless threads like this, you are at least given the option to try to raise the level of discourse and try to deconstruct prejudices and fallacies you have or perceive in others rather than passively internalizing the opinions of media puppets. Sure, there will always be people parroting "mass-man-isms" from their particular sides of the ideological fence, but those interested in an actual dialogue rather than coasting towards a "win" on the coat-tails of some pundit's rhetoric are at least pro-actively engaging their critical thinking and will to self-realization... even if the original topic was Bat Boy.

Besides, given the nature of a bulletin board, it's probably easier to discuss trivial minutiae than deep theory, if only because most of these trifling topics come pret-a-porter with their issues and arguments built-in and require only reasoning to sift through their bullshit or truth, as opposed to the citations/documentation a more serious conversation would demand.

[I. Hustle]

http://my-two-cents.net/forenpix/thread-is-gay.jpg

[rjv]

Besides, given the nature of a bulletin board, it's probably easier to discuss trivial minutiae than deep theory, if only because most of these trifling topics come pret-a-porter with their issues and arguments built-in and require only reasoning to sift through their bullshit or truth, as opposed to the citations/documentation a more serious conversation would demand.


indeed. where would the forum "debate" be without google search engine and indoctrinated thought via the AM dial.

[hater]

well you can't really fight a religious war with a bunch of publicly known homos. somethings gotta give, and it aint gonna be the military