House Votes To Repeal DADT

That "hot racking " thing is FUBAR! :santa_angry: I know space is limited on a ship, but damn. We get sardined in pretty tight occasionally in The Army + AF...
but nothing so tight we have to literally time-share a bed! :santa_shocked:

Your stupidity is getting almost too deep to be worth a response.

1. Kissing is not having sex.
2. PDA's are allowed for hetros but not for homos? That's the very definition of the bigotry you are being accused of.
3. Kissing is not "making out" and discretion is expected of all, of whatever orientation.
4. If you can't stomach a public gay kiss, then refrain from your own PDA's - double standards vioate the very ideas these men and women fight for.
5. who kisses who on the dock is wholly irrelevant to the mission of our navy.

And that's a lot of fuck ups for just one paragraph - I'm glad you were thrifty with your words in this case.

Okay, dumb ass - I've challenge you on this point at least half a dozen times in this thread and you never prove your assertion or even acknowledge the challenge:

Gay people in the vast majority are NOT "compelled to profess it" to casual acquaintances or co-workers.
It.
Simply.
Doesn't.
Happen.

99% of gay individuals tell, often with great reluctance or in the face of being "found out" in unexpected ways, VERY close personal friends and family. Anyone else who knows simply picks it up by observation.

the only difference here is that such an accidental "outing" by observation will not now be grounds for discharge.

If you base your argument on the assertion that gays feel "compelled to profess it" to every passing acquaintance, then you simply don't know any gay people (that you are aware of).

So you're basing a big chunk of your argument on an entirely false claim.

So? Eating or not is a choice. Never mind that you'll die if you don't, you CAN abstain.

Am I arguing that if you don't have sex with the gender you find sexually attractive you will die? of course not. Just pointing out that the reality that one has the choice whether or not to act upon one's desires in no way renders those desires unworthy.

We all have desires - some of which do no one any harm, occasionally they would do others harm if indulged.

It is THAT standard which is the measure of whether or not society should demand you suppress or control your desire.

Being gay doesn't meet that standard.


(and before you go there, "being open" is part and parcel of indulging your desires. We do not accuse people of "being open" about their hunger because they eat at a diner instead of keeping their unsavory diet behind closed doors?

I have as little tolerance as anyone for the "I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it!!" in your face mentality. That's rudeness by any measure. but if a gay or lesbian, going about the course of their life, do something any heterosexual would do then they are not "being open" about their sexuality any more than if a straight couple dd it)

Actually, since it's the state acting here (in terms of enlistment and recruiting) it can be argued there is a question of equality before the law, which IS a rights issue.

Equality before the law would require that there be an actual job-centric reason for denial of equal opportunity (like being too fat or too short or too old) - short of such a reason, equal opportunity should apply.

Bullshit.

The gay lobby's concern - rightly so - was the need for constant vigilant deception to keep from being found out (by those who were SUPPOSED to "don't ask") lest one misstep create suspicion which eventually led to discharge.

No such presumption or burden is placed on anyone else engaged in a legal activity, and in that alone it was unjust.

Your previous song and dance was mildly amusing, in a "What the fuck are you doing?" sort of way....but this is just nonsensical tripping over yourself.

There was at least one other significant burden in practice. Military women who turn down men's advances all too often found themselves the subject of an inquiry under DADT for no other reason than that they turned down such advances. Women were dismissed under DADT at a far greater rate than men were, largely because men never had to deal with that particular issue. It was dangerous for a woman in the military to say "no" under DADT.

So the women are supposed to be okay with me in the female berthing because I don't actually want to fuck every woman I see? Is that what you're saying? Because I don't think that's gonna ring quite so true with the women.

I just want you fucking idiots to show that your argument is as reasoned as you think by applying it consistently. Until then, it's just more of the same: politically correct bullshit.

Obviously you've never tried to get in the women's berthing aboard ship.

LOL. You think women were dismissed disproportionately because they turned down men? The women I saw getting thrown out didn't look like they even got asked a lot by men -- they were getting thrown out because they were lesbians. And not the "lipstick" variety.

And in the most memorable such event I can recall, it wasn't based on reports from spurned men. It happened after a raid on a female Marine barracks in Memphis that turned up an assortment of strap-ons and other toys. If anyone was complaining, it was one of the BAMs in that barracks.

When I was in, we kind of accepted that there were a disproportionate number of lesbians in the service, compared to the outside. I'm not seeing much reason why that would change now...

I suppose that would be true if not for the line that showed up at recruiting offices a few months ago, the morning after they said they were suspending DADT. They don't call it "gay pride" because it's a big secret, you know.

Though I do appreciate that plenty of "conventional" gays are serving secretly already, and they're probably not going to come out intentionally. Of course, such individuals are still present their own security risk since they have a secret they're trying to protect. Just because it's legal to come out doesn't mean everyone wants to be outed.

But that was okay because none of them were gay GUYS?

This is anecdotal, but from my experience, there is a disproportionately large percentage of gay and bi women in the military. They also tend to be more open about it. When I was training at Ft Sam Houston, there was not a weekend that went by where I didn't see female soldiers making out in the bars along the river walk. However, no one cared, and no one got kicked out. In 4 years, I never saw anything so common or public from gay male soldiers.

Sad to say, but there is still a double standard.
For some reason, when two women are together, at a bar, rooming, whatever, the public seems to think it is for safety. The public doesn't immediately scream "They're gay" when they see women together. Guys, however, have to be either lone wolves or in a pack; if there are just two together they must be "gay"

ITS A DECADE AFTER THE YEAR 2000.



BUILD, AND DEPLOY THESE IN COMBAT:







HUMAN ELEMENT REMOVED.




PROBLEM SOLVED.



(PLUS ROBOTS CANNOT BE THE GAY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PROGRAMMED BY A QUEEN)

Volpone agrees: Are you prepared to take the chance on being buttfucked by a gay robot?

HELL TO THE NO!!

Speaking of anecdotes, here's a kind of anecdote we hopefully won't have to hear again:

Your argument is akin to saying "I dislike you, therefore you are violating my rights by being around me, and it is my right to force you to be removed so I don't have to look at you."

Or like saying "I am offended by Republicans having the right to vote; therefore, by insisting that they do have that right, you are violating my rights by forcing me to accept something that offends me."

The first line of thought is not like the second.

Now that this Obamanation has been signed. I can still see a lot of problems implementing this. Sleeping arrangements are going to be a big concern whether anyone here sees it or not. A person should not be forced to share a room with a homo roommate. In the civilian world, a straight person looking for a roommate would would most likely not want to have a gay room mate. There is going to be rebellion amongst the troops if they push this shit. Hopefully this will be another thing that backfires on Obama and his liberal congressmen before the next election.

So, despite it NOT being a problem in all the other NATO countries, Israel, and the myriad of other countries that allow openly gay servicemen, it's going to be a problem for US servicemen and women. You know what they call someone who argues a point when all the evidence is against them, EP? They call them STUPID. Yes, EP, you're a fucking idiot.

I would also accept "drunk".

Well, its a done deal now. We will have to wait and see. I can just see a big problem with this for the single folks living in the dorms. I bet most of the people that said everything will be fine are living off base or base housing and not in a dorm.
You end up spending most of your waking hours that you are not at work with your roommate in the dorm. Sometime you just want to kill them anyways without them being a damn flamer. Might as well be a prison cell.

When my son moved briefly to New Jersey his roomate turned out to be...wait for it...gay. It was the first time he had ever lived away from home. Of course he wouldn't move in to an apartment locally with someone he (and our family) already knew. He goes into everything full-bore.

The guy was a model roomate and a great person - salt of the earth.
He was an older guy, good-looking and unmarried. In hindsight, I should have put two + two together, but I have no "gaydar." I can't read people at all. Regardless, he never tried any "funny stuff" on my son or flaunted his gayness in any way. It was a total non-issue.

As for having roommates with conflicting lifestyles, I can relate. When I lived in the barracks in the Air Force I eventually ended up with a druggie for a roommate. I valued my career too much to put up with that shit!
So, I went to my First Sergeant and told him I wanted to switch roomates, but didn't want to discuss the particular reasons. He didn't pry, or try to get incriminating information. He just let me switch rooms. I moved in with a guy I knew who's roomate partied hardy. So, the two druggies lived together and myself and another non-druggie lived together. Switching roommates can be that simple, and usually is.

In The Army it was very simple. You move in with whover you want. If you are a new guy and don't end up liking your roomate(s) you just move into any other available room.

As for "being with someone constantly" when off-duty, that is your fault. Maybe you need to get out of the barracks and find outside interests with new people - that is healthy advice for anyone.

It's almost offensive that you don't expect soldiers to overcome a situation commonly faced by college freshmen all over the country.

I think most soldiers won't care. The one's that do care . . . well part of joining the military is about getting out of your comfort zone, adapting to new challenges, sucking it up, and tolerating the intolerable. It blows my mind that there are people who will happily walk into the gas chamber without a mask when ordered, but will balk at rooming with a gay.

I'm sure college freshmen are allowed to appeal if they're not comfortable with their roommate's lifestyle. And I'm pretty sure "comfort zone" is actually a desirable attribute for living quarters.

It blows my mind that there are people who will happily walk into the gas chamber without a mask when ordered, but who will balk at being told to keep their personal shit to themselves.

Apparently you missed the part about how easy it is to switch roommates.

You keep repeating this stupid ass assertion even when it's been well demonstrated that that is not what is going on here. When you get a rational reply to it you ignore that reply and then make the claim again the next time you post.

We all know that is what you claim, but we also all know and have pointed out that it is bullshit.

by all means, repeat it again.

Fuck you, Nova. You're too involved -- literally.

I have exactly ONE objection to this fucked up legislation -- the hypocritical recognition that while there's a fundamental problem allowing men to sleep in female berthing, it's perfectly okay to let certain men sleep in what, for them, effectively is female berthing. It's not okay.

I happen to respect the concerns of the females who don't want males in their midst. And, quite unhypocritically, I respect the concerns of the males who want nothing more and nothing less for themselves.

If you're a guy who through no fault of his own is attracted to men in the same way that other men are attracted to women, then you have no more business sharing a living space with straight men than straight men have sharing one with women. And this is valid and fair for gays and straights for exactly the same reason that it's valid and fair for in the case of men and women -- no bigotry, no hate, no discrimination. Just incompatibility.

I wouldn't care one fucking iota about this if it was possible to pull it off without asking males and females alike to cede a huge chunk of the only tiny shred of semi-privacy that they actually have aboard ship. I've been there, and it's obvious that most of you have not.

I appear to be the only enlightened one here. I understand completely what it would be like to demand that a barracks full of women accept me as their roommate. I have no business there -- not of my own choosing, and not as a matter of policy. And therefore I must consistently maintain that there is no reason for gay men, who view other men the way that I view girls, to be housed with straight men.

Hate not required. Bigotry not required. Reason, not ignorance. Political correctness be damned.

The only opposing post that I can actually respect in this thread came from a gay guy who admitted that with this law there really is no longer a reason to separate men and women. That is correct: If this law made any sense there really is no point in separating men and women. Fortunately common sense will at least preserve that separation, even as political correctness eliminates this one.

But unless you're a bunch of fucking hypocrites, there isn't a person who favors this policy who shouldn't also fully agree that we could lose the "old-fashioned and unnecessary" separation between men and women. Why aren't you acknowledging what bigots this makes women? Tell them to suck it up and be a little more tolerant, why don't you?

I'm done here. Congratulations for winning the battle. Forgive me if I don't surrender my common sense when I sign the truce.

And I'm both surprised and disappointed by some of the particularly rational (in my former opinion) members here who are bowing to political correctness because they actually think anyone has a "right" to serve in the military. I was under the impression that some of you understood what a right is. Forgive my mistake.