House Votes To Repeal DADT

There's the mature response. The answer to that, though, is fairly self-evident.[/QUOTE]
It's really not. Enlighten me.

A thinking being with no regard for peoples' tender emotional states.

The way they act on their thoughts and feelings is their choice, and therefore their failing.

They also weren't hired to have their prejudices serviced and indulged.

Knowing they are serving with gays will not prevent them from killing.

Bigots deserve no respect, regardless of what they do for a living.

You assume wrong. Don't project your defects on me.

And sex is just genitals.

They can all tell it to their fucking therapists. Jesus christ, are we talking about a goddamned knitting circle here?

Yeah, the answer is: You are a transparent, insubstantial little troll with no interest or capacity for rational discussion. Fuck off.

It's really not. Enlighten me.[/QUOTE]

Replace the word 'bigots' in any of Albert's posts with 'niggers' and he ends up sounding like a David Duke wannabe. Seems you can say any kind of bigoted thing you can imagine and it'll go entirely under the radar, as long as you label the people you're saying it about 'bigots' first.

:santa_cheesy:

This equivalence isn't going to work, no matter how many times your dumb ass tries it. Despising someone because of something they have no control over, such as skin tone, is nothing at all like despising them because of things they do control, like willfully rationalizing prejudice. If you have a choice in something, it is perfectly righteous to hold you accountable for that choice.

Being open about your orientation or not is also a choice. Equivalence stands. You fail. Now shit in your pants for us and cry like a little girl.

So wait...people who want to open the US military to homosexuals are bigoted...against bigots?

First, on the purely academic level, it'd have to be me who was suddenly open about a previously-hidden orientation for it to be equivalent the way you're stating it there.

Second, if you can't see the difference between seeking to exclude someone because you hate them for irrational reasons, and merely being superficially open about your preferences, you should probably thank your father for impregnating his sister.

Yup. Both sides are bigoted.

Father and sister, huh? Why don't you think 'em for Skin. Of the two of us, you're more likely to make our family reunion this year.

You are an imbecile.

High praise from a retard.

Wanting equal rights doesn't make one a bigot.

There aren't really any "rights" at issue here. There is no right to enlist, and no right to never have to tolerate the presence of gays. It's a problem of hysterical emotionality and self-importance. If everyone would just get the fuck over themselves and concentrate on their jobs, there would be no problem.

However engaging in argument by blatantly false equivalency in order to rationalize away one's bigotry makes one an even more insufferable bigot than someone who proudly owns his bigotry.

Sure they do. They have the choice to serve or not, just like gay people do.

More of a choice than the gay person who was outed against their will had up until now.

It's not a right - for the person who chooses not to serve with openly gay people - either.


Again, gay people - except for a tiny minority of crusaders - do NOT go around telling every person who holds still long enough "Hey buddy! didja know I'm GAY?!!?!"

They only discuss it with those closely involved in their lives. All this will change on a day to day basis is that they don't have to go to great lengths to conceal their attraction by deceptions so that they don't get booted out.

otherwise, business as usual.

...from both camps. Which is why both are equally bigoted.

Captain X disagrees: and the service needs professionals, even if they happen to be gay


The point is that it doesn't need to accept gays -- and the costs of integrating them and the cost of putting the entire service through "sensitivity training," and the cost of losing other professional soldiers -- in order to get all the professionals it needs to accomplish its mission. If there was a magical shortage of professionals that could only be addressed by admitting gays then I'm sure they'd have already considered it.

So yes, admitting open homsexuals will come at a cost -- an unnecessary cost -- to the service and the nation. Like I said: PC bullshit.

And don't forget to further discount any perceived "gains" of this change by the number of gays already serving despite DADT. We didn't have to change anything, and we already have them serving. Those are the real professional gays. Their service is not conditional upon the recognition of their sexual malfunction -- they leave it at the door and do their job. For them, being in the military is more important than being gay.

I'm long out of the military. But I know some of the people who are getting slapped in the face by this -- and they don't deserve it.

Which is what Skin's been saying.

Wake me up when gays are refusing to serve with straights, retard.

Presumably DADT was repealed to address that very issue, mouthbreather.

It doesn't need to exclude them, either. The subject shouldn't merit any special attention at all. Signing on the line means surrendering veto power over the people with whom you associate.

If being told your aversion to the sexual preferences of strangers isn't an excuse to get out of doing your job is an outrage to you, you deserve a few pimp slaps.

Presumably? Bullshit.

Yeah, you're right on that one. Not presumably -- definitely. As has been stated, gays were already serving. Repealing DADT serves only one purpose: to appease gays who were prejudiced against serving in a visibly straight organization.

No, DADT was a concept created by a politician who was too chicken shit to follow through on a promise he made to an entire group of supporters. DADT, was nothing more than a lie perpetuated by a Democratic President and the Democratic Party.

And that purpose is removing any requirement that gays hide themselves from cowardly bigoted fuckstains.

Yeah, such an unreasonable demand.

And a "straight organization"? Now you sound like those asstards who loudly proclaim the US to be a "christian nation." That kind of fucking idiot will either be forcibly dragged out of the goddamned 17th century or die, because nobody is obligated to reinforce the delusion that your country and your armed forced are a homogenous collection of people just like you. There are differences, those differences are harmless, and it's not some kind of horrific oppression to expect you to tolerate them without tying a noose and forming a lynch mob, Adolph.

That's good, actormike doesn't need any competition.

Yeah, well think what you want.

I can only deal with the emotions I know -- like the one I'd feel if you checked me in to a berthing with a bunch of twenty-year-old girls. Because if that's the emotion some guy gets out of being in the same berthing with me, then I don't want him there for exactly the same reason the girls don't want to live with me. And if there's nothing wrong with the girls feeling that way, then there's nothing wrong with me feeling that way too.

So I think you ought to be able so show a profound need on the part of the Navy before you tell me I have to accept that unease as a part of my life. And that need does not exist.

So you admit there's equivalence. Your earlier condition was that there would have to be gays who refuse to serve with straights. Are you copping to that now?

Which both are.