House Votes To Repeal DADT

Huh? What issue? It has nothing to do with gays refusing to serve with straights. Gays couldn't serve without the constant threat of discharge if they were found out to be gay. One would think any gay person signing up for the military knew that almost everyone they'd be serving with would be straight and chose to serve anyway.

Or is this just a big troll?

So are you a bigot for asserting your wish for your Norse beliefs to be respected by non-Norse bigots? Or are you Christian now? Does it depend on which thread you're trolling in?

And with that, you surrender all claim to rational discourse.

Oh, Skin fully admits he's a bigot. But so are the rest of you. So's every human being who ever lived and defended their own way of life and their own way of looking at the world around 'em. As was pointed out upthread, though, the seriously churlish ones pretend they're exempt from this fact of human existence.

Also, this.

FTFY.

You will not have to be intimate with them.
You WILL have to work with them. I see nothing in the repeal of DADT that says you MUST play with them.

Not only must they play with them, the repeal of DADT obligates straight soldiers to occasionally take one in the ass. That's the big fear, here.

no, not entirely. it lets those who are already serving continue to serve, without fear of getting the boot when someone points to them and says "they're gay!"

They were never asking to have their sexuality bandied about. They were asking to be allowed to serve even though they were gay.
DADT said they could serve AS LONG AS NOBODY KNEW they were gay. The minute someone outed them, they could no longer serve.
THAT is why the repeal was and is needed. To stop bigoted individuals from outing gays so that they can continue to serve.

You know, I prefer NOT to see tonsil hockey being played by either hetero- OR homosexual couples. Doesn't make me hot and bothered, just bothered.
Keep the makeout stuff out of the public eye.

Sure thing, queerboy. Your comfort and unease are NOT the concern of the US Navy. If you're too much of a child to handle such things, you're the one in need of an OTH and a kick out the door. You are the property of the US Government during your term of service, and if you cannot follow the orders and directives given because of your crybaby feelings, then you don't need to be serving in the first place.

Frankly, that's not a fair comparison, unless the term "bigot" is offensive to you - which it shouldn't be, if you're not one (and if it is, you're a whiny bitch). Replace it with "blacks" and we'll see if that claim holds up. I'll highlight it in each post. And I'll delete posts with no "bigot" in it, and keep a running tally of how many I've deleted.

One caveat: because bigotry is a state of mind,* and it is the mind that makes the person, it is easier, if not outright okay, to refer to the a person who is bigoted as a bigot. Personally, I don't like to blur the distinction, but most people don't have a problem with it.

*unlike being black or gay which are states of body and brain, respectively. If you believe that only states of brain cause states of mind - that is, free will does not exist - I will remind you that even if we live in an entirely deterministic universe, we are compelled to behave as if we do have free will.

1

Yeah, that looks pretty bad out of context. So I'll give UA a chance to respond: UA, did you mean that bigots should be given no special accommodation, or no accommodation at all? Cause if the latter, skin has a point (loathe as I am to say that).

EDIT: 2 posts of yours later addresses this. No special accommodation it is. That's hardly a unique point of view around here; lots of us think that no one at all should get special accommodation.

2

3

4

5

6

Seriously?



No, I'm not dignifying that.

Firstly, let me say I think gays should be able to serve openly. But it is not as easy as people think for the military to adapt it. Not because of homophobics, that is the minority of people. It is because of the military's treatment of people in general.

Being ex-military I am curious how things will be applied as their is currently so much discrimination aside form the gay issue.

Some examples:

When I was in the USAF 85-93 they would make a major production about separate facilities for men and women. To the point of people being punished if they are in the wrong area. With openly gay persons the separation thing really no longer makes sense. Everyone should be professional. Straight, gay, guy, girl.

If gays are professional enough to use the same bathrooms as heterosexuals, then shouldn't everyone be professional enough to share bathrooms and communal areas with all sexes and orientations?

Also single people are quite discriminated. A single E-5 for example has to live in a dorm and can only get tax-free BAQ (Basic Allowance Quarters) if there is no room in the dorms or his Commander approves it. Meanwhile an E1 who is married gets BAQ (dependent rate to boot) and the right to live off base automatically.

Will they allow gays domestic partner rights? If so this will be further discrimination to single persons.

Then there are the silly haircut rules for guys which females do not have to follow. Rules should be the same for all.

Seems like single people will still get the biggest shaft as usual (no pun intended). Then again maybe things have changed since i got out in 1993.

Additionally, even though not technically, lesbians where serving quite openly when I was in and no one cared. Most even had Filipino girlfriends just like the guys while I was at Clark AB. It was gay men who had to keep quiet for the most part. So there is discrimination there also.

Hopefully this repeal will get the military to treat all people equally in all aspects. Long way to go I think.

I agree there are logistical issues, but they're certainly not insurmountable (frankly, I disagree with any privileges for married couples, but that's a different story).

That is the acid test that this bullshit will never pass. All I want is for straights to have the same privacy from gays that women are guaranteed from men. No more, no less.

With this law there is no longer any reason or justification for keeping women separate from men. Yet there are a lot of people here who think that's justified, who at the same time are perfectly happy to put gays in with straights. Bullshit -- that's a double standard. You can't justify one without the other.

So if you get to watch women with shaved heads take their dumps in communal bathrooms, will you finally shut the fuck up about the gays?

This thread just gets better and better.....

"Privacy from gays"? What the hell is that?

It's the fantasy "right" where you never have to put up with anyone you don't like. Most people grow out of it by junior high.

Unless they're gay. Or Uncle Albert. Wait, was that redundant?

Not usually, but for you I might be pursuaded.

Only if there's dinner and candlelight.

Welp, now we know Skin's asking price . . .

Not really. It's a very reasonable request.
http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=2082175&postcount=239

Because you asked:
http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=2082175&postcount=239

Ah yes, the old fallacy of "gay men want to fuck every man they see!"

Anyway, not discharging 13,000 soldiers, including hundreds of Arabic-speaking translators, for the sole reason that they happen to be gay, is worth your unease in the shower.

Yeah, I'm not getting the "shower" thing myself. How much fucking time do some people spend lurking in public shower areas anyway? :santa_azn:

Oh, and the "foxhole" thing. Because nothing turns anyone on more than crouching in a cold muddy pit with gunfire blasting your ears off. :santa_ok:

"Privacy" is a right that does not exist in the US military.

Assuming your premise for the sake of argument, there is plenty of existing law that already sends the same message so that horse is already out of the barn years ago - if that's what you think this does.