|
Going off topic with the religious discussion from page 11 and onwards will net you a 2 day ban at least. Stay on topic pretty please, with minerals on top. |
On September 21 2011 03:00 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 02:54 Hawk wrote:
We shall win the psychological war on the terrorists yet. Say bye bye to your 72 virgins if you get popped by a pork eating, sodomizing infidel. 'MERICA!
It really is amazing it took so long for something that makes sense on so many levels It was a good thing when it was implemented. It really didn't take that long, if you ask me. When it was originally implemented, it was more so viewed as favoring gays, not discriminating against them, from what I'm aware. I could be wrong, though, as it's only what I've heard it was intended as.
Back then the Republicans had enough votes to force through a full ban and override a veto from Clinton so he brought in DADT. Wasn't the best solution but at least it didn't outright ban gays.
Great that gays won't be removed from the military, unfortunate that they are still don't have the benefits that straight people get though.
|
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
|
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote:
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
...Are you seriously worried about this?
You really think that homosexuals are animals who aren't capable of controlling their sexual urges?
How on Earth can you fight a war alongside a female soldier? Don't you just drop your gun and tear off her clothes on the battlefield?
Homosexuals receive the same training that heterosexuals do. They're still military. Take them seriously.
|
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote:
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
What happens when male and female armed service members get caught having sex on the base? I imagine they would be subject to the exact same disciplinary procedure.
|
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote:
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
It's not like they aren't already in the showers with you, they just haven't been open about their sexuality. It's not like they couldn't look at your junk beforehand.
|
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote:
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
lol that argument about "bathrooms" and such has always been interesting to me.
Why do we segregate restrooms and showers by sex? Is it because of human sexual impulses? If so, doesn't that ignore the possibility of homosexual impulses? Obviously there are more heterosexuals, so is it simply a matter of numbers? And if so, how is that not discriminatory against heterosexuals, to segregate them from each other but not homosexuals?
The whole thing is kind of funny and odd...
|
On September 21 2011 03:00 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 02:54 Hawk wrote:
We shall win the psychological war on the terrorists yet. Say bye bye to your 72 virgins if you get popped by a pork eating, sodomizing infidel. 'MERICA!
It really is amazing it took so long for something that makes sense on so many levels It was a good thing when it was implemented. It really didn't take that long, if you ask me. When it was originally implemented, it was more so viewed as favoring gays, not discriminating against them, from what I'm aware. I could be wrong, though, as it's only what I've heard it was intended as.
Yeah I understand the intentions, as skewed as they were. But it's just kind of fucked that such a policy was considered good at one point. Funny country we live in!
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote:
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
You're telling me that other soldiers will be jealous and resort to team swapping?? I thought it was only them Navy boys who operate under the jailhouse rules!
from what buddies in the military have told me, there's plenty of humping between heteros despite the existance of those rules, so i have no idea why people bring that up
|
We segregate bathrooms by sex mostly because of physiology, I think. Women would have a hard time using urinals...and most men seem to deliberately aim for the toilet seat or something, it's disgusting.
All jokes aside, I'm not sure why communal bathrooms are so rare in Western society. Communal public bathhouses certainly exist in Asia and probably parts of America/Europe, but even bathrooms are segregated by sex there.
|
On September 21 2011 03:22 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 03:00 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 21 2011 02:54 Hawk wrote:
We shall win the psychological war on the terrorists yet. Say bye bye to your 72 virgins if you get popped by a pork eating, sodomizing infidel. 'MERICA!
It really is amazing it took so long for something that makes sense on so many levels It was a good thing when it was implemented. It really didn't take that long, if you ask me. When it was originally implemented, it was more so viewed as favoring gays, not discriminating against them, from what I'm aware. I could be wrong, though, as it's only what I've heard it was intended as. Yeah I understand the intentions, as skewed as they were. But it's just kind of fucked that such a policy was considered good at one point. Funny country we live in!
I viewed it as more so "a step in the right direction."
Like even if gay marriage isn't legal, implementing civil unions for homosexuals is a step in the right direction, even if discriminatory, as it's better than nothing.
|
On September 21 2011 03:25 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 03:22 Hawk wrote:On September 21 2011 03:00 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 21 2011 02:54 Hawk wrote:
We shall win the psychological war on the terrorists yet. Say bye bye to your 72 virgins if you get popped by a pork eating, sodomizing infidel. 'MERICA!
It really is amazing it took so long for something that makes sense on so many levels It was a good thing when it was implemented. It really didn't take that long, if you ask me. When it was originally implemented, it was more so viewed as favoring gays, not discriminating against them, from what I'm aware. I could be wrong, though, as it's only what I've heard it was intended as. Yeah I understand the intentions, as skewed as they were. But it's just kind of fucked that such a policy was considered good at one point. Funny country we live in! I viewed it as more so "a step in the right direction." Like even if gay marriage isn't legal, implementing civil unions for homosexuals is a step in the right direction, even if discriminatory, as it's better than nothing.
No it definitely was at the time and I do understand and agree with the logic you're talking about. like the marriage thing, even advancements are depressing because it really opens your eyes as far as how tied this country is to stupid religious institutions which facilitate such bigotry
|
Welcome to the 21st century, America!
Hope you'll hang around 
|
|
|
On September 20 2011 16:10 Dulak wrote:
A union between two gay people should absolutely be equal in the eyes of the law than a union between two heterosexuals. But frankly why stop there? Why shouldn't a union between more than two people also be equal in the eyes of the law?
If you could establish the correct legal guidelines (how taxes are handled, how medical decisions are made, how people are separated, etc). What would actually be the downside here?
|
On September 21 2011 04:43 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 16:10 Dulak wrote:
A union between two gay people should absolutely be equal in the eyes of the law than a union between two heterosexuals. But frankly why stop there? Why shouldn't a union between more than two people also be equal in the eyes of the law? If you could establish the correct legal guidelines (how taxes are handled, how medical decisions are made, how people are separated, etc). What would actually be the downside here?
As long as benefits would be reworked.
I hear a lot of comments by people saying that marriage incentives are usually given out to benefit people who have kids, and that's why homosexual marriages shouldn't receive the incentives... I don't get why we don't just change the incentives to "those who are married and are raising kids" (I use the term "raising" so that it doesn't include those who give up their children for adoption, but does include parents who decide to adopt).
|
On September 21 2011 05:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
I hear a lot of comments by people saying that marriage incentives are usually given out to benefit people who have kids, and that's why homosexual marriages shouldn't receive the incentives... I don't get why we don't just change the incentives to "those who are married and are raising kids" (I use the term "raising" so that it doesn't include those who give up their children for adoption, but does include parents who decide to adopt).
It's just a rationalization. We let couples get married where both partners are over the age of 50; they won't be having any kids.
Besides that, the "financial incentive" for having kids is bring able to claim them as dependents on tax returns or to itemize expenses on them such as education or daycare (I think?). Difficult to argue that hospital visitation rights for your partner or joint filing status should be dependent on having children.
|
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote:
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
Come on dude, sex isn't allowed in a theater of operations regardless. Catch some gay dudes going at it and they get court martialed for having sex, not for being gay.
And if there's one in the shower he should know to keep his opinions to himself. That's sexual harassment, which is also dealt with.
Are you actually even active duty?
|
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote:
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
two wrongs dont make a right
|
The military has historically been at the forefront of American civil rights. Glad to see it's holding true again.
|
United States41471 Posts
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote:
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
All these hypotheticals are great and all until you realise that the rest of the western world has had this for years and guess what, the army came to terms with it. There's no need to make claims about what may or may not happen as a result of it because you're not treading new ground here. This is nothing new, innovative or revolutionary. It's been done, it was fine, when you do it it'll be fine too.
|
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote:
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
Hmmm. I'm guessing that you weren't too bright in school and had to join the military? Your logic isn't very sound.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
