Obama and the Gay Military...

[Bill Thompson]

You have been clear that the military is full of bigoted rapists. Why this wasn't an issue for Truman is not at all clear though.

That is not what I said at all.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bill, why haven't all these problems you worry about happened in the armed forces of nations that do permit homosexuals to serve and be open about their sexuality?

Because the United States is a powder keg of Religious Extremism.
I said this in different ways about four times now.
Find a mormon discussion forum and get their views. I think you would find the one on apollohoax.net to be enlightening for you.
I do not agree with them. But I know they are there. And I know they are huge. And I know they are powerful.
These guys spent 10 million dollars on a campaign to make same sex marrages illegal in California.

You don't seem to understand several things. And they are things I have stated here several times.

#1) DADT was a compramise that Bill Clinton came up with. It is supposed to be a way for gays to serve in the military. It is not a way to keep them out that you seem to be entrenched in believing.

#2) The fact that I doubt it will be overturned does not mean that I agree with it. In a perfect world, sure, it would be great. But we do not live in a perfect world. If we did, we would not even have a military at all.

#3) The United States is a special case in the world. Most americans belive in the Biblical Flood story, for example. That is not the case with other industralised nations.

#4) Also, if you have not been in the US miltary, you really cannot know what you are arguing. In fact, if I had not been in the military I would probably be protesting against DADT because I support gay marrage and I would have lumped the two together.

 

[Sledge]

So we should stop gay people from serving in the army so as we can allow religous extremists to serve? Why is that?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Just answer my questions, Bill.

The situations you present when you ask your questions tell me that you only have ideas of what combat is like from movies or televieion news.

This leads me to a theory. I think people here for the most part have a fantasy in mind when they think of life on an aircraft carrier. Like the Star Ship Enterprise, wouldn't it be great if wives and even children were right at hand?

In the real world, when people are in combat they are too focused on the mission and the people around them that they have come to think of as brothers to start saying things like "I miss my loved ones". I cannot even imagine a gay person shouting out that he misses his lover back home. You present scenes that are absurd to me.

I do not think you have ever been shot at, threatened with death or had to fight for your life.

And, to answer your question, no one would probably hear someone shouting out anything anyway.

 

[Alan]

You did not answer my questions. You dodged them.

I gave you hypothetical situations. That means that we are playing "pretend" in order to examine a topic. Imagine that it is true. It's not impossible. Stranger things have happened.

 

[Bill Thompson]

So we should stop gay people from serving in the army so as we can allow religous extremists to serve? Why is that?

Where the hell did that come from?

I don't know who you are responding to but it can't be to anything I have typed.

Gay people can serve.

Now, ask a better question.

But, since we are on the subject, you do know that gay people are outnumbered exponentially by the many religious groups in the USA that claim that they either have a "cure" for being gay or they feel that they should not suffer a homosexual to live? THere are at least 10 million Scientologist and, since you do not read my posts, they have private schools in the USA just like the Catholics and "curing" homosexuality is one of their big sales pitches. And there are at least 10 million Mormons as well. They are pretty much in control and make up the vast majority of Utah. And, as shocking as it is to believe, they preach to gays and get them to change their ways to please God. Yes, there are gay Mormon men in Utah who have never slept with a man and are more or less forced into marrages with women. And there are other groups who are much less kind to gays. So, yes, they are outnumbered. And so DADT is a necessary evil.

It does not suit you to try to ask intelligent questions. I am more used to you throwing crude Ad Hominim insults and rushing to absurd characterization and assumptions without paying any attention to what I write. That is more your style.

 

[Bill Thompson]

You did not answer my questions. You dodged them.

I gave you hypothetical situations. That means that we are playing "pretend" in order to examine a topic. Imagine that it is true. It's not impossible. Stranger things have happened.

You asked me if, in combat, someone shouted out "I miss my live partner" or "gay lover" or whatever would someone say "shhhhh". The answer is no. The answer is no because in combat, noone cares what anyone shouts out.

So I freaking did answer your freaking question.

 

[Sledge]

Where the hell did that come from?

I don't know who you are responding to but it can't be to anything I have typed.
<snip unwarranted abuse>

Your point is that gay people should not have the same rights in the military as straight people. This will put a lot of gay people off joining the military. You are, therefore, arguing that gay people shouldn't serve in the military by agreeing with a practice that will discriminate against them. Your reasoning for this is that "the United States is a powder keg of Religious Extremism." So you are saying that we should discriminate against gay people so that religious extremists will be more comfortable. Again, why is that?

 

[Alan]

No, I did not say that they shouted it out in combat. The first one just said it was when he was awaiting orders and the second was when she was she received news of the deaths of some of her friends. I did not mean to imply in the second situation that the opposition forces were mounting that very moment.

My questions were if you would say "shut up" before the person got to say the gender of a partner if you knew they were going to, and if you'd want them to be fired if they went through with it. Regardless of the sex of their partner.

You may make up some situation of your own where someone in the U.S. military might imply what their sexual orientation is (which happens!) and answer the questions. "Yes", "no" and "I don't know" are possible answers.

 

[cwalner]

Because the United States is a powder keg of Religious Extremism.
I said this in different ways about four times now.
Find a mormon discussion forum and get their views. I think you would find the one on apollohoax.net to be enlightening for you.
I do not agree with them. But I know they are there. And I know they are huge. And I know they are powerful.
These guys spent 10 million dollars on a campaign to make same sex marrages illegal in California.

You don't seem to understand several things. And they are things I have stated here several times.

#1) DADT was a compramise that Bill Clinton came up with. It is supposed to be a way for gays to serve in the military. It is not a way to keep them out that you seem to be entrenched in believing.

What makes you think we are unaware of that, see my post #500 which brought up the compromise before I remember you even mentioning it.

Yes and No. It was a compromise between President Clinton, who wanted to end the military ban on gays and a republican congress that did not.

While it was an improvement from an outright ban that allowed superiors to out closeted gays and boot them, it still does not allow gays to serve openly in the military. It also had a slew of unintended consequences, that in some situations made it more precarious for military gays.

#2) The fact that I doubt it will be overturned does not mean that I agree with it. In a perfect world, sure, it would be great. But we do not live in a perfect world. If we did, we would not even have a military at all.

This is dishonest and you know it. The purpose of this thread is discuss whether DADT should be repealled, not if we think it will be. Also you have presented arguments why it should not. Arguments that we find weak and have challenged you on.

#3) The United States is a special case in the world. Most americans belive in the Biblical Flood story, for example. That is not the case with other industralised nations.

Special pleading. I have also addressed this, which you have not responded to. Supporting policies that enable bigotry are usually cases of closeted bigotry.

#4) Also, if you have not been in the US miltary, you really cannot know what you are arguing. In fact, if I had not been in the military I would probably be protesting against DADT because I support gay marrage and I would have lumped the two together.

There are facts which clearly contradict this statment. Most notably, that you ARE supporting DADT right here on this forum.
Also that there are many US service members who are not gay, who oppose it, so clearly they know what it is like to serve and oppose it anyway. Your claim of special knowledge because you served is pure bovine excrement.
I can also level this same argument against you. You have shown a very clear ignorance of what it is like to be in the closet, so you really cannot know what you are arguing when you support a policy that forces gays to live in the closet.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That is not what I said at all.

Your arguments is that gays like all men will rape anyone in combat that does it for them. And that the military it so bigoted on a fundamental level that this can not change.

The rest of your so called arguments are factually incorrect, as it deals with arguments no one is making.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Where the hell did that come from?

I don't know who you are responding to but it can't be to anything I have typed.

Gay people can serve.

And blacks could serve before Truman desegregated the military. So it was wrong for him to do it in the face of the bigotry of the military.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You asked me if, in combat, someone shouted out "I miss my live partner" or "gay lover" or whatever would someone say "shhhhh". The answer is no. The answer is no because in combat, noone cares what anyone shouts out.

Yep, too busy with all that rape.

 

[Sledge]

I'm pretty sure Bill's been online since, so I think he's just ignoring us now. Probably too busy looking for hidden messages in commercials.

 

[GreyICE]

Just because it is my view, does not mean that I like it. I have had to endure a lot of bull
crap in this discussion thread from people who like to label people without knowing the
subject. I am not homophobic. That is a crazy comment. Labeling someone homophobic because
he does not believe that DADT will change is like labeling someone "gay" because
he thinks DADT will be struck down. I never thought that people who are against
DADT were gay (except for one guy sending me IM's).

Really? You've done all these arguments for DADT because you think it's a bad policy that won't change?

You rabidly argue for bad policies that you don't think will change? But Bill, we've changed so many bad policies already. You're living in a fantasy, a dream world where the 'Agents' of darkness have won.

Knock Knock, Bill Thompson, the Matrix has you.

 

[Bill Thompson]

You know very little about the military. There is no regulation against an officer marrying an enlisted person. It's the fraternization that's against regulations, not the marriage.

In cases where there is fraternization, a court martial is not always the punishment. Military justice often acts on an ad hoc basis.

Yeah, I thought of that too after I made that post.

But at the same time, the military has been known to do some things regarding family rights that a civilian company would not get away with. For example, they have been known to tell single moms that they have to deploy and either find a family member to take care of their baby or give it up to foster care.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Really? You've done all these arguments for DADT because you think it's a bad policy that won't change?

Dude, don't believe in something just because you think it is the right thing to believe in. That is illogical and irrational. That is not how the real world works.

That is, however, how fantasy works. Believing in a fantasy world because it would be better than the real world is delusional.

You are arguing something that you do not know the specifics of. You do not know what the United States military is like and you do not know what American culture is like.

And you also refuse to read or understand what I post here.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Yep, too busy with all that rape.

Got rape on your brain?

While we are on the subject: We were only told of the lighter side of what went on at Abu Grahib. THe story broke when the non-rape photos were exposed.

Just about every major war I can think of had men in situations were they became something that they would not normally become in peacetime.

You live in a fantasy world where these things either rarely happen or they only happen because them men were evil before they went into combat.

I have told you that I did not say the things you accuse me of saying. You are stuck in a trench.

 

[Bill Thompson]

And blacks could serve before Truman desegregated the military. So it was wrong for him to do it in the face of the bigotry of the military.

There are not (currently) any religion in the USA that preaches that blacks should be killed for just being black.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Your point is that gay people should not have the same rights in the military as straight people.

No, it is not.

Find out what DADT is and what it means.