For all you skim reading fools: why gays shouldn't be allowed to be open

[militarymuscle69]

For all of you skim reading libs that don't bother to read a persons opinion on something here we go again. I personally have no problem serving with gay men. I have several gay friends and could care less. I know that in the morning after PT when I am in the locker room, there is probably a gay man in there. I don't worry about him running buy and grabbing my ass or anything, and if the soap dropped I wouldn't worry about picking it up. That is how most of us feel, we know there are gays amongst us and we don't feel threatened by it. But it only takes 1 or 2 guys in a unit to not feel this way and the unit effectiveness will suffer. The first time 2 gay guys are sitting in the break room and start talking about taking it in the ass, or how they met this well hung dude over the weekend it will cause most of us to be uncomfortable. All of my gay friends know not to talk about their man love in front of me. It isn't the showering together, rooming together, sitting in a fox hole next to each other that is the issue in the military. It is having to listen to their gay experiences that is the problem. I know you all like to bash the military and think we are all cavemen but it isn't like that at all. This is not England, France, Canada or any other liberal country. Americans aren't as open about sexuality as they are, plain and simple. Just like you don't see nudity in commercials here in the US. That isn't going to change in our lifetime. Gays are welcome to serve next to me, (I actually I work with one right now.) but you are expected to keep your gayness to yourself. If you want to join the service as a gay man/woman and hang out at the gay bars on the weekend and take it in the ass you are welcome to. Just don'g get caught. Why can't that be good enough?   

[ribonucleic]

You cram 350 words into a single paragraph and address it to skim readers?

[militarymuscle69]

You cram 350 words into a single paragraph and address it to skim readers?

good point

[Hedgehog]

We have fags and dykes in the Swedish Military, who are open about it.

Not many, but there is no don't ask don't tell rule.

The fags who serve in the military are regular blokes, and just like the rest of us, they keep their sex life and their service separated.

Just like any other guy.

Besides, I've never seen a fruity fag in the military. For some reason, they seem to stick to other jobs...

-Hedge

[240 is Back]

Every person who says "I don't want gays taking bullets for my freedom" needs to enlist.

Seriously - for one to say a person should be flagged from a dwindling/undermanned military, well then hey, you get in there and fill that void you're helping create.

[tonyboloni]

For all of you skim reading libs that don't bother to read a persons opinion on something here we go again. I personally have no problem serving with gay men. I have several gay friends and could care less. I know that in the morning after PT when I am in the locker room, there is probably a gay man in there. I don't worry about him running buy and grabbing my ass or anything, and if the soap dropped I wouldn't worry about picking it up. That is how most of us feel, we know there are gays amongst us and we don't feel threatened by it. But it only takes 1 or 2 guys in a unit to not feel this way and the unit effectiveness will suffer. The first time 2 gay guys are sitting in the break room and start talking about taking it in the ass, or how they met this well hung dude over the weekend it will cause most of us to be uncomfortable. All of my gay friends know not to talk about their man love in front of me. It isn't the showering together, rooming together, sitting in a fox hole next to each other that is the issue in the military. It is having to listen to their gay experiences that is the problem. I know you all like to bash the military and think we are all cavemen but it isn't like that at all. This is not England, France, Canada or any other liberal country. Americans aren't as open about sexuality as they are, plain and simple. Just like you don't see nudity in commercials here in the US. That isn't going to change in our lifetime. Gays are welcome to serve next to me, (I actually I work with one right now.) but you are expected to keep your gayness to yourself. If you want to join the service as a gay man/woman and hang out at the gay bars on the weekend and take it in the ass you are welcome to. Just don'g get caught. Why can't that be good enough?   

Forget gays, how did they let someone in the military that cries as much as you do

[240 is Back]

Forget gays, how did they let someone in the military that cries as much as you do

Cue Dr. University of Hawai‘i - West O‘ahu to accuse you of being 240 

[OzmO]

Forget gays, how did they let someone in the military that cries as much as you do

 

do you even own your own computer MM69?

[OzmO]

We have fags and dykes in the Swedish Military, who are open about it.

Not many, but there is no don't ask don't tell rule.

The fags who serve in the military are regular blokes, and just like the rest of us, they keep their sex life and their service separated.

Just like any other guy.

Besides, I've never seen a fruity fag in the military. For some reason, they seem to stick to other jobs...

-Hedge

BB,  you read this? do you have any more "how do we" questions?

It's kind of like asking how a car solves mechanical challenges as reason not build one while right next to us we have a fully functioning car .

[Dos Equis]

BB,  you read this? do you have any more "how do we" questions?

It's kind of like asking how a car solves mechanical challenges as reason not build one while right next to us we have a fully functioning car .

Oh you want questions?     Here are a few:

1.  Would you adopt the following definition of "gender" in the military:

"Gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

(No one wanted to touch this in the thread I created.   

2.  What do you do with uniforms?  Restrict men from wearing dresses?   

3.  What about transsexuals in all phases of their surgery?  Where do they sleep and shower? 

4.  What happens with a homosexual couple who gets married in Massachusetts (until the legislature, rather judges, changes the law) but serves in California?  Does the military recognize their marriage?  What about BAQ, BAS benefits, etc. for those "married" couples? 

5.  What about bisexuals?   

6.  What about transvestites or those with "gender identity" issues?  Where do they sleep, shower, etc.? 

I don't buy your car analogy.  We're not Sweden.  Just because something is done in a foreign country, with a different culture, different laws, and different way of life, doesn't mean it is acceptable or workable in this country. 

[OzmO]

Oh you want questions?     Here are a few:

1.  Would you adopt the following definition of "gender" in the military:

"Gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

(No one wanted to touch this in the thread I created.   

2.  What do you do with uniforms?  Restrict men from wearing dresses?   

3.  What about transsexuals in all phases of their surgery?  Where do they sleep and shower? 

4.  What happens with a homosexual couple who gets married in Massachusetts (until the legislature, rather judges, changes the law) but serves in California?  Does the military recognize their marriage?  What about BAQ, BAS benefits, etc. for those "married" couples? 

5.  What about bisexuals?   

6.  What about transvestites or those with "gender identity" issues?  Where do they sleep, shower, etc.? 

I don't buy your car analogy.  We're not Sweden.  Just because something is done in a foreign country, with a different culture, different laws, and different way of life, doesn't mean it is acceptable or workable in this country. 

Well certainly not now!  i think I've been consistent in saying that enough.

I also don;t believe it was well accepted initially in those countries either, but they progressed.

they built bridges 

As to your questions.....  most of which are extreme cases when it comes to transsexuals and people in the process fo changing sex.  I think people like that wouldn't even try and join the military but even if they did....

Ask hedge what they do.  The car over there has been running for a while and it's not the only car!

The point is it can work and the argument that gays in the military won't work in this country is moot by evidence of it working in armies who are also in "western cultures"

And it's not that i didn't want to touch your thread,  i have too many threads in the fire ATM  2 here and 2 on other GB boards.

[Dos Equis]

Well certainly not now!  i think I've been consistent in saying that enough.

I also don;t believe it was well accepted initially in those countries either, but they progressed.

they built bridges 

As to your questions.....  most of which are extreme cases when it comes to transsexuals and people in the process fo changing sex.  I think people like that wouldn't even try and join the military but even if they did....

Ask hedge what they do.  The car over there has been running for a while and it's not the only car!

The point is it can work and the argument that gays in the military won't work in this country is moot by evidence of it working in armies who are also in "western cultures"

And it's not that i didn't want to touch your thread,  i have too many threads in the fire ATM  2 here and 2 on other GB boards.

Only two of my six paragraphs dealt with transsexuals and transvestites. 

Chicken.   

[OzmO]

Only two of my six paragraphs dealt with transsexuals and transvestites. 

Chicken.   

who you ask a heart surgeon a questions about hearts or a basket ball player?


but i'll indulge you only cause your in Hawaii 

1.  no

2.  yes

3.  no transsexuals  allowed

   1.  One who wishes to be considered by society as a member of the opposite sex.
   2. One who has undergone a sex change.

4.  no their marriage is only recognized in states that recognize it.  this could change but right as time progresses but part of the deal is,  you can be openly gay in the military but you can't be married.  As far as duty serving duty in the same location, yes.

5.  what about them?

6.  no transvestite behavior while on duty.

trans·ves·tite (trăns-vĕs'tīt', trănz-) pronunciation
n.

A person who dresses and acts in a style or manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex

again you're asking a basket ball player about heart surgery, so go ahead and show me how i killed the patient......       

[Dos Equis]

who you ask a heart surgeon a questions about hearts or a basket ball player?


but i'll indulge you only cause your in Hawaii 

1.  no

2.  yes

3.  no transsexuals  allowed

   1.  One who wishes to be considered by society as a member of the opposite sex.
   2. One who has undergone a sex change.

4.  no their marriage is only recognized in states that recognize it.  this could change but right as time progresses but part of the deal is,  you can be openly gay in the military but you can't be married.  As far as duty serving duty in the same location, yes.

5.  what about them?

6.  no transvestite behavior while on duty.

trans·ves·tite (trăns-vĕs'tīt', trănz-) pronunciation
n.

A person who dresses and acts in a style or manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex

again you're asking a basket ball player about heart surgery, so go ahead and show me how i killed the patient......       

Thanks for answering.  Patient is dead.   

I could probably come up with a bunch of other questions, but I think you see where I'm coming from (even if you don't agree).  I'm not just playing devil's advocate with this one.  This isn't like the race issue.  There is no rational debate about whether race is innate.  Conversely, there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is anything other than a lifestyle choice.  And there are a host of legal, moral, and social issues that come with homosexuality.  When you start using the government to legitimatize this lifestyle choice, you get the gender identity definition we have in Hawaii, which doesn't limit itself to homosexuality.  I see nothing but confusion.   


 

[OzmO]

Thanks for answering.  Patient is dead.   

I could probably come up with a bunch of other questions, but I think you see where I'm coming from (even if you don't agree).  I'm not just playing devil's advocate with this one.  This isn't like the race issue.  There is no rational debate about whether race is innate.  Conversely, there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is anything other than a lifestyle choice.  And there are a host of legal, moral, and social issues that come with homosexuality.  When you start using the government to legitimatize this lifestyle choice, you get the gender identity definition we have in Hawaii, which doesn't limit itself to homosexuality.  I see nothing but confusion.   


 

yes and no,  those armies aren't confused,  they are just not making a huge issue out of it like some libs in the USA would.

don't sue me for malpractice, i thought my surgery was a slam dunk!

 

[Cavalier22]

For all of you skim reading libs that don't bother to read a persons opinion on something here we go again. I personally have no problem serving with gay men. I have several gay friends and could care less. I know that in the morning after PT when I am in the locker room, there is probably a gay man in there. I don't worry about him running buy and grabbing my ass or anything, and if the soap dropped I wouldn't worry about picking it up. That is how most of us feel, we know there are gays amongst us and we don't feel threatened by it. But it only takes 1 or 2 guys in a unit to not feel this way and the unit effectiveness will suffer. The first time 2 gay guys are sitting in the break room and start talking about taking it in the ass, or how they met this well hung dude over the weekend it will cause most of us to be uncomfortable. All of my gay friends know not to talk about their man love in front of me. It isn't the showering together, rooming together, sitting in a fox hole next to each other that is the issue in the military. It is having to listen to their gay experiences that is the problem. I know you all like to bash the military and think we are all cavemen but it isn't like that at all. This is not England, France, Canada or any other liberal country. Americans aren't as open about sexuality as they are, plain and simple. Just like you don't see nudity in commercials here in the US. That isn't going to change in our lifetime. Gays are welcome to serve next to me, (I actually I work with one right now.) but you are expected to keep your gayness to yourself. If you want to join the service as a gay man/woman and hang out at the gay bars on the weekend and take it in the ass you are welcome to. Just don'g get caught. Why can't that be good enough?  

good post

[240 is Back]

weird that mm69 will accuse others of skimming - but he refuses to do a point-by-point argument on any issue.

[Fury]

Every person who says "I don't want gays taking bullets for my freedom" needs to enlist.

Seriously - for one to say a person should be flagged from a dwindling/undermanned military, well then hey, you get in there and fill that void you're helping create.

Bump. We're having enough trouble getting people into the military now, why shrink the pool we have to take people from? Pointless.

[240 is Back]

Bump. We're having enough trouble getting people into the military now, why shrink the pool we have to take people from? Pointless.

We have guys starting a 4th tour now, according to MSNBC's Hardball tonight.  In Iraq. 

Hell, they should start letting prisoners here try out for the military.  Give them unarmed or isolated tasks over there - compeltely voluntary - and let them serve the nation. 

Keeping a willing guy out cause he likes cock - then sending a reluctant family man over there to get killed on his 4th tour - is stupid.  I don't care what that guys' morals are.

[OzmO]

weird that mm69 will accuse others of skimming - but he refuses to do a point-by-point argument on any issue.

yep,  then he starts into ad-hom routine and nit picks stupid points.

classic BWD-NIT

[militarymuscle69]

weird that mm69 will accuse others of skimming - but he refuses to do a point-by-point argument on any issue.

You obviously missed me and OzmO's argument yesterday where I picked apart his case, piece by piece

[militarymuscle69]

yep,  then he starts into ad-hom routine and nit picks stupid points.

classic BWD-NIT

Ozmo you are the worst debater in here. All I do is throw a fact at you and you shut up

[240 is Back]

You obviously missed me and OzmO's argument yesterday where I picked apart his case, piece by piece

which was the topic?


not claling out you in particular - but overall here - the change of 9/11 discussions over the last year has been very amusing.  It used to be, people would argue evidence and discuss the events of the day. 

NOW?  The official-story folks will call names and then say "If it was an inside job the media would tell us".  We have many EMT, NYPD and firefighters coming fwd with details of the contorlled demolition, and the BBC/CNN reporting the collapse of a skyscraper BEFORE it happened, right form a script. 

I love seeing this, because deep down, many of you are suddenly realizing what really happened.  You can justify it anyway you choose, but your unwillingness to discuss it anymore shows you know the truth now.

[militarymuscle69]

which was the topic?


not claling out you in particular - but overall here - the change of 9/11 discussions over the last year has been very amusing.  It used to be, people would argue evidence and discuss the events of the day. 

NOW?  The official-story folks will call names and then say "If it was an inside job the media would tell us".  We have many EMT, NYPD and firefighters coming fwd with details of the contorlled demolition, and the BBC/CNN reporting the collapse of a skyscraper BEFORE it happened, right form a script. 

I love seeing this, because deep down, many of you are suddenly realizing what really happened.  You can justify it anyway you choose, but your unwillingness to discuss it anymore shows you know the truth now.

considering you mentioned me by name I would say you were calling me out, doesn't really matter. I don't argue the 9/11 because I don't know much about it. Unlike most of the libs in here that argue the military with me even they know nothing about it.

[240 is Back]

considering you mentioned me by name I would say you were calling me out, doesn't really matter. I don't argue the 9/11 because I don't know much about it. Unlike most of the libs in here that argue the military with me even they know nothing about it.

You shouldn't use the 'libs' label... it's insulting without reason.

When I use the 'neotaint' label to describe the self-righteous people who support the Bush Agenda but won't accept the moral baggage that comes with it - it's insulting by design.  I challenge those people to agree they support pre-emptive murder for oil. 

What are you challenging the 'libs' to do?  TO just call them a name makes you a limpwristed insult-hurler.  Instead, tell us what you want form the libs.