Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: MCWAY on May 20, 2010, 06:10:10 PM
-
Now, she may owe the Army nearly $80,000. Her commading officer even warned her that she didn't have to do this.
Is this a case of someone conveniently becoming gay, to avoid serving in combat? You make the call!!!
College Student May Owe ROTC $80,000 After Coming Out as Lesbian
A student who received a full-ride ROTC scholarship to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill may now owe the Army nearly $80,000 for the money it put toward her tuition and books after coming out as a lesbian.
Sara Isaacson was notified in March that she was being discharged for violating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after informing the head of the university’s ROTC program of her sexual orientation in a formal memo, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported.
Along with the notice was a recommendation that she repay the $79,265.14 the government spent on her education, the paper reported.
Isaacson says keeping her sexual orientation a secret would put her at odds with one of the Army’s key virtues.
"I didn't feel like I could be a good officer if I didn't have integrity," she told the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Lt. Col. Monte Yoder, head of the university's Army ROTC program, said Ms. Isaacson would never have had to talk about her sexual orientation at all.
"I was very clear with Miss Isaacson about that," he told the Chronicle. "I told her I won't ask."
Army officials have yet to issue a final decision on whether she will need to repay the money, the paper reported.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/15/college-student-owe-rotc-coming-lesbian/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/15/college-student-owe-rotc-coming-lesbian/)
-
"I didn't feel like I could be a good officer if I didn't have integrity," she told the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Where was this integrity for the past four years while the government was paying her tuition?
-
Where was this integrity for the past four years while the government was paying her tuition?
I found this article, after hearing Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly discuss this on "The O'Reilly Factor". Kelly claims that she didn't know she was gay, until her senior year....which just happened to be a semester shy of graduation.....which just so happen to be when she may have been deployed to a combat zone (i.e. Iraq or Afghanistan).
-
I found this article, after hearing Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly discuss this on "The O'Reilly Factor". Kelly claims that she didn't know she was gay, until her senior year....which just happened to be a semester shy of graduation.....which just so happen to be when she may have been deployed to a combat zone (i.e. Iraq or Afghanistan).
How convenient. So I guess she wasn't born gay?
-
She's only gay if she wants to be.
-
She's only gay if she wants to be.
kind of like you're stupid if you want to be.
-
How convenient, LOL!
-
I hope they add interest to that 80 grand.
-
I hope they make her stay in and go to Iraq.
Gays are always bitching the law is wrong, we should let her be a test case.
-
I hope they make her stay in and go to Iraq.
Gays are always bitching the law is wrong, we should let her be a test case.
Before you are sworn in or given one penny, there are certain policies about which you are briefed. Among them, of course, is the DoD Policy on Homosexual Behavior. You have to sign the paperwork, stating you've taken that training course and agree to abide by it.
Again, the timing makes this whole thing suspect. A few weeks before it's time for her to get her degree AND DEPLOY (likely to where the action is, Iraq or Afghanistan), she's turns lesbian? I don't buy it.
Here's more of the story:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/92524619.html?page=1#comments (http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/92524619.html?page=1#comments)
-
Good, they should go after this woman without mercy and get the 80k back.
-
Good, they should go after this woman without mercy and get the 80k back.
I say make her serve; then kick her out. The money’s already been spent and, if she’s a typical college grad, it’s going to take WAAAAAAY longer than 4 years to pay back that 80 grand.
The military's a different animal. When you get fired, you don't just clean out your desk and walk. It takes weeks (sometimes MONTHS), before you are fully separated from the Armed Forces.
-
Wow...if they did force her to serve, she should be busted down to an E-1 and clean shitters for 4 years, not be an officer in charge of anything.
-
Wow...if they did force her to serve, she should be busted down to an E-1 and clean shitters for 4 years, not be an officer in charge of anything.
If they did that, she'd have to serve for nearly a decade to pay that money back.
-
We had a long talk about this while eating some shitty KBR food. It was decided that while we all enjoy lesbians...really enjoy lesbians, a standard is a standard. Further, part of any packet to discharge a Lesbian must have video..hours of video. That video must be widely viewed and a consensus must be reached in order to discharge. Lipstick lesbians, a rare bread will be allowed some leeway. If ur butch, ur sorta fucked. Gays on the other hand.....forgetaboutit.
She's full of shit...either ur gay or ur not. If I won an asston of money and couldn't get out of my commitment...I'd be very gay...very very very gay...It would have to involve alot of money. Short of that, I'm in for 30. ;D
Under DOD regs she can't serve, she violated policy and will have to pay back her money, the reg is very cut and dry.
-
We had a long talk about this while eating some shitty KBR food. It was decided that while we all enjoy lesbians...really enjoy lesbians, a standard is a standard. Further, part of any packet to discharge a Lesbian must have video..hours of video. That video must be widely viewed and a consensus must be reached in order to discharge. Lipstick lesbians, a rare bread will be allowed some leeway. If ur butch, ur sorta fucked. Gays on the other hand.....forgetaboutit.
In other words,
- Rachel Maddow? NO!
- Samantha Fox? Maybe?
- Perez Hilton.....IS YOU CRAZY???
She's full of shit...either ur gay or ur not. If I won an asston of money and couldn't get out of my commitment...I'd be very gay...very very very gay...It would have to involve alot of money. Short of that, I'm in for 30. ;D
Under DOD regs she can't serve, she violated policy and will have to pay back her money, the reg is very cut and dry.
Some people don't seem to get that, as shown by some of the comments on that JSOnline thread I linked.
And, just so certain bleeding hearts can't whine about military selective enforcement, Isaacson got a second chance, for heaven's sake. Colonel Yoder allowed her to rescind her formal letter, in which she declared herself lesbian, in order to keep her ROTC scholarship. I suspect that she pushed the issue, because she was perhaps headed your way (or somewhere else, where the bullets were flying).
-
If they did that, she'd have to serve for nearly a decade to pay that money back.
Perfect.
-
Fuck u.....ok only if her girlfriend is hot and we all get to watch.... ;D
-
I hope they make her stay in and go to Iraq.
Gays are always bitching the law is wrong, we should let her be a test case.
If they did, it would probably be under the scenario I mentioned earlier. But, there'd be complaints about that.
-
She can't serve......the regs are the regs. She violated the UCMJ and regardless of the what Barry does, she's fucked. I have no doubt that the shitbag n' chief will repeal DADT.....he might even make it retroactive for a period of time. He's asking for a monumental shitstorm that Dems won't easily recover from. Just wait...little johnny guy gets his head bashed in for hitting on his roommate....oh wait that happened!!!! ::)
-
Fuck u.....ok only if her girlfriend is hot and we all get to watch.... ;D
There's an exception to every rule. :D
-
She can't serve......the regs are the regs. She violated the UCMJ and regardless of the what Barry does, she's fucked. I have no doubt that the shitbag n' chief will repeal DADT.....he might even make it retroactive for a period of time. He's asking for a monumental shitstorm that Dems won't easily recover from. Just wait...little johnny #### gets his head bashed in for hitting on his roommate....oh wait that happened!!!! ::)
He can't repeal it, alone. Legislation has to be passed, repealing the law. And in a few more months, Obama may kiss his Democratic House and Senate goodbye. The irony of it all is that it was a Dem-controlled House, Senate, and President that made DADT, in the first place.
Plus, after what just went down in these special elections, many Dems are fearing for their political lives. The LAST THING they need on their plate is this issue.
-
I wish they feared for their physical lives as well with the garbage they have pushed. A few beatdowns and politicians getting KTFO'ed on the steps fo the capital would go a long way.
-
I wish they feared for their physical lives as well with the garbage they have pushed. A few beatdowns and politicians getting KTFO'ed on the steps fo the capital would go a long way.
Let unemployment keep going up. You may get your wish.
As for this issue, it's an albatross that any Democrat, eager to save his hide, will avoid like the bubonic plague.
-
I think we're going to get fucked on this. We've had two separate surveys that we've had to fill out...we all did. They're laying the ground work right now in the DOD. People are making statements etc. I think this is why Gates is stepping down but I can't be sure. He can't back the policy. Mullen is a gutless wuss and won't throw his stars down. It remains to be seen what the Marines will do. This isn't like 1994 when they tried it last time. Then there was a feeling that the issue was a non-starter. Now, people are trying to figure how this thing could ever work when they shove it down our throats..no homo.
-
I think we're going to get fucked on this. We've had two separate surveys that we've had to fill out...we all did. They're laying the ground work right now in the DOD. People are making statements etc. I think this is why Gates is stepping down but I can't be sure. He can't back the policy. Mullen is a gutless wuss and won't throw his stars down. It remains to be seen what the Marines will do. This isn't like 1994 when they tried it last time. Then there was a feeling that the issue was a non-starter. Now, people are trying to figure how this thing could ever work when they shove it down our throats..no homo.
That's just it. They're trying to figure it out, simply because Obama's pushing it. But, if/when the Dems get booted out of their offices this fall, the drive to repeal DADT will fall by the wayside.
Unemployment will be over 10% (although, for all practical purposes, it already is) and there will be other domestic issues dominating the headlines.
-
I agree..but I think they will move on this. He needs to do something. U assume this asshat is rational...he will try to get a victory.
-
I agree..but I think they will move on this. He needs to do something. U assume this asshat is rational...he will try to get a victory.
I didn't say he wouldn't try. Fortunately, he can't do this by himself. He needs a Democratic Senate and House to do it. The longer this study takes, the better. By the time it conclude, Obama likely won't have the muscle he needs to repeat DADT.
If, as some political pundits predicts, the Dems get obliterated, Obama will be fearing for his political life. He'll be staring down the barrel of double-digit unemployment, higher taxes slapped on the American people, and immigration problems as far as the eye can see.
Few, if any, are going to care about his desire to end DADT, at that point.
-
Some people don't like DADT because it works. Most couldn't care less about someone else's sexuality unless confronted by it. There's just a faction of the gay subculture that is attention addicted and muddying the issue.
The no gays policy was better. At least then people had a legitimate beef. At this point I just want them to STFU unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt two things: 1. serving out of the closet makes the military better. 2. Not having one's sexuality known, even in cases where no one gives a crap, causes direct personal harm.
Politicians (and others with agendas) need to stop using our military to conduct social experiments.
-
Some people don't like DADT because it works. Most couldn't care less about someone else's sexuality unless confronted by it. There's just a faction of the gay subculture that is attention addicted and muddying the issue.
The no gays policy was better. At least then people had a legitimate beef. At this point I just want them to STFU unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt two things: 1. serving out of the closet makes the military better. 2. Not having one's sexuality known, even in cases where no one gives a crap, causes direct personal harm.
Politicians (and others with agendas) need to stop using our military to conduct social experiments.
AMEN!!
But, the more I read about this, the more this sounds like a simple case of this woman, trying to duck going to combat.
-
Honestly, when I was in, you had guys/girls you suspected, but as long as they kept their stuff to themselves, nobody really cared. that was pre DADT....yes I'm old.
-
In other words,
- Rachel Maddow? NO!
- Samantha Fox? Maybe?
- Perez Hilton.....IS YOU CRAZY???
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao)
I know I shouldn't laugh at that, ...but that was funny! ;D
-
One thing to consider is that if there wasn't a ban on gays or a DADT policy this would be a non issue.
That being said, I think she is ducking combat or ducking the service in general and should pay back the 80 grand student loan style.
-
One thing to consider is that if there wasn't a ban on gays or a DADT policy this would be a non issue.
That being said, I think she is ducking combat or ducking the service in general and should pay back the 80 grand student loan style.
yes but if there wasnt a ban on gays or a DADT policy it would present a host of other problems...
-
yes but if there wasnt a ban on gays or a DADT policy it would present a host of other problems...
I think we had this debate before. I see it as a set of problems that occur with any change of this magnitude. But its a change that will happen at some point.
I was watching "America the story of us" the other day and find it ironic that the German officer who is largely responsible for training the young American revolutionary army was gay.
-
I think we had this debate before. I see it as a set of problems that occur with any change of this magnitude. But its a change that will happen at some point.
I was watching "America the story of us" the other day and find it ironic that the German officer who is largely responsible for training the young American revolutionary army was gay.
Its more than a set of problems its a change in thinking, gays want to be recognized as gays but that means you have to see them as gay all the time...no same sex bathrooms, no same sex showers, men and women as far as I know dont share quarters, so gays and straights wouldnt be able to...logically, I have no doubt in my mind that the GLBT movement will argue differently but logically thats the way it needs to be...and thats just a few things oz
-
yes but if there wasnt a ban on gays or a DADT policy it would present a host of other problems...
True. For example, bisexuals, transgendered, and gender identity groups will have to be accommodated. What happens with living arrangements? Bathrooms? Uniforms? Marriages/relationships?
-
True. For example, bisexuals, transgendered, and gender identity groups will have to be accommodated. What happens with living arrangements? Bathrooms? Uniforms? Marriages/relationships?
exactly its more than simply a set of problems the whole system has to be reworked in order to accommodate them
-
So no other standing army allows gays then?
Is it because of "all the problems" that are created?
-
So no other standing army allows gays then?
Is it because of "all the problems" that are created?
Yes other countries have allowed homosexuals to serve, but not sure if places like Israel has all of the recognized gender classifications we have created in this country and/or how they deal with it.
-
Yes other countries have allowed homosexuals to serve, but not sure if places like Israel has all of the recognized gender classifications we have created in this country and/or how they deal with it.
Yeah, Israel probably, (I assuming) doesn't have 100,000,000 lawyers arguing over the dumbest stuff like people getting their feelings hurt if their sexuality isn't classified properly.
However, we could follow the lead of these other countries. It won't be with out its growing pains, as any transition is, but it can work and will not lessen our ability to operate and respond as an elite armed force. And then slimy weak people like this grad can't get away with stuff like this.
-
Yeah, Israel probably, (I assuming) doesn't have 100,000,000 lawyers arguing over the dumbest stuff like people getting their feelings hurt if their sexuality isn't classified properly.
However, we could follow the lead of these other countries. It won't be with out its growing pains, as any transition is, but it can work and will not lessen our ability to operate and respond as an elite armed force. And then slimy weak people like this grad can't get away with stuff like this.
We'll see. I'm not convinced this can be done without including all of the GLBT groups. That's one of the problems I have with homosexual marriage. It doesn't end with homosexuals.
The grad hasn't gotten away with anything . . . yet. I hope they make her reimburse the taxpayers.
-
gays are already in the military and already have to share close quarters, bathroom, etc..
Our allies say it's no problem and their openly gay soldiers serve with ours in combat zones already.
are there realy that many transgendered people in the world, much less in the miliatry are is that even the same thing as being gay?
-
So no other standing army allows gays then?
Is it because of "all the problems" that are created?
no other army comes from the culture of the US...
-
gays are already in the military and already have to share close quarters, bathroom, etc..
Our allies say it's no problem and their openly gay soldiers serve with ours in combat zones already.
are there realy that many transgendered people in the world, much less in the miliatry are is that even the same thing as being gay?
so sexual harrasement already happens should we legalize that? gays do so now under the assumption that they are STRAIGHT!!!!!!!!!!! as soon as they are openly gay what in your mind makes you think its ok to have the share bathrooms, showers and quarters with those who they find sexually attractive?
-
so sexual harrasement already happens should we legalize that? gays do so now under the assumption that they are STRAIGHT!!!!!!!!!!! as soon as they are openly gay what in your mind makes you think its ok to have the share bathrooms, showers and quarters with those who they find sexually attractive?
what does sexual harrasment have to do with gays in the military
straight people are in the military and sexual harassment is not allowed
-
no other army comes from the culture of the US...
what exactly about our culture makes us different and unable to deal with it as our allies can
-
what does sexual harrasment have to do with gays in the military
straight people are in the military and sexual harassment is not allowed
a man in a womens locker room oggling them would be sexual harrasement correct?
a gay man in a mens locker room oggling them would be......
that is unless the gays dont have to follow the same laws as straights?
-
what exactly about our culture makes us different and unable to deal with it as our allies can
sexes and genders and how we view them is one but dude if you cant look at this culture and see the problems that will arise from it youre being ignorant
-
a man in a womens locker room oggling them would be sexual harrasement correct?
a gay man in a mens locker room oggling them would be......
that is unless the gays dont have to follow the same laws as straights?
I assume "oggling" would be considered harrasment
I also assume you go to a gym and occassionally use the bathroom, shower etc... without any issue even though there are probably a few gay people who also belong to your gym
I think most people can just mind there own business
-
sexes and genders and how we view them is one but dude if you cant look at this culture and see the problems that will arise from it youre being ignorant
most people in the world would laugh at the idea of "culture" in the US but why don't you try answering the question I asked. What is it specifically about our culture that makes us unable to do what our allies have done? You must have had something in mind or you wouldn't have written it ..... right?
-
I assume "oggling" would be considered harrasment
I also assume you go to a gym and occassionally use the bathroom, shower etc... without any issue even though there are probably a few gay people who also belong to your gym
I think most people can just mind there own business
so youre saying your in favor of men being able to go into womens locker rooms and vice versa?
what youre not...color me shocked :o ::) you see what youre basically saying is that gays dont have to follow the same laws as we do...
-
most people in the world would laugh at the idea of "culture" in the US but why don't you try answering the question I asked. What is it specifically about our culture that makes us unable to do what our allies have done? You must have had something in mind or you wouldn't have written it ..... right?
LOL i did sexes and genders and our views on them the way we fashion our laws around these beliefs...
-
so youre saying your in favor of men being able to go into womens locker rooms and vice versa?
what youre not...color me shocked :o ::) you see what youre basically saying is that gays dont have to follow the same laws as we do...
when did I say that
what I said was that "oggling" would be most likely be considered a form of harrasment
don't you think so?
-
LOL i did sexes and genders and our views on them the way we fashion our laws around these beliefs...
what exactly about our views on "sexes and genders" is so unique here in comparison to Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Israel
-
when did I say that
what I said was that "oggling" would be most likely be considered a form of harrasment
don't you think so?
you seem to be excusing gays in locker rooms with those they find sexually attractive here...
"I also assume you go to a gym and occassionally use the bathroom, shower etc... without any issue even though there are probably a few gay people who also belong to your gym"
am I mistaken? if Im not then whats the difference with men in womens locker rooms?
I would say unwanted oggling of another NEKID is a form of harrasement...
-
you seem to be excusing gays in locker rooms with those they find sexually attractive here...
"I also assume you go to a gym and occassionally use the bathroom, shower etc... without any issue even though there are probably a few gay people who also belong to your gym"
am I mistaken? if Im not then whats the difference with men in womens locker rooms?
I would say unwanted oggling of another NEKID is a form of harrasement...
I'm not excusing anything
I'm pointing out something that should already be obvious to you.
why do you assume that gay people can't help themselve and must "ogle" you and don't you think that such a thing if it happened would be considered a form of harrasment?
-
I'm not excusing anything
I'm pointing out something that should already be obvious to you.
why do you assume that gay people can't help themselve and must "ogle" you and don't you think that such a thing if it happened would be considered a form of harrasment?
Im not assuming they can or not why are you assuming that men cant help themselves and must ogle? if you dont think that whats the difference between men going into womens locker rooms and gay men in mens locker rooms?
the issue isnt whether they are doing it or not but youd have to be a damn fool to think that a gay person has never checked out anyone in the history of the US while in a locker room or bathroom.
I already answered whether or not Id consider it harrasement...
-
So since gay men must have inadvertently looked at other men in men's locker rooms what is the solution? Gay men use women's locker rooms? Or create "gay only" locker rooms?
On the DADT policy i think the most flawed aspect is that someone can be dishonorably discharged (no matter how well they have behaved/performed their duties) if an anonymous third person made an accusation (which might not even be true) that someone is gay. Supposedly this was subject to change but I don't know if it has.
It is quite hypocritical though because it's like saying "we can't ban you if you're gay but if you say your are or if someone else claims you are then we kick you out". It would be more honest and create less fuss if they just banned gays outright because essentially that's what DADT means.
-
So since gay men must have inadvertently looked at other men in men's locker rooms what is the solution? Gay men use women's locker rooms? Or create "gay only" locker rooms?
On the DADT policy i think the most flawed aspect is that someone can be dishonorably discharged (no matter how well they have behaved/performed their duties) if an anonymous third person made an accusation (which might not even be true) that someone is gay. Supposedly this was subject to change but I don't know if it has.
It is quite hypocritical though because it's like saying "we can't ban you if you're gay but if you say your are or if someone else claims you are then we kick you out". It would be more honest and create less fuss if they just banned gays outright because essentially that's what DADT means.
have had this conversation many many times and what the solution is exactly isnt the first step the first step is to admit there is an inequality there after you accept that then you move on to the solution...
I dont know if someone can simply acuse you of being gay and get you kicked out...
-
Im not assuming they can or not why are you assuming that men cant help themselves and must ogle?
again - when did I say this?
most of the women I see at my gym are fat slobs and I wish they would wear more clothes in the gym.
There definitely some hot woman at my gym and honestly if I had to share a locker room with them I might steal a glance but certainly wouldn't stand there and stare at them. I'd respect their f'ng privacy just like I try to respect everyones privacy.
It's called acting like an adult and somehow I think people in the military can manage to do exactly the same thing.
-
again - when did I say this?
most of the women I see at my gym are fat slobs and I wish they would wear more clothes in the gym.
There definitely some hot woman at my gym and honestly if I had to share a locker room with them I might steal a glance but certainly wouldn't stand there and stare at them. I'd respect their f'ng privacy just like I try to respect everyones privacy.
It's called acting like an adult and somehow I think people in the military can manage to do exactly the same thing.
so as long as its just a glance at them naked its ok? you see youre saying that its ok to have gay men in mens locker rooms correct?
-
I dont know if someone can simply acuse you of being gay and get you kicked out...
It used to be and supposedly Sec. Gates would change the policy (it was announced near the end of March) so someone can still report a person they think is gay but it third person or anonymous testimonies would not be be automatically accepted. I don't know if it is actually in effect or whether it will have any effect on previous anonymous complaints cases.
-
so as long as its just a glance at them naked its ok? you see youre saying that its ok to have gay men in mens locker rooms correct?
I said I MIGHT steal a glance but that's not the same as sitting there are staring at them now is it?
I also said I would respect their privacy which I think any adult (certainly a disciplined person in the military) can easily manage
I assume a few gay people have looked at you in the gym sometime in your life
what effect has it had on your life?
-
I said I MIGHT steal a glance but that's not the same as sitting there are staring at them now is it?
I also said I would respect their privacy which I think any adult (certainly a disciplined person in the military) can easily manage
I assume a few gay people have looked at you in the gym sometime in your life
what effect has it had on your life?
NOT THE POINT are you ok with gay men in mens locker rooms?
again so a glance is ok? when do you stop respecting their privacy? 2, 3 secs of staring?
-
NOT THE POINT are you ok with gay men in mens locker rooms?[/b]
again so a glance is ok? when do you stop respecting their privacy? 2, 3 secs of staring?
god you're dense
first of all my gym does not have a co-ed locker room so I was answering your hypothetical question and being honest about it
second, I'm sure there are gay guys at my gym but I have no clue who they are and it doesn't really bother me that we share a locker room. I mind my own business, take care of my shit and leave
you're the one that apparently can't stop thinking and talkkng about it
-
god you're dense
first of all my gym does not have a co-ed locker room so I was answering your hypothetical question and being honest about it
second, I'm sure there are gay guys at my gym but I have no clue who they are and it doesn't really bother me that we share a locker room. I mind my own business, take care of my shit and leave
you're the one that apparently can't stop thinking and talkkng about it
just answer the fuking question for shits sake
are you ok with gay men in mens locker rooms?
-
just answer the fuking question for shits sake
are you ok with gay men in mens locker rooms?
I answered it
god you're dense
first of all my gym does not have a co-ed locker room so I was answering your hypothetical question and being honest about it
second, I'm sure there are gay guys at my gym but I have no clue who they are and it doesn't really bother me that we share a locker room. I mind my own business, take care of my shit and leave
you're the one that apparently can't stop thinking and talkkng about it
-
I answered it
so it wouldnt bother you if men went into womens locker rooms then?
if it does
then please explain the difference?....this is how I came to the logical conclusion I did a half a FUKING page ago...
-
so it wouldnt bother you if men went into womens locker rooms then?
if it does
then please explain the difference?....this is how I came to the logical conclusion I did a half a FUKING page ago...
I wouldn't care if they had co-ed locker rooms
like I said, most of the women in my gym are fat slobs and I wish they would cover up more on the gym floor much less the locker room
the reason you're confused is because you have no logical conclusion......as usual
-
I wouldn't care if they had co-ed locker rooms
like I said, most of the women in my gym are fat slobs and I wish they would cover up more on the gym floor much less the locker room
the reason you're confused is because you have no logical conclusion......as usual
LOL sure hoss, see the problem is not whether you have a problem with it or not its whether the women at your gym have a problem with it...most I would assume do...now extend that into the military...
-
LOL sure hoss, see the problem is not whether you have a problem with it or not its whether the women at your gym have a problem with it...most I would assume do...now extend that into the military...
well if thats your point then why did you keep asking me if I had a problem with it
it sounds like you have a problem with it
is that correct?
-
well if thats your point then why did you keep asking me if I had a problem with it
it sounds like you have a problem with it
is that correct?
its only part of the problem...you see what happend when I extended your logic...YOU COULDNT FOLLOW!!!!!!!! i had to hold your fuking hand to get you to see what your logic lead to... ::)
-
its only part of the problem...you see what happend when I extended your logic...YOU COULDNT FOLLOW!!!!!!!! i had to hold your fuking hand to get you to see what your logic lead to... ::)
dude - get over your delusion that your'e some logic master and just try to follow the conversation
you are the one that brought up the topic of your fear that gay men would be free to "ogle" at will and it's pretty clear that you're still thoroughly confused a page and half later
-
I'm sure its already been said, but GAY MEN already share locker rooms and showers in the US military.
-
no other army comes from the culture of the US...
Yep. we are still a bit homophobic and holy rollers by nature, But so what? You could have made the same argument in the 1950's with integration in the military.
-
I'm sure its already been said, but GAY MEN already share locker rooms and showers in the US military.
Not openly. I hear that a lot, but don't really see it as being relevant. Sort of like a man convincingly passing himself off as a woman sharing a women's locker room wouldn't cause a problem, while a real man in a women's locker room would be a huge problem.
-
Yep. we are still a bit homophobic and holy rollers by nature, But so what? You could have made the same argument in the 1950's with integration in the military.
Are gays a separate race?
-
Are gays a separate race?
Or, more accurately, are GLBT and "gender identity" separate races?
-
Or, more accurately, are GLBT and "gender identity" separate races?
I always find the gay/black comparison amusing.
-
Not openly. I hear that a lot, but don't really see it as being relevant. Sort of like a man convincingly passing himself off as a woman sharing a women's locker room wouldn't cause a problem, while a real man in a women's locker room would be a huge problem.
exactly
the only difference is that you might actually know they are gay
eventually you'll get over it
by "you" I don't mean you
-
I always find the gay/black comparison amusing.
Not much of a comparison. As Colin Powell succinctly said (before supporting the repeal of DADT), race is innate, sexual preference is not.
-
Not much of a comparison. As Colin Powell succinctly said (before supporting the repeal of DADT), race is innate, sexual preference is not.
homosexuals are the same race as you so what's the problem
I'm straight and I don't see what other straight guys are so worried about
like we all already know, most of us share locker rooms with gays guys and we're still straight
if anything, sharing a locker room will make you more straight (if that's actually possible)
men are friggin disgusting (myself included)
-
Not openly. I hear that a lot, but don't really see it as being relevant. Sort of like a man convincingly passing himself off as a woman sharing a women's locker room wouldn't cause a problem, while a real man in a women's locker room would be a huge problem.
The issue is about having gays in the locker rooms and showers and the problems it would cause. My point is they are already there and therefore is kind of a moot argument.
-
The issue is about having gays in the locker rooms and showers and the problems it would cause. My point is they are already there and therefore is kind of a moot argument.
actually in the military they are not as men are presumably straight....there are officially only straight men in locker rooms, again when you introduce gay men that find other men sexually diserable into the equation it changes...
for those who are for gays in the military are you also for coed locker rooms? and if so are you going to argue the same shit you are now with the women who dont want us in their locker room?
I seriously doubt it... ::)
-
actually in the military they are not as men are presumably straight....there are officially only straight men in locker rooms, again when you introduce gay men that find other men sexually diserable into the equation it changes...
for those who are for gays in the military are you also for coed locker rooms? and if so are you going to argue the same shit you are now with the women who dont want us in their locker room?
I seriously doubt it... ::)
the only part of the equation that changes is that you are now officially aware that some people around you might not be straight
other than that there is nothing else that is changing
-
the only part of the equation that changes is that you are now officially aware that some people around you might not be straight
other than that there is nothing else that is changing
wrong sir...so as long as the women dont know there is a peep hole its ok?
you have to understand where your logic leads...thats your problem straw you never look to see where your logic leads...I understand what youre saying but take that logic and apply it to another situation...
-
wrong sir...so as long as the women dont know there is a peep hole its ok?
you have to understand where your logic leads...thats your problem straw you never look to see where your logic leads...I understand what youre saying but take that logic and apply it to another situation...
tony - seriously man - stop using the word logic and instead just dazzle us with your logic
I don't understand what women and a peep hole have to do with the topic at hand
are you saying you feel like a woman if you're forced to officially be aware that gay people exist and might be in the same locker room?
-
tony - seriously man - stop using the word logic and instead just dazzle us with your logic
I don't understand what women and a peep hole have to do with the topic at hand
are you saying you feel like a woman if you're forced to officially be aware that gay people exist and might be in the same locker room?
LOL being officially aware is the big thing...
basically youre saying there is no difference between a person looking through a peep hole without a person knowing it and with a person knowing it...
KNOWING MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
right now all ppl in the military ARE PRESUMABLY STRAIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
when you introduce gays into the equation it changes the outcome ;)
-
I wouldn't care if they had co-ed locker rooms
like I said, most of the women in my gym are fat slobs and I wish they would cover up more on the gym floor much less the locker room
the reason you're confused is because you have no logical conclusion......as usual
two examples of co ed showers.
-
Yes other countries have allowed homosexuals to serve, but not sure if places like Israel has all of the recognized gender classifications we have created in this country and/or how they deal with it.
Other countries, including Israel, also have mandatory military service. So, it ain't that hard to see how gays end up in the mix.
-
Other countries, including Israel, also have mandatory military service. So, it ain't that hard to see how gays end up in the mix.
Hi McWay,
Right now at this moment, and in the future, there are gays in the military taking showers with straight men.
-
LOL being officially aware is the big thing...
basically youre saying there is no difference between a person looking through a peep hole without a person knowing it and with a person knowing it...
KNOWING MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
right now all ppl in the military ARE PRESUMABLY STRAIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
when you introduce gays into the equation it changes the outcome ;)
I agree with your point. Any person in the military right now can rest assured that someone is gay and staring at them in the shower. They just don't know who and by knowing who it would change things. So what? Other countries figured it out.
-
I agree with your point. Any person in the military right now can rest assured that someone is gay and staring at them in the shower. They just don't know who and by knowing who it would change things. So what? Other countries figured it out.
OZ simply b/c other countries do it doesnt give justification for us doing it....
some countries have unisex showers, bathrooms etc...how come nobody is arguing for that? this is logically where something like this will lead...
some countries dont let women vote...should we institute it here b/c "other countries do it"?...
you have to look at it from OUR perspective by our I mean the US...In the US ppl that have the potential to be sexually attracted to one another are seperated in public restrooms, showers, etc...we have laws that assure this, we have law that protect the privacy of individuals in regards to sexual harrasement, exposure, etc...
allowing openly gays to bunk, shower and use will violate those laws...again its more than a simple set of problems oz its a change in the way of thinking...
-
Not much of a comparison. As Colin Powell succinctly said (before supporting the repeal of DADT), race is innate, sexual preference is not.
It's not an exact comparison, obviously, and how much of a comparison in regards to whether its a good or bad one is really just matter of opinion.
However, there are similarities:
- opponents of integration cited that allowing blacks to serve alongside whites would damage moral. The same is being said with gays.
- Same with unit cohesion
- discrimination can or does exist for both minorities and gays
- Many of the problems are rooted in assumptions about gays and minorities.
I read this in an article on the subject: "Most people think of racial identity as a matter of (racial) status, but they respond to it as behavior. Most people think of sexual identity as a matter of (sexual) behavior, but they respond to it as status. Accordingly, people who fear and dislike blacks are typically preoccupied with the threat that they think blacks' aggressive behavior poses to them. Hence they're inclined to make exceptions for the kindly, "civilized" blacks: that's why "The Cosby Show" could be so popular among white South Africans. By contrast, the repugnance that many people feel toward gays concerns, in the first instance, the status ascribed to them. Disapproval of a sexual practice is transmuted into the demonization of a sexual species."
Interesting note: when Truman issue in the integration order, 63% of the american public was against it.
-
OZ simply b/c other countries do it doesnt give justification for us doing it....
some countries have unisex showers, bathrooms etc...how come nobody is arguing for that? this is logically where something like this will lead...
some countries dont let women vote...should we institute it here b/c "other countries do it"?..
Where does the word "justification" come into this discussion? I'm not arguing that because other countries do "X" we are justified in doing "X" also. I'm simply pointing out that other countries have found a way to solve some of these problems and they ARE working.
you have to look at it from OUR perspective by our I mean the US...
In reading up on the similarities between integration in the military and gays in the military, i found out that 63% of americans opposed integration in the military. Sometimes OUR perspective is wrong and it takes forward thinkers, like Truman, to do the right thing.
In the US ppl that have the potential to be sexually attracted to one another are seperated in public restrooms, showers, etc...we have laws that assure this, we have law that protect the privacy of individuals in regards to sexual harrasement, exposure, etc..
allowing openly gays to bunk, shower and use will violate those laws...again its more than a simple set of problems oz its a change in the way of thinking...
Do you believe all those laws would go out the window once a ban was lifted? .....that all of a sudden there would be a frenzy of sexual harassment?
-
Where does the word "justification" come into this discussion? I'm not arguing that because other countries do "X" we are justified in doing "X" also. I'm simply pointing out that other countries have found a way to solve some of these problems and they ARE working.
In reading up on the similarities between integration in the military and gays in the military, i found out that 63% of americans opposed integration in the military. Sometimes OUR perspective is wrong and it takes forward thinkers, like Truman, to do the right thing.
Do you believe all those laws would go out the window once a ban was lifted? .....that all of a sudden there would be a frenzy of sexual harassment?
LOL your using other countries as proof that it can happen...youre justifying your frame of thinking that gays should be allowed inthe military through the fact that other countries have done it... ;)
I agree that at times it takes foreward thinkers to help move society along...
No those laws wouldnt go out the window but youre ignorant if you think that those laws wouldnt present problems with the implementation of openly serving gays in the military...those laws are there b/c we as a society feel they are needed for one reason or another...circumventing the laws or saying that they dont apply here or to a certain group of ppl GLBT is not fair and again would take a change in thinking not simply solving a small set of problems to deal with...
-
Hi McWay,
Right now at this moment, and in the future, there are gays in the military taking showers with straight men.
Right now at this moment, and in the future, there are crackheads in the military, taking showers with sober men.
If they get caught violating the drug policy, they're gone; just as gays are with "Don't Ask; Don't Tell".
-
LOL your using other countries as proof that it can happen...youre justifying your frame of thinking that gays should be allowed inthe military through the fact that other countries have done it... ;)
I agree that at times it takes foreward thinkers to help move society along...
No those laws wouldnt go out the window but youre ignorant if you think that those laws wouldnt present problems with the implementation of openly serving gays in the military...those laws are there b/c we as a society feel they are needed for one reason or another...circumventing the laws or saying that they dont apply here or to a certain group of ppl GLBT is not fair and again would take a change in thinking not simply solving a small set of problems to deal with...
I think "justifying" is the wrong word to use here. If a transmission on a car was broke and your answer/solution differed from mine and i cited other examples of how my solution would work, You could say i was "justifying" my answer, but really, I'd be "supporting" it.
Of course there would be problems. As with any change there is a period of adjustment. Integration didn't do away with discrimination. It probably increased for a period before it significantly decreased. i think, I could be wrong, but Sexual harassment has harsher consequences so the adjustment will be quicker.
If you think about it the arguments against open gays in the military are backward, not forward in nature. (like the pun? :D)
-
Right now at this moment, and in the future, there are crackheads in the military, taking showers with sober men.
If they get caught violating the drug policy, they're gone; just as gays are with "Don't Ask; Don't Tell".
So?
-
I think "justifying" is the wrong word to use here. If a transmission on a car was broke and your answer/solution differed from mine and i cited other examples of how my solution would work, You could say i was "justifying" my answer, but really, I'd be "supporting" it.
Of course there would be problems. As with any change there is a period of adjustment. Integration didn't do away with discrimination. It probably increased for a period before it significantly decreased. i think, I could be wrong, but Sexual harassment has harsher consequences so the adjustment will be quicker.
If you think about it the arguments against open gays in the military are backward, not forward in nature. (like the pun? :D)
potato, potato you know... ;D
where does the accomidating end OZ? and at what cost to others rights?
you see ppl arguing for this are about GLBT rights but they dont understand that they are stripping the rights of others away by doing this...
-
potato, potato you know... ;D
where does the accomidating end OZ? and at what cost to others rights?
you see ppl arguing for this are about GLBT rights but they dont understand that they are stripping the rights of others away by doing this...
Just off the top of my head, and i admit I am stating this from a completely uninformed in the details position, it stops where those other countries stopped it. Like in Israel for example.
-
Just off the top of my head, and i admit I am stating this from a completely uninformed in the details position, it stops where those other countries stopped it. Like in Israel for example.
lets stop talking about other countries OZ where do you see it stopping in this country? where are you comfortable with it stopping in this country...
why do you feel that its ok for ppl who are sexually attracted to someone to be able to look at them naked, room with them, use the same bathroom in the military but not in public life?
-
The issue is about having gays in the locker rooms and showers and the problems it would cause. My point is they are already there and therefore is kind of a moot argument.
But there are no openly GLBT taking showers, etc. Not sure how better to explain this, but that's like saying a man who looks like a woman is already taking a shower with women, so the privacy issue shouldn't matter to women, even though the women don't know the "woman" is really a man.
Same goes for homosexuals. You can't really say the privacy issue is moot when there aren't open homosexuals sharing bathrooms, showers, etc.
-
Other countries, including Israel, also have mandatory military service. So, it ain't that hard to see how gays end up in the mix.
Good point.
-
lets stop talking about other countries OZ where do you see it stopping in this country? where are you comfortable with it stopping in this country...
why do you feel that its ok for ppl who are sexually attracted to someone to be able to look at them naked, room with them, use the same bathroom in the military but not in public life?
Its not going to stop moving forward in this country. Sexuality and its social patterns are always changing. Not much more than 100 years ago it was taboo to show ankles. 50 years ago Mary Tyler More and Dick Van Dykes slept in separate beds. Now, we see 98% skin on the beach. We see women kissing each other on sit coms. We are slowly getting over ourselves and the repressive doctrines religion has instilled in our society. People get attracted with or without clothes on. Yes, people want to be able to chose who sees them naked. What if a straight man doesn't want other straight men to see them naked? What about his rights? Change doesn't come without pain. But the reason I keep bringing up other countries is because they have found a way to make it work. And that's why other countries is very relevant in this discussion.
Regarding other countries
-
Not strictly a "don't ask don't tell" issue but what about doctors or nurses (in the military or elsewhere) who often see and examine (naked) service members/patients of the same or the opposite sex. There is the potential that they are sexually attracted to them. What should be done about this?
-
But there are no openly GLBT taking showers, etc. Not sure how better to explain this, but that's like saying a man who looks like a woman is already taking a shower with women, so the privacy issue shouldn't matter to women, even though the women don't know the "woman" is really a man.
Same goes for homosexuals. You can't really say the privacy issue is moot when there aren't open homosexuals sharing bathrooms, showers, etc.
That's why i say its "Kind of" moot. They are already there, and other countries have found a way to deal with these issues you have brought up. Don't get me wrong i see them as valid issues also.
BTW: I bet women in the military are taking showers with other women they know for certain are gay but can't prove it.
-
It's not an exact comparison, obviously, and how much of a comparison in regards to whether its a good or bad one is really just matter of opinion.
However, there are similarities:
- opponents of integration cited that allowing blacks to serve alongside whites would damage moral. The same is being said with gays.
- Same with unit cohesion
- discrimination can or does exist for both minorities and gays
- Many of the problems are rooted in assumptions about gays and minorities.
I read this in an article on the subject: "Most people think of racial identity as a matter of (racial) status, but they respond to it as behavior. Most people think of sexual identity as a matter of (sexual) behavior, but they respond to it as status. Accordingly, people who fear and dislike blacks are typically preoccupied with the threat that they think blacks' aggressive behavior poses to them. Hence they're inclined to make exceptions for the kindly, "civilized" blacks: that's why "The Cosby Show" could be so popular among white South Africans. By contrast, the repugnance that many people feel toward gays concerns, in the first instance, the status ascribed to them. Disapproval of a sexual practice is transmuted into the demonization of a sexual species."
Interesting note: when Truman issue in the integration order, 63% of the american public was against it.
There are also a lot of differences, including:
1. People can and do change their sexual preference. We have a number of examples of straight people becoming "gay," and then straight. People getting married, having kids, and then having the "gay" epiphany.
2. A person cannot change his or race. You have it at birth and at death. You can't decide to be Asian one year and white the next, unlike people in the GLBT/gender identity community.
3. There are deeply rooted objections to the GLBT/gender identity classifications that are not based on "fear." The conduct was actually illegal for most of our country's history.
4. It's unnatural behavior, unlike race, which is innate.
5. There are well founded moral objections, based on explicit scriptural references and the majority of the country is Christian.
-
That's why i say its "Kind of" moot. They are already there, and other countries have found a way to deal with these issues you have brought up. Don't get me wrong i see them as valid issues also.
BTW: I bet women in the military are taking showers with other women they know for certain are gay but can't prove it.
Ah so. Understood.
I think it's going to happen (repeal of DADT), just like homosexual marriage is coming. Only a matter of time.
-
Just in time to get the lgbt's all riled up for 2010 to donate their $ $ $ to lib candidates.
-
There are also a lot of differences, including:
1. People can and do change their sexual preference. We have a number of examples of straight people becoming "gay," and then straight. People getting married, having kids, and then having the "gay" epiphany.
2. A person cannot change his or race. You have it at birth and at death. You can't decide to be Asian one year and white the next, unlike people in the GLBT/gender identity community.
3. There are deeply rooted objections to the GLBT/gender identity classifications that are not based on "fear." The conduct was actually illegal for most of our country's history.
4. It's unnatural behavior, unlike race, which is innate.
5. There are well founded moral objections, based on explicit scriptural references and the majority of the country is Christian.
Agreed, the differences are also clear. And your arguments seem more focused on those rather then the similarities regarding moral, unit cohesion, etc..
-
Agreed, the differences are also clear. And your arguments seem more focused on those rather then the similarities regarding moral, unit cohesion, etc..
I don't know if they're more focused on one or the other, just pointing out the differences.
I don't think there will be huge morale or unit cohesion problems when the ban is lifted. I think the bigger concerns should be living arrangements and the fact we're talking about more than just gays and lesbians.
-
Its not going to stop moving forward in this country. Sexuality and its social patterns are always changing. Not much more than 100 years ago it was taboo to show ankles. 50 years ago Mary Tyler More and Dick Van Dykes slept in separate beds. Now, we see 98% skin on the beach. We see women kissing each other on sit coms. We are slowly getting over ourselves and the repressive doctrines religion has instilled in our society. People get attracted with or without clothes on. Yes, people want to be able to chose who sees them naked. What if a straight man doesn't want other straight men to see them naked? What about his rights? Change doesn't come without pain. But the reason I keep bringing up other countries is because they have found a way to make it work. And that's why other countries is very relevant in this discussion.
Regarding other countries
lol say other countries one more time... ;D ;D
ok lets look at it like this the US has the greatest military the world has ever seen and without letting gays openly serve why mess with that? simply b/c something can be implemented doesnt mean it should...what are your reasonings for wanting this implementation oz?
youre straight man not wanting other straight men to see them naked isnt the same principle in one the issue is modesty, in the other its sexual harrasement...not the same ;) if you want to have an equivilent analogy it needs to be about a woman not wanting to have a straight man see her naked...and I assume youre for the womans rights in that case? why not the case of straight men in regards to homosexual men?
-
Can I claim gayness to evade student loan repayment?
-
Can I claim gayness to evade student loan repayment?
LOL good question I might need to go get some snake skin pants
-
lol say other countries one more time... ;D ;D
ok lets look at it like this the US has the greatest military the world has ever seen and without letting gays openly serve why mess with that? simply b/c something can be implemented doesnt mean it should...what are your reasonings for wanting this implementation oz?
youre straight man not wanting other straight men to see them naked isnt the same principle in one the issue is modesty, in the other its sexual harrasement...not the same ;) if you want to have an equivilent analogy it needs to be about a woman not wanting to have a straight man see her naked...and I assume youre for the womans rights in that case? why not the case of straight men in regards to homosexual men?
"different nations" ;D
Yes, the US has the greatest military force in the world but to suggest it's because gays aren't allowed to openly serve is like saying I win at poker because i wear my pink floyd dark side of the moon t-shirt. We are the greatest because we are the best equipped and best trained.
I don't know i necessarily "want" this implementation, I just see it as a natural course of progression and that there should be no reason why gays can't openly serve, maybe not now but eventually soon.
As to the straight man straight woman thing in your last paragraph. I'd have an argument for that, but i have been cautioned as to bringing those 2 words up again. :D ;D
-
"different nations" ;D
Yes, the US has the greatest military force in the world but to suggest it's because gays aren't allowed to openly serve is like saying I win at poker because i wear my pink floyd dark side of the moon t-shirt. We are the greatest because we are the best equipped and best trained.
I don't know i necessarily "want" this implementation, I just see it as a natural course of progression and that there should be no reason why gays can't openly serve, maybe not now but eventually soon.
As to the straight man straight woman thing in your last paragraph. I'd have an argument for that, but i have been cautioned as to bringing those 2 words up again. :D ;D
Im not saying its b/c gays arent allowed to openly serve Im just citing the US and its military as an example of what countries who dont have openly serving gays can do... ;D
Maybe but then again society could change again and there could be a backlash against all the political correctness bullshit so who knows...
-
Im not saying its b/c gays arent allowed to openly serve Im just citing the US and its military as an example of what countries who dont have openly serving gays can do... ;D
Maybe but then again society could change again and there could be a backlash against all the political correctness bullshit so who knows...
That would be great if that happened.
It might too early for gays in the military in the USA. I see your points and agree with the problems that would immediately ensue.. I only cite those other groups of people who formed a government, geographically declared borders, issued citizenship etc. who standing armies allow gays as a reference point of it working. Too me, all this DADT crap is a waste of time and BS. Especially when peeps are using it to skate service they signed up for.
-
That would be great if that happened.
It might too early for gays in the military in the USA. I see your points and agree with the problems that would immediately ensue.. I only cite those other groups of people who formed a government, geographically declared borders, issued citizenship etc. who standing armies allow gays as a reference point of it working. Too me, all this DADT crap is a waste of time and BS. Especially when peeps are using it to skate service they signed up for.
I agree and I cite the US as a group of people who formed a government, geographically declared borders, issued citizenship etc. whos standing armies dont allow gays to openly serve... ;)
I just am sick and tired of the GLBT hypocrisey and their desire not for equal rights but for special treatment.
-
Just in time to get the lgbt's all riled up for 2010 to donate their $ $ $ to lib candidates.
i've got my rainbow-colored Visa card ready to go!
-
I don't know if they're more focused on one or the other, just pointing out the differences.
I don't think there will be huge morale or unit cohesion problems when the ban is lifted. I think the bigger concerns should be living arrangements and the fact we're talking about more than just gays and lesbians.
Obama isn't concerned with that. He just wants to ram it through, before midterms and the possible loss of the Congrress.
-
Obama isn't concerned with that. He just wants to ram it through, before midterms and the possible loss of the Congrress.
Agree. Just like he did with healthcare. I don't think he really cares about the consequences.
-
Agree. Just like he did with healthcare. I don't think he really cares about the consequences.
No kidding!!!