House Votes To Repeal DADT

The worst thing to come out of this is that we're essentially legalizing the false assumption that if you think someone is doing something harmful and want them to not harm themselves, you're hateful.

Oh, really? You've never seen a sailor kissing his girlfriend or wife at pier side after the ship's pulled in? It seems to me that scene's about to undergo some interesting changes. Are we going to have gays making out on the dock too, now, or are we simply going to punish everyone?

Do you really think either of those outcomes is an improvement for the military?

No, for the ten thousandth goddamn time, nobody is being punished for thoughts and feelings. It's how they act on it that is at issue, and this measure of mature decorum and self-control should be expected of any adult, regardless of setting.

How they rationalize it is irrelevant. You have a job and you fucking do it, period.

Oh, no. Two dudes kissing. Suddenly, no one is able to function.


The fuck outta here with that bullshit. You not liking someone, not enjoying their presence or approving of their preferences does not render you unable to do your fucking job.

I'd imagine in the military, you'd have to be prepared to see far worse and disgusting things than two people kissing and still be able to do your job. What's with this insecurity?

No, I don't generally hang out at the docks waiting for the sailers to come in.

And if I did, who cares if two guys are kissing? Does it scare you that it makes your little guy twitch?

So then that whole "Morale Department" thing must seem like a big waste of money to you, huh?

Which is why you should keep it to yourself. Because if your sexual preference is a problem for someone else (1)that's not their fault, (2)they're not "wrong," and (3)they may be a perfectly qualified person for the mission whose morale is important.

The fact that you correctly recognize that gayness does not render a person incapable of doing a job does not extend to mean that everyone else can or should function perfectly when they're suddenly expected to live in confined spaces with openly gay homosexuals.

But even if it is "their own fault," say, for not being as enlightened as Uncle Albert, their performance is still more important to the military than including gays who can't keep their sexual dysfunction to themselves.

Even if you know that they're "wrong," this effort to impose your "enlightened" viewpoint is still social engineering. And that is NOT the mission of the military.

Tolerable until it's warped into a showstopper. By the time you reach adulthood, you should have wrapped your head around the fact that your feelings take a back seat to the requirements of the job. The subversion of that is the greatest crime of political correctness. Corrupting people with the idea that they have the absolute right to be content and free from offense while they are being paid for their time. Everyone on the subject needs a triple dose of "get the fuck over yourself and back to work."

They should neither go out of their way to make you aware of it nor bend over backwards to avoid subjecting you to the knowledge.

If they can't, that's their failing.

Your bigotry is showing again. Surrendering the high ground, there.

Neither is it the "mission of the military" to make sure bigots get to go on strokign their prejudice in peace. Tough shit.

Actually, if it's cheaper and less disruptive to the mission, and less risky for morale and recruiting, then yes, it is.

Just as ignorant and wrong as when that argument was advanced on the subject of black soldiers. You're pissing in the wind. You will get the fuck over it.

Seriously -- who the fuck are you, to judge that? Those are the people who are getting the mission done today. I see no failure. Are you going to introduce failure and blame it on them???

These people weren't hired for their tolerance -- they were hired to kill. And they lay down their lives everyday for an America that includes gays. You could be a little more fucking respectful of their feelings even if you do think you know better.

And I'm sure you'd demand a little say-so before you'd accept a gay roommate for yourself, too. Who's really the bigot here?

You seem to have a really low opinion of our military personnell.

Yeah, Jenee, because unlike the rest of you I respect their feelings. Feelings which, contrary to the brass's assertion that they can do this, substantially oppose it.

No, you don't respect their feelings. If you did, you'd know that most people in the military already know and accept gays and lesbians in the military and that they are all big boys and girls and deal with it.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of how it's going to look on the news when they cover a carrier pulling in at Norfolk, and there, right next to some guy meeting his baby for the first time, is a pair of guys playing tonsil hockey.

In order to avoid that spectacle -- and yes, that kind of behavior is still considered a spectacle in Norfolk -- the military might have to tell that first guy he's not allowed to kiss his wife anymore. You know, in the spirit of treating everyone "equally."

I do know that. I know they accept it under terms where it's not to be professed. That doesn't mean they want a military full of people who feel compelled to profess it.

What the fuck kind of fantasy world do you live in? Do people you know feel compelled to profess their hetrosexuality? What do you imagine is going to be happening?

No, moron. Black is just pigment.

This is a behavioral difference. Involving powerful emotions affected by being near to other people. Near, like the closeness associated with the necessity of putting many people into small spaces. Some people are affected by it more than others. And some of the others would be more comfortable if they didn't have to know about it. But they don't deserve that comfort because they're just ignorant, eh Albert?

Boo fucking hoo, two guys are kissing. Someone, stop the presses and call the police! We have a spectacle to prevent!

Get over it (applying both to you and the good people of Norfolk).

For fuck's sake, hundreds of thousands or millions of college kids in dorms have to deal with the same thing every day (that is, rooming with a gay dude), and somehow, society doesn't break down. Everyone knows: you don't eat where you shit - sex with someone in the same dorm leads to drama. So you don't fucking do it. No reason to think the same won't apply to barracks (especially since it does, or at least seems to, in every country where gays already serve openly).

You don't have a right to be in the military any more than they do ("I was there first" is your best argument, and even that's pretty weak, especially since the brass making the decision were there before you), and so you can GTFO if you don't like the new policy, but you're a total pussy if you do just because you can't stomach the thought of two guys kissing. Me, I'd have a much harder time with the whole killing people bit, which is why I'm not in the military to start with. But I can't fathom the idea that grossly disfiguring and killing people is less disturbing than the thought of guys packing fudge, which you're far less likely to see than a guy and a lady doing the nasty anyway.

All available evidence indicates it won't be a problem. If the British SAS and the Israeli Defense Force can handle gay servicemen and women like adults, I'd think the US military can do at least as well.

Given how strongly cpurick is protesting this, I'm beginning to think he's a latent homosexual himself and thinks guys like him will be too tempted to go to the Gay Side if it became acceptable in the service.

You never know.......

EP is in the closet.

McCain is a Republican.

Get them in a couple bathroom stalls at a subway station and we will see what happens.....

Firs let me say I've no problem with gays serving openly.....

However I always get a chuckle out of comparing us to other countries. We Americans do lots of stuff that no other country does.

Especially when it comes to issues of sex and religion.

Well, that playground gambit only took 7 pages to show up...

Yeah, but it's got support in the psychology texts. There isn't a rational reason for being so obsessed with homosexuality unless one has questions about one's own sexuality. Those who are confident in their sexuality don't waste thought on the issue.

except it's not[/quote]

Barring the fact that it is.

This thread's full-up with people wasting thought on the issue one way are the other. So does it apply to everyone here, or just to the ones who aren't on the bandwagon?

Barring the fact that it is.[/QUOTE]
How?

How?[/QUOTE]

There's the mature response. The answer to that, though, is fairly self-evident.