House Votes To Repeal DADT

This is two outlooks of equal moral and intellectual weight. Why is it that only the side that doesn't want gays serving openly are the "bigots"? Fuck all you pro-open-service bigots right back, you're just as fucking bigoted as your opposition, and hypocrites as well for failing to see that you are.

I don't think that logically follows.

those who operate from the premise of "right wing fundie bigots don't get there way, HA!" would yes, fit your premise.

But not many of us on that side are operating from that premise.

Functional versus intentional = macht nicht.

There is no equal moral weight.

Let's say you have two people in the street, one starts punching the other because he is gay.

In that situation if the person being punched says "stop punching me, that's not nice" are you really saying that both parties have equal moral standing?

Bigots can believe whatever the hell they want.

They just can't have everything else structured around not offending their bigoted sensibilities anymore.

Because they are bigots. This "side" doesn't like the fact that a sexuality other than theirs exists and doesn't want the people who have it to be afforded equal rights under the law. That is the classic definition of being bigoted.

Skin's not saying they aren't. Skin's saying the opposing view, just in this thread alone, is equally bigoted.

Sure they can. Just depends on which pack of bigots you're referring to. "We're going to force you to accept our way of thinking whether you like it or not!" Just replaces one bigotry with another.

Apples and oranges. A more apt metaphor is there's a clubhouse, and the people in it won't let another group of people in. Well, now the other group is in and the first group are "bad" for doing so much as complaining or wanting to leave. As has been pointed out, the second group have always been in there anyway, but now the second group is allowed to redefine the club, and any of the people who joined before the club was redefined have to stay and have to keep any complaints about that redefinition to themselves. That's still bigotry, just from the a different group of people.

Factually incorrect. I don't give a whit about the existence of gays. But I do choose not to be intimate with people who are openly gay. Military folks, however, will no longer have that choice.

Also incorrect. Relies on the premise that military service is a right, which it is not. This legislation invents a right. Not the right for gays to serve -- they already have that. This invents a right to be openly gay in the military. And I'm having a tough time recognizing that among the "needs of the service" that are supposed to guide staffing policy.

They do, by any reasonable definition of "intimate".

No, idiot. Nobody is dictating a "way of thinking." They've just stopped allowing the bigoted way of thinking to dictate access and inclusion.

He's being particularly obtuse lately. He's not going to get it.

He gets it just fine. He just think he's being a clever troll.

This goes to the core of the argument. It's easy to interpret the lack of absolute privacy in close quarters to mean that there is no personal space.

In fact, there is still personal space -- it just has a lot of other people in it. And people seem to cope with this lack of privacy better with an assurance that the closeness is not a turn-on for anyone.

Sharing berthing and showers is indeed intimate for plenty of reasonable people. It's intimate like sharing a bathroom with your brother. But not like sharing it with your brother's boyfriend.

So homophobic paranoia should rule the day? No. Grow the fuck up and get over it.

They never had that assurance. If you really are worried about providing a turn-on for gay guys, you'd have to be just as worried about the situation with DADT in place. You just wouldn't know who the guys are. I think the few people who get "assurance" from being willfully ignorant, i.e from pretending that maybe gays don't exist in the military (which is and has always been ridiculous) don't justify forcing people to keep quiet about how they personally chose to live their lives.

It's not "homophobic paranoia."

The biggest hypocrisy here is that all the pro-repeal folks would insist on having some say in choosing a roommate, and I daresay many would be even more choosy if the potential roommate was openly gay. You'd be foolish not to.

Yes it is. Yes it fucking is. Sitting around wondering if the homo in the next bunk is lusting after your hair man ass is textbook homophobia. There isn't even any wiggle room for arguing that point.

If you're such a finicky little princess that you need to hand pick everyone you associate with, the military is probably not a great choice for you.

It's mitigated risk. It meant that if the proximity was a distraction for someone it would be that person's problem. It would stay their problem. And the moment it became anyone else's problem, the distracted person would be gone.

"No gays in the military" was a recruiting policy. DADT is not. It's a code of conduct.

I'm intensely, burningly ambivalent about this topic. Pretty much both sides are full of shit - you don't have the right to serve in the military for tons of reasons, including BAD CREDIT, LOL. Yes, it probably isn't the best time for this, considering active warfare.

BUT the primary reason for not wanting gays in the service is homophobia.

Well, that and some of them are little girly men like the guy who leaked to wikileaks because his boyfriend stopped giving him rimjobs.

So big gaping vaginas shouldn't be in the service, but some gay guys aren't that. And there should be higher standards in the service to their treatment of gays and women.

So, overwhelmingly apathetic. LOL.

And one that any rational, mature creature would embrace on his own anyway.

Being a big gaping vagina is not exclusive to just gays. Or women.

I can assure you that you're more closed-minded than you think you are, just as I am more open-minded than you think I am. But I'm not a fucking slave to political correctness like so many of you here.

The only factor that should be driving policies like this is the needs of the service. FUCKING PERIOD. FUCKING PERIOD. FUCKING PERIOD.

But this -- this is being driven by the "needs" of gays.

No it wasn't. There have always been gays in the military and everyone in the military has always known it. "The Military" just denied it as PR thought it would be for the best.

No, it was a condition. "The Military" said, fine, we will acknowlege your existance as long as you don't make a mockery of us.

Gays have lived up to that and now it's time to just let the entire thing go.

Got proof?

All codes of conduct are conditions.

OK, lets hear it, so I can tell you how abysmally fucking wrong you are.

No, you're just pissed that the tender sensibilities of irrational bigots are no longer being pandered to. Nobody, and I mean nobody, deserves special accommodation for their delicate little feelings on the job. That goes for gays as much as the bigots who cling to the delusion that they can expect to never have to associate with gays.

And sexual preference has no bearing on anyone's ability to perform their duties in the service, and that is absolutely the only thing that matters. Fucking period.

No, it's being driven by the fact that institutional bigotry rightfully being relegated to a shamefull footnote in history. You and everyone like you will survive this. I guarantee it.

No. Codes of Conduct are pretty much the way you're supposed to behave. DADT was an arbitrary rule imposed on a specific group of people because another group - yours - might get your undies in a bunch.

If you're in uniform, you don't have sex in public. Period. Regardless of whether your partner is male or female.

You're right. I respect feelings both sides of this. And here we have a movement based more than any other on the idea that feelings are not a choice, but whose actions say that other people's feelings are simply "wrong."

As if homosexuality is some kind of recent discovery, and the position of servicemen who oppose this (in far greater numbers than is reported in the media, BTW) is ignorant or hateful. It's not.