[itai195]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, I really can't unless I get reeeeaaaalllllly theoretical. By the way the soldier runs? The military can't ask, if it is known, the soldier has made it known.

I posted an example earlier in this thread.

If you insist on making your homosexuality known, you've made a conscious decision to place your homocentricity above your identity as a soldier and as such, the armed forces are no longer interested in your contribution.

That strikes me as ridiculous. I'd rather have armed forces where soldiers are allowed to express their diverse identities.

Funny how you can't see the inherent sexism and racism in comparing the plight of women and blacks to the plight of gays. BTW; on behalf of black people and women, they really hate it when you do that.

Funny how you can't see the inherent sexism and racism in pretending you speak for all women and black people.

Anyway, injustice is injustice.

Originally Posted by Martin Luther King Jr.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

[Buckaroo]

Queers should never be allowed in the military.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Queers should never be allowed in the military.

Okay, but only if we also get to execute retards like you summarily.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego

I am making precisely the opposite assumption.

The situation I'm talking about is, for example: "me and the wife went to see a movie last night"

This phrase can be said in any situation, even to an almost complete stranger, with no fear of reprisal (job related or otherwise).

This is not true in the converse. If you are male and state "me and my boyfriend went to see a movie last night"...

The fact you thought I must have been talking about something "intimate" for it to be a declaration of one's sexuality seems to prove my point. We are so immersed in heterosexual values, most people don't even realize they are constantly expressing their sexuality. Even in entirely non-intimate circumstances.

Referring to someone as one's boyfriend or girlfriend (or other reference to a personal relationship) IS intimate conversation-just once removed. Nobody in his right mind would use that sort of language and out themselves in the military. However, a lot of people save money on housing by sharing a house or large appartment, and thus have roomates. "My roomate and I went out to this movie last night" is ambiguous enough to show that the person didn't go by him or herself, and went with someone they live with, but discloses nothing of that relationship. A male talking about his "boyfriend" in the military is exactly the same as holding hands with another male-it either refers to or demonstrates homosexual conduct.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by itai195

I'd rather have armed forces where soldiers are allowed to express their diverse identities.

Anyway, injustice is injustice.

Tell your elected representatives. Explain how this is discrimination with no merit whatsoever. Explain how it's based on ancient and ignorant attitudes. Explain how it's contrary to the Constitution, in spirit and in word.

Then expect much of the rest of the country, which knows either zero or negative about military life, to ignore your logic and stick with their stupid prejudices. I spent over 23 years in the service, and the attitude that "homos are bad for the service" was as prevalent when I retired as when I joined, despite the fact that what was once the "major problem" with gays in the service - the potential to blackmail them with outing to force them to perform espionage, etc. - is now only an issue because of the rule that says gays can't openly serve. It's dumber than dirt, but this is a culture that is VERY slow to change.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by ghporter

A male talking about his "boyfriend" in the military is exactly the same as holding hands with another male-it either refers to or demonstrates homosexual conduct.

I'm not subego, so I can't say what he was trying to say.

But it seems to me that heterosexual conduct in the military has been pretty problematic.

[ghporter]

Moose, you are spot on!!! As a Senior NCO, I was expected to be close, but not too close to the people I led. My predecessor in one job got the equivalent of an assignment to the Arctic Circle because he had an intimate relationship with a young woman who was a) an Airman, b) under his supervision and c) married. Having a relationship with a single person of similar rank is ok, but only if there's NO leadership connection. He took advantage of the girl, used her for nefarious purposes, and eventually got caught. It took me almost a year to work out the issues he caused. That was ONE issue, one relationship, involving only two service members. That's not anywhere near how odd things get in heterosexual relationships or with heterosexual conduct in our military.

Being full of young people who are trained to be aggressive, it features a large population of the most likely rape victims AND A MUCH LARGER POPULATION OF THE MOST LIKELY RAPISTS. Couple that with a culture of excessive alcohol consumption and you can connect the dots yourself. It ain't pretty. I spent a couple of years as a rape crisis counselor while on active duty, and we were BUSY.

In short, as Moose points out, there are bigger fish to fry than worrying about who quietly sleeps with someone of the same sex.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by ghporter

In short, as Moose points out, there are bigger fish to fry than worrying about who quietly sleeps with someone of the same sex.

Don't-ask-don't-tell effectively mandates silently sleeping with someone of the same sex, though.

"You can be gay, but you just can't act on it." This makes no sense.

There is no rational reason whatsoever for homosexuals to be treated differently from heterosexuals.

Troglodytes who think that every homosexual wants to jump their bones tend to be flattering themselves, from what I hear.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Moose

Troglodytes who think that every homosexual wants to jump their bones tend to be flattering themselves, from what I hear.

They also happen to be even more numerous in the military than in normal society, from what I hear. I really don't like the rule, but it may be to some degree a necessary evil.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

They also happen to be even more numerous in the military than in normal society, from what I hear. I really don't like the rule, but it may be to some degree a necessary evil.

Homosexuals are more numerous in the military than outside?

What makes the rule necessary?

[Spliffdaddy]

I believe Americans should be able to serve in our military - regardless of sexual orientation, age, race, religion, etc.

If you can vote, you should be able to serve.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Moose

Homosexuals are more numerous in the military than outside?

The subject of that sentence was "troglodytes who believe every homosexual wants to jump their bones."

Originally Posted by Moose

What makes the rule necessary?

The abovementioned fact.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The subject of that sentence was "troglodytes who believe every homosexual wants to jump their bones."

Check.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The abovementioned fact.

Pre-integration, the military had more I DO NOT LIKE BLACK PEOPLE IN FACT WE HAVE A SPECIAL WORD FOR THEM IT STARTS WITH N AND RHYMES WITH CHIGGERS sorts of people than did general society as well.

Bigotry is bigotry, and it shouldn't be tolerated, much less accommodated.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

They also happen to be even more numerous in the military than in normal society, from what I hear. I really don't like the rule, but it may be to some degree a necessary evil.

I don't expect private opinions and attitudes to change overnight, but official government policies should not discriminate on anything other than ability to serve.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Moose

Bigotry is bigotry, and it shouldn't be tolerated, much less accommodated.

That's a bigoted sentence if ever I saw one (Really. Go look up the word in a dictionary). You can't say that "bigotry shouldn't be tolerated" without venturing deep into irony.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Moose

Okay, but only if we also get to execute retards like you summarily.

So you believe in death sentence for peoples believes. You are worse than Hitler or any other dictator. You believe we all have to believe the same crap that you do, or else you believe they should be put to death.

Thank God you are a nobody.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Moose

Check.


Pre-integration, the military had more I DO NOT LIKE BLACK PEOPLE IN FACT WE HAVE A SPECIAL WORD FOR THEM IT STARTS WITH N AND RHYMES WITH CHIGGERS sorts of people than did general society as well.

Bigotry is bigotry, and it shouldn't be tolerated, much less accommodated.

Your a bigot. Ever word you type is full of bigotry. You do not accept others opinons. You believe we all have to think like you.

Your the most bigot of all.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

You believe we all have to believe the same crap that you do, or else you believe they should be put to death.

It's the far left in action.

"Freedom of speech, as long as you agree with us".

Love it.

[Buckaroo]

Disregard. I forgot to hit the quote button.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Moose

Check.


Pre-integration, the military had more I DO NOT LIKE BLACK PEOPLE IN FACT WE HAVE A SPECIAL WORD FOR THEM IT STARTS WITH N AND RHYMES WITH CHIGGERS sorts of people than did general society as well.

Bigotry is bigotry, and it shouldn't be tolerated, much less accommodated.

We all have prejudices. You have many including you hate straight people that don’t approve of queers, and it is possible that you don’t mind watching perverted sexual activity. In fact you are in favor of KILLING straight people just in case they don’t agree with your personal beliefs.

My prejudice is I don’t like to be exposed to perverted sexual behavior, including any queer activity. I don’t care what people do in their privacy; I just don’t want to be exposed to it. I also hate Pedophiles. I have no idea what you think of Pedophiles.

[Macrobat]

I have an idea you are trying to play to emotion in an attempt to get your point slid past, however.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Referring to someone as one's boyfriend or girlfriend (or other reference to a personal relationship) IS intimate conversation-just once removed.

So you were thinking of "intimate" conversation, and "intimate conversation-just once removed" (whatever the hell that means) when you accused me of perpetuating an "ugly stereotype".

Riiiiight.

[subego]

For clarity purposes, let me make my example more extreme.

Let's say a complete stranger who is male came up to you and said "Me and the wife went to a movie last night".

Especially in light of the oddness of this exchange, would it even really register that this person has declared their sexuality in no uncertain terms? It sure wouldn't with me.

If the same male stranger came up to you and said "Me and my boyfriend went to a movie last night"...

Despite the oddness of the situation, the alarm bells would start ringing in my head: "Whoop! Whoop! Homo alert. Whoop! Whoop!"

Maybe it's our country's Puritanical origins or something that keeps us in denial of the all-pervasiveness of sexuality to the human condition. If you think about it for just a moment, the idea that "sexuality remains in the bedroom" is totally ridiculous. If it isn't, you better keep you kids hidden, because if someone sees them, guess what?

That person knows you've had sex.

Pervert.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itai195

That strikes me as ridiculous. I'd rather have armed forces where soldiers are allowed to express their diverse identities.

Well that might be where you and I differ. I'd rather a military focus its efforts on combat readiness and adversity preparedness. The armed forces blow things up and kill people, I'd rather that remain their focus

Funny how you can't see the inherent sexism and racism in pretending you speak for all women and black people.

Why? Are you not trying to speak for all gay people? Does that make you homophobic?

Anyway, injustice is injustice.

I agree unfortunately, there's nothing you're going to do about injustice. The fat man, the balding man, the man with long hair all face problems in life. It's a cruel world. I would not compare these injustices to the injustices committed in the name of racism and sexism.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itai195

I don't expect private opinions and attitudes to change overnight, but official government policies should not discriminate on anything other than ability to serve.

Right, which means they don't have to know about your sexual preference.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

You have many including you hate straight people that don’t approve of queers,

See, you're putting words in my mouth. I don't hate them. I just don't think they should be making policy.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

In fact you are in favor of KILLING straight people just in case they don’t agree with your personal beliefs.

I suppose you can't be blamed for not having learned how to detect dry irony at Jesus For America High School.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

My prejudice is I don’t like to be exposed to perverted sexual behavior, including any queer activity. I don’t care what people do in their privacy; I just don’t want to be exposed to it.

So I guess all the people getting discharged under don't-ask-don't-tell are just having gay orgies in front of everybody out on the parade grounds.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

I also hate Pedophiles. I have no idea what you think of Pedophiles.

Pedophilia involves people who aren't adults, so it's not really the same thing at all. But I do thank you for offering up such a delectible strawman.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's the far left in action.

"Freedom of speech, as long as you agree with us".

I think you're confusing "speech" with "action through policy." They're not the same thing at all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Moose

Lots of common law rights spring from marriage. It's more than just shared property. Spousal privilege and survivorship are kind of a big deal.

No, they're actually infinitesimally small when you compare them to not being able to own a home, being owned by others in general, not eating where you want, ride the bus where you want, go to the restroom where you want, vote, etc...

You might recall I'm in support of the collateral rights for gays under what is deemed "marriage" now. I don't buy into the "definition of marriage" argument because I think heterosexuals have already redefined marriage to mean a lifelong committment you make several times in life. I believe the States should acknowledge civil unions, including all rights thereof for straights and gays and let the Churches (for those who wish to "marry" there) determine what "marriage" is as is their right to do so.

Additionally, in many areas, homosexuals can be not hired (or subsequently fired),

What does this mean? Does this mean that if there is a homosexual in managment, a straight person was disenfranchised? If a straight person has been fired, does this mean it's because there's a gay manager? I don't understand the reasoning here. Mabye the person was fat or bald or used too much cologne. Who knows? What areas?

denied housing,

Denied housing??? What are you talking about? Banks verify income. Period. In today's market you could be a large purple spaghetti monster, if you have steady income, decent credit history you're buying a house.

denied adoption options, denied the opportunity to be a foster parent, denied credit, etc. based solely upon sexual orientation.

I've filled out many a credit app my friend (in many cases now online, they wouldn't know if you run funny or not) and not once have I seen "Are you gay or straight?" on an app. If you have to go as far as dramatizing the plights of the gay to justify your comparison to those who came to this country in chains, I'm afraid your arguments, including your dramatizations, will fall on deaf ears.

Is pretending that the only disparity is marriage not even just a little bit reprehensible?

No, because the marriage piece is one thing I'd like to see changed for the reasons you listed above, including adoption rights etc... and I said this out of the gate. You might know that in most cases you've compared the lacking of societal priveleges to those who've endured the lacking of the most basic human rights.

And there's no rational reason why knowledge of a soldier's gender preference NEEDS to result in his or her discharge. It's a short-sighted policy.

Well, I'm not aware of exactly where the line is drawn here. It is my understanding that being gay and engaging homosexual conduct are two different things entirely. I know that sexual harrassment in general is a huge problem in the military and any conversations of a sexual nature could be misconstrued. I acknowledge diversity including knowing my audience. I think the homosexual should be this enlightened as well.

Truman took a lot of **** when he integrated the armed forces (over objections that sound almost identical to the ones being used today), but he was right.

Strangely, there were homosexuals serving at this time and before. I wonder how many gay soldiers disapproved of blacks serving in the armed forces at that time.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Moose

I suppose you can't be blamed for not having learned how to detect dry irony at Jesus For America High School.

Why was this necessary at all??? Were you trying to illustrate tolerance for diversity with this?

So I guess all the people getting discharged under don't-ask-don't-tell are just having gay orgies in front of everybody out on the parade grounds.

Well, in 2005 there were approximately 726 service members discharged for being gay. The overall number of men and women dismissed were because they were found to be gay or because they disclosed their sexuality. I don't know what "found to be gay" means, but "disclosed their sexuality" is pretty clear. If your identity as "gay" is more important than your identity as "soldier" perhaps you are better suited for the civil sector. BTW; 726 is not a whole hell of a lot as long as we're pointing out the horrors of it all.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are those who do not accept homosexuality and in some cases would attempt to harm the homosexual. You can try to change them, but to do so is probably as worthwhile as trying to change one's sexual orientation. You have to acknowledge diversity and know your audience. If you're gay and you want to serve your country (I'd recommend this to straights as well knowing the vast array of sexual harrassment problems in the military) you'd better be safe than sorry. When you place your sexuality before your service you're in fact risking the disruption of unit cohesion and undermining the services’ overall goal.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Why was this necessary at all??? Were you trying to illustrate tolerance for diversity with this?

Perhaps you missed the "dry irony" bit again.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

If your identity as "gay" is more important than your identity as "soldier" perhaps you are better suited for the civil sector.

The entire point is that it's a double standard. Were I to enlist, I wouldn't have to hide my "identity" as a straight man.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The simple fact of the matter is that there are those who do not accept homosexuality and in some cases would attempt to harm the homosexual. You can try to change them, but to do so is probably as worthwhile as trying to change one's sexual orientation.

This argument is no more valid now than it was in 1948. If a soldier "attempt[s] to harm the homosexual" or even "harm[s] the homosexual" he should be subject to court-martial just as if he would be were he to harm any other fellow soldier. Your logic is the same logic that's used to make women in Saudi Arabia stay in the house and wear a hijab or burqa.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

When you place your sexuality before your service you're in fact risking the disruption of unit cohesion and undermining the services’ overall goal.

Disruptive sexual behavior should not be tolerated whether it's heterosexual or homosexual.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Moose

Perhaps you missed the "dry irony" bit again.

No, I saw the dry irony in it, rest assured. I found it wholly ironic that someone who attempts to espouse tolerance exposes his own degree of intolerance so adeptly. I don't happen to think that "dry irony" is an acceptable guise for intolerance.

The entire point is that it's a double standard. Were I to enlist, I wouldn't have to hide my "identity" as a straight man.

This is unfortunate, but unchangable.

This argument is no more valid now than it was in 1948.

You mean when gays were already integrated with the military and expressed a problem with blacks serving? That point?

If a soldier "attempt[s] to harm the homosexual" or even "harm[s] the homosexual" he should be subject to court-martial just as if he would be were he to harm any other fellow soldier.

... and as far as I know is.

Your logic is the same logic that's used to make women in Saudi Arabia stay in the house and wear a hijab or burqa.

Again, I believe you're comparing hangnails to the holocaust. I'm not sure I understand why it's impossible for those like you to make a point without degrading the sacrifice of those who've been truly and horrifically oppressed in society.

Disruptive sexual behavior should not be tolerated whether it's heterosexual or homosexual.

Exactly! It's my understanding that disruptive sexual behavior is not tolerated.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Moose

Homosexuals are more numerous in the military than outside?

What makes the rule necessary?

No, troglodytes are more numerous in the military. Oh yes, that's very true. In many military jobs, having a pulse and following simple instructions are the main qualifications. On the other hand, a lot of jobs require very smart people. But in my experience there is a big difference between being technically smart and being socially smart-some very bright people I've worked with are SCARY when it comes to anything outside their particular tiny social group. Their ideas about people of other nationalities, for example, would frighten Goebels.

As for why this rule is needed, it's for protection of the gay service members. Remember, service members are trained to be aggressive, and the services that do the most of this training, the Army and Marines, have a history of being very bad at training their people WHEN to be aggressive and when not to be-especially the Army. There are fairly recent cases of people being beaten to death by squadmates who thought they were gay.

So before you say it, YES a change needs to be made. But as I pointed out, this is a culture that is very slow to change, in spite of the enormous turnover in personnel. This is because the culture is enforced by the people who stay for a career, and they generally have to make their superiors happy, so they emulate those superiors, including those superiors' attitudes.

Remember though, the military is capable of change. Harry Truman desegregated the military with an Executive Order. Of course it took almost thirty years and lots of unpleasantness before things got to the point where it's fairly well agreed that there's no systematic racial prejudice in the military. So if the president can order something, it will happen-eventually. We can hope that someone less bound to his preacher's ideas than the current office holder, and more bold and decisive than his predecessor eventually sits in that chair and makes this happen.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This is unfortunate, but unchangable.

It's only "unchangeable" until Congress and the President decide to change it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You mean when gays were already integrated with the military and expressed a problem with blacks serving? That point?

Yes. It was indefensible then, and it's indefensible now. The fact that homosexuals were doing it back then against blacks doesn't make it was right, and I have never said it was.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

... and as far as I know is.

Then why do homosexuals require the "protection" of discharge? That's a fallacious strawman.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Again, I believe you're comparing hangnails to the holocaust. I'm not sure I understand why it's impossible for those like you to make a point without degrading the sacrifice of those who've been truly and horrifically oppressed in society.

Yeah, because people have never ever been treated unfairly or horrifically oppressed solely because of sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Exactly! It's my understanding that disruptive sexual behavior is not tolerated.

Homosexual activity should be held to the same standard as heterosexual behavior. That's all I'm saying.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Moose

See, you're putting words in my mouth. I don't hate them. I just don't think they should be making policy.

WRONG. You said straight people should be murdered for their beliefs. Oh, and why shouldn't they be making policy? Now we here the Hitler side of you. You don't believe in a Democracy.

Originally Posted by Moose

"Okay, but only if we also get to execute retards like you summarily."

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Moose

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

In fact you are in favor of KILLING straight people just in case they don’t agree with your personal beliefs.

I suppose you can't be blamed for not having learned how to detect dry irony at Jesus For America High School.

What the heck does this mean?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, because the marriage piece is one thing I'd like to see changed for the reasons you listed above, including adoption rights etc... and I said this out of the gate.

I missed where you said this (it was in a post that went up only one minute before one of mine).

An enlightened attitude that I will admit (as a failure on my part) I did not think you held.

[UnixMac]

The reason gay's don't serve openly (men or women) has nothing to do with what they can or should be doing, and everything to do with military readiness and the commanders need to have reliable unit and high moral to win battles.. Homosexuals that are openly so create discomfort for too many, and since we're not able to change that in the short run, and since the military mission is of the highest importance, what is correct politically, or from a civil view point isn't always the same in the military.

Same goes for why women in combat.. while a handful can do it, the majority can't and as such the over all benefit to the army is not to have them in combat arms since the other side of the coin (separate quarters / sexual tensions / personal hygiene needs, etc) aren't offset by the added benefit of the handful that will qualify to be in those units (Infantry, Armor, Cavalry, Rangers, SF, etc)

BTW.. Israel (Whom I'm not a huge fan of these days) experimented with females in combat, and have since gone back to using then only in support and combat support. They're the only military that I know of that actually has a real mission and that has tried this, whereas the European countries that have tried it or continue to do it haven't had to test the results in battle.

I've got 4 years service during the Gulf War I era (see my .mac site for some pics) and I speak from experience, and I also did 1 year as a driver for the Brigade Commander of my unit who took the time to explain many of these dynamics to me after the 1992 elections and Bill Clinton's attempts at changing military culture.

Peace...

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Moose

So I guess all the people getting discharged under don't-ask-don't-tell are just having gay orgies in front of everybody out on the parade grounds.

I certainly hope not. In fact they should be given a polygraph test before they are allowed to join the military. Queers do not belong in the military at any time. Queers should be allowed to go back to France where they came from.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

WRONG. You said straight people should be murdered for their beliefs.

I was simply countering your irrationality with irrationality. It's not like you're going to be convinced by logical argument, so why bother?

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Oh, and why shouldn't they be making policy?

Because the policy has no rational basis whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Now we here [sic] the Hitler side of you. You don't believe in a Democracy.

There are things that are absolutely right and absolutely wrong. If a majority of people voting in a plebiscite revoked the laws against murder, assault, and rape, would you think that was okay?

No?

I guess you don't believe in Democracy, then.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What does this mean? Does this mean that if there is a homosexual in managment, a straight person was disenfranchised? If a straight person has been fired, does this mean it's because there's a gay manager? I don't understand the reasoning here. Mabye the person was fat or bald or used too much cologne. Who knows? What areas?

No, but I have actually seen what happens in an environment where employees who are intolerant of homosexuality make life a living hell for a homosexual coworker. And, until very recently, such harassment wasn't actionable in this area.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Denied housing??? What are you talking about? Banks verify income. Period. In today's market you could be a large purple spaghetti monster, if you have steady income, decent credit history you're buying a house.

Some people rent houses and/or apartments from intolerant landlords. Again, no recourse available until very recently.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I've filled out many a credit app my friend (in many cases now online, they wouldn't know if you run funny or not) and not once have I seen "Are you gay or straight?" on an app.

Yeah, because it's completely out of the realm of possibility that two gay men will go into a bank together to fill out an auto loan application. And maybe the bank manager just doesn't like gay people. Can anything be done? Only within the past year!

Originally Posted by ebuddy

If you have to go as far as dramatizing the plights of the gay to justify your comparison to those who came to this country in chains, I'm afraid your arguments, including your dramatizations, will fall on deaf ears.

It's not a dramatization. I've SEEN IT HAPPEN. I live in an area where right-wing fundamentalists like to think they run the show and can get away with anything they choose because they're just better people.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Moose

I was simply countering your irrationality with irrationality. It's not like you're going to be convinced by logical argument, so why bother?

There is nothing irrational about believeing that queers do not belong in the military. In fact it is completely reational that they DO NOT belong in the military for many reasons. Way too many for me to waste my time on your queer brain.

Originally Posted by Moose

Because the policy has no rational basis whatsoever.

What I said a few seconds ago.

Originally Posted by Moose

There are things that are absolutely right and absolutely wrong. If a majority of people voting in a plebiscite revoked the laws against murder, assault, and rape, would you think that was okay?

What does this have to do with a Democracy? Are you some kind of freak? You believe that a Democracy would advocate murder, assult and rape? I don't think so, those kind of laws come from dictators like you. This is a fact.

Originally Posted by Moose

No?

I guess you don't believe in Democracy, then.

I do, and you don't. You believe that a Democracy will advocate murder, assult and rape. This would never happen in a true Democracy. Only a Dictatorship such as your own brain.

[UnixMac]

Moose, if you want rationale, please refer to my post 5 posts above.. Its not about pro or anti-gay, it's about reality.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

This would never happen in a true Democracy.

Well, let's see just what exactly happens in a True Democracy:

On controversial social questions, 63 percent believe openly gay men and lesbian women should be allowed to serve in the military; 32 percent don't. Forty-three percent oppose both same-sex marriages and civil unions.

Source: CNN

And that was right after the President was re-elected. If you have more recent polling numbers, I'd love to see them.

So I guess we know what kind of "true democracy" you support.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

Moose, if you want rationale, please refer to my post 5 posts above.. Its not about pro or anti-gay, it's about reality.

It's the same tired rationale that the military troglodytes used in the 40s.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Moose

Well, let's see just what exactly happens in a True Democracy:

Source: CNN

And that was right after the President was re-elected. If you have more recent polling numbers, I'd love to see them.

So I guess we know what kind of "true democracy" you support.

You are delusional. You confuse Democracy with a biased poll. Lets put it up for the people to vote on. The people are sick and tired of queers and look forward to the opportunity to deny queers the right to have their fag sex in public.

Look, it's real simple. Queers are perverted just like Pedophiles. In fact I suspect that a lot of queers are pedophiles.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

You confuse Democracy with a biased poll. Lets put it up for the people to vote on.

Properly done polling actually does a better job of determining what people think because while both poll response and voting are entirely optional, it's a lot easier (for some) to talk to some dude on the phone for fifteen minutes than it is to go to a polling place and stand in line.

But I guess you probably didn't have a Statistics class at Jesus For America High School, either.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

The people are sick and tired of queers and look forward to the opportunity to deny queers the right to have their fag sex in public.

Who are THE PEOPLE? Sex in public is already illegal.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Moose

Properly done polling actually does a better job of determining what people think because while both poll response and voting are entirely optional, it's a lot easier (for some) to talk to some dude on the phone for fifteen minutes than it is to go to a polling place and stand in line.

Back to your delusional beliefs. Polls are NOT a democracy. Polls don't get anything done other than expressing the pollers biased opinions in the way they word the questions.

Polls don't make laws, and they don't get anyone voted into office. They depend completely on the biased call roster.

Originally Posted by Moose

But I guess you probably didn't have a Statistics class at Jesus For America High School, either.

Why do you keep bringing up this Jesus for America High School comment? What are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by Moose

Who are THE PEOPLE? Sex in public is already illegal.

Not if the queers have their way. I've heard about their perverted parades.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Moose

....military troglodytes.....

[Moose]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

Not everybody in the military is a trogoldyte.

But the entrenched ones who think that homosexuals "need protection" because "these boys just don't like 'em" are just enabling and perpetuating the mindset you described.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by Moose

Not everybody in the military is a trogoldyte.

But the entrenched ones who think that homosexuals "need protection" because "these boys just don't like 'em" are just enabling and perpetuating the mindset you described.

I would be willing to go on a limb and bet you haven't served much time if at all in the Army, or in a combat unit.. Not talking about cook, medic, or support battalion.. But out in the woods for a month, combat.. Am I correct?