Obama and the Gay Military...

[Bill Thompson]

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.

What are you getting at?

You use words like "fired" as if it is a civilian job. So I don't know what the heck you are talking about.

 

[GreyICE]

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.

I don't know what American culture is like because I haven't lived here most of my life or something (all but 2 years, and I was 10 and 11 at the time)? I don't have relatives and friends in the Military, so I don't know what Military culture is like?

I've read what you post here. I understand it's full of nonsense. I understand you feel differently. I understand that's because you are guilty of lousy logic and irrational thinking.

Everyone who disagrees with you is not 'ignorant,' 'trapped in the matrix,' 'living in fantasy,' 'not reading what you write,' 'not American' etc.

Your lies and abuse are pathetic. Your bigotry and hatred are pathetic. Your need to dissemble, change the subject, and throw temper tantrums is pathetic. Your threat to take this 'outside the forums' was pathetic. Your references to decade old science fiction films as if they were documentaries is pathetic.

And you calling me 'unamerican' and suggesting I know nothing about the American Military? Yeah. That's pathetic too.

If your worldview is so fragile that it can't handle people who live in your country, have access to the same facts as you do, and disagree with you maybe there's something wrong with your worldview?

 

[Bill Thompson]

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.

And some aren't.

 

[cwalner]

#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.

I wanted to find out more about the bolded part, as this did not seem credible to me.

Here is what you posted on the Prop 8 forum back in July. The only reference I could find to gay marraige in your posts, but the search does not go back indefenitely.

I was for Gay Marrage but have any of you watched the Yes to Prop 8 ads on YouTube that the Mormons put out?

Let me play the devils advocate for a second. Some of the gay people I have met say that they were molested as a kid and that is why they are gay or that their mother wanted a girl.

Now, even WEB MD admits that some part of being gay is genetic and envoronment might also play a role. Does that even matter? Are all gay people born that way? Does having an envoronmnet that confuses kids (as the LDS ads seem to imply) actually MAKE people gay.

Quite, frankly, if this is what you consider support for gay marraige then the phrase 'With friends like you, who needs enemies' springs to mind.

Also, this post, that you claim is in support of gay marraige actually seems to me as evidence for the claim that you are homophobic, not evidence against that claim.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I wanted to find out more about the bolded part, as this did not seem credible to me.

Here is what you posted on the Prop 8 forum back in July. The only reference I could find to gay marraige in your posts, but the search does not go back indefenitely.



Quite, frankly, if this is what you consider support for gay marraige then the phrase 'With friends like you, who needs enemies' springs to mind.

Also, this post, that you claim is in support of gay marraige actually seems to me as evidence for the claim that you are homophobic, not evidence against that claim.

You can't read. I mean it. Playing the devils advocate is a good thing to do. It strenthens your point of view. Considering where you might be wrong makes you convinced that you are right.

I am for gay marrage.

You want to label me homophobic becuase you think that that will change the world.

Thinking I am homophobic because I think DADT will stick is like thinking I am gay because I am for gay marrage. Both assumptions don't make sense

 

[Sledge]

No, it is not.

Find out what DADT is and what it means.

Bill, just saying "No no no" isn't actually an argument. Explain your point, it's not up to me to make your argument for you.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I don't know what American culture is like because I haven't lived here most of my life or something (all but 2 years, and I was 10 and 11 at the time)? I don't have relatives and friends in the Military, so I don't know what Military culture is like?

Enough said.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bill, just saying "No no no" isn't actually an argument. Explain your point, it's not up to me to make your argument for you.

My point is that you do not know what DADT is or means. You have some twisted idea that it is a policy to prevent gays from serviing in the military. It isn't.

 

[cwalner]

Thinking I am homophobic because I think DADT will stick is like thinking I am gay because I am for gay marrage. Both assumptions don't make sense

You don't seem to be able to comprehend. I don't think you are homophobic because you think DADT will stick.

I think you are homophobic for the following reasons among others:

• You argue in favor DADT, using arguments that diminish the experience of being gay and being forced into the closet
• You support DADT because it 'protects' gays from all of those other homophopes, but not you
• you uncritically accept assertions that molestation and confused gender rolls in upbringing can make a child become gay
• You argue in favor of DADT because in stress situations a gay soldier cannot control his sexual urges and may rape one of his squadmates

And just for the record, none of the above actually precludes you from being gay as well. Homophobia is named after a fear, because many (not all) of the people who express homophobic sentiments do so out of a fear that they themselves are gay and cannot accept it yet.

I am not saying that this is the neccesarily the case for you, just pointing out that it is a common enough phenomenon to be worth considering.

 

[cwalner]

My point is that you do not know what DADT is or means. You have some twisted idea that it is a policy to prevent gays from serviing in the military. It isn't.

It is a policy that prevents gays from serving openly in the military. Regardless of the intention of the policy, this is what the policy does.

 

[Sledge]

Respond to what I say, Bill, not what you wish I said. Here it is again:

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?

If you take issue with that, explain why, if you can.

 

[Toke]

My closest comparison to the military is a merchant ship, it is a rather closed community where talk will often involve ones family. As others have mentioned I imagine would be rather inconvenient to constantly have to watch ones he/she when talking about family.

I also had a very interesting experience right before last sign off. While discussing the company IT policy with a deck officer we touched on all the stuff not allowed due to bandwidth restrictions (app. 40-50Kbit/s). Mostly online games and bit-torrent programs.
His attitude to porn downloads changed suddenly when I mentioned that I use bit-torrent for it at home.

I would imagine that peoples attitude to gays could change rather dramatically if it was someone up close and personal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Well so? The thing is that a company could well fire someone who wouldn't do that, think of a single mother in any job that had a lot of travel. That the military is a job you can't just leave is the issue here.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Got rape on your brain?

It was one of your worst arguments here. Or should I just focus on the ones that are mearly factualy incorrect, such as this having anything to do with fraturnization rules?

Hmm, I wonder if DADT makes homosexual relations that could be fraternization more likely, as there is the need to hide the relationship anyway.

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.

So that is why everyone is so against the CIA torture video and photos getting out.

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.

And why would gay men be so much worse than straight men?

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.

No, I just don't see why they are so much better or less likely if it is straight men and not gay men doing it. Do you think raping a man is much much worse than raping a woman? Why?

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

You still haven't expressed why all your reasons for keeping DADT didn't apply to blacks as well? Why shouldn't the racists get the same consideration you are giving the homophobes?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

And how is that relevant to when Truman intergrated the military? And does it make a such a difference if a religion thinks that they are less that fully human and should slaves vs being destroyed?

Also you are wrong, there are strong white supremisist churches in the US. It is just that racism has fallen out of favor in the past 60 years, homophobia hasn't fallen out of favor to the same extent.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, it is not.

Find out what DADT is and what it means.

It means that if a homosexual has sexual relationships that they need to be in constant fear of being discovered. Just like the straights.

The military is now demanding celibacy of all troops. That will solve the problem of what to do with children durring the deployment of their mother. Dishonnerable discharges for all mothers.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Bill, just saying "No no no" isn't actually an argument.

[monty python]Yes it is[/monty python]

 

[Sledge]

 

[cwalner]

You still haven't expressed why all your reasons for keeping DADT didn't apply to blacks as well? Why shouldn't the racists get the same consideration you are giving the homophobes?

In all fairness he did. It is because it is still socially acceptable to be homophobic in America, but it is not socially acceptable to be racist.

It is not a good answer, and not one I would consider a valid argument for keeping DADT, but he did answer it.

 

[GreyICE]

Enough said.

Wow, the dishonesty is sickening.