Discussion: Gay Rights

[Assassin]

I've never had a crush on another woman. I don't even understand that question outside the context of being gay. :huh:



They're only gross to you because you're a man. They're not gross to women.

but are they gross to you? :huh:

[Whirlysplat]

I'm interested. It seems a lot of people say they are joking, but at the same time indicate that people should not be gay. Men especially. Now this makes me wonder how far have we actually come in terms of respecting people that have different lifestyle choices to the ones we choose. My observation would be..... Not far.
In 2007 this is dissapointing.

[bullets]

i dont think being gay is a phase , i couldnt just be gay for a day and go back to normal ,how could someone be that confused about their sexuality?

[Whirlysplat]

i dont think being gay is a phase , i couldnt just be gay for a day and go back to normal ,how could someone be that confused about their sexuality?


Interesting... and yet it seems to happen, we read about it all the time.

[Majik1387]

i dont think being gay is a phase , i couldnt just be gay for a day and go back to normal ,how could someone be that confused about their sexuality?
Its really not that uncommon to be confused.
Inteesting... and yet it seems to happen, we read about it all the time.
Yeah, but it isn't a choice.

[bullets]

i dont think its a choice either . like i said i couldnt just try to be gay tommorow , its not in me.

[Majik1387]

They're only gross to you because you're a man. They're not gross to women.
Or gay men. :cwink:
Only untended penises are ugly.:o

[terry78]

In context, the penis is weird looking, but when it's all up in there, you don't hear any complaints from the one receiving it. Giggity goo.

[Whirlysplat]

Yeah, but it isn't a choice.

Do you think this is true for everyone? I think we must be careful not to attribute a definitive cause or reason to every situation.

[Majik1387]

Do you think this is true for everyone? I think we must be careful not to attribute a definitive cause or reason to every situation.

It is true for everyone. No one chooses to wake up one day and decides to be gay.

[Whirlysplat]

It is true for everyone. No one chooses to wake up one day and decides to be gay.

I think environment must play a part sometimes. For instance in a single sex privates school or a prison. I think under these circumstances things might be different, don't you?

[Majik1387]

I think environment must play a part sometimes. For instance in a single sex privates school or a prison. I think under these circumstances things might be different, don't you?

That doesn't make them gay. The environment just affects who the person would have sex with. If there's no women of course a man would have sex with a man, especially in prison. As for the whole private school thing, experimenting is a big part of it.

Remember sex doesn't always mean orientation

[Holly]

if i were a lesbian i would be so darn picky. i see pretty girls everyday, but there's a difference when you see that one girl who stands out and she's just so unbelievably beautiful you can't help but stare a little. i dont know how to describe it, but it's happened maybe 5 times in my life where ive randomly seen a girl and thought "i want to make love to her, and make her breakfast in the morning". these are rare moments and im a little disappointed now that i let my inner lesbian slip through my fingers. :csad:

[Steve Rogers]

Yeah, it's not as though men come out of prison and keep having sex with men.

[Whirlysplat]

That doesn't make them gay. The environment just affects who the person would have sex with. If there's no women of course a man would have sex with a man, especially in prison. As for the whole private school thing, experimenting is a big part of it.

Remember sex doesn't always mean orientation

Don't you think it's also in those situations perhaps a lack of female contact.

[Whirlysplat]

Yeah, it's not as though men come out of prison and keep having sex with men.


So would that make it a phase?

[Majik1387]

Don't you think it's also in those situations perhaps a lack of female contact.
Yes but that has nothing to do with their orientation.
Yeah, it's not as though men come out of prison and keep having sex with men.
Exactly.

[Majik1387]

So would that make it a phase?

Kind of. I don't consider it a "gay phase" it's actually just a phase of confusion.

[Whirlysplat]

Yes but that has nothing to do with their orientation.


I would suggest it might mean an attraction, for whatever reason that under normal circumstances might not be present.

[Steve Rogers]

Confusion? How about horniness? Guys in prison want some, there's no one else around but other men...I wouldn't say it's a phase or confusion. More like making do with what you have for the time being.

[Whirlysplat]

Confusion? How about horniness? Guys in prison want some, there's no one else around but other men...I wouldn't say it's a phase or confusion. More like making do with what you have for the time being.

If it's consentual, surely they pick partners, which must show attraction. We can discount male rape situations as this is purely about the power of one individual over another and has nothing to do with anything beyond degradation in my opinion.

[Majik1387]

Confusion? How about horniness? Guys in prison want some, there's no one else around but other men...I wouldn't say it's a phase or confusion. More like making do with what you have for the time being.

Confusion and horniness for the private school, horniness for the prison.:cwink:

[Whirlysplat]

If it's consentual, surely they pick partners, which must show attraction. We can discount male rape situations as this is purely about the power of one individual over another and has nothing to do with anything beyond degradation in my opinion.

I shall quote myself.

[bullets]

Confusion? How about horniness? Guys in prison want some, there's no one else around but other men...I wouldn't say it's a phase or confusion. More like making do with what you have for the time being.


they must be closing their eyes pretending its a woman , thats why the make the dude use red m&m's for lipstick.

[Majik1387]

If it's consentual, surely they pick partners, which must show attraction. We can discount male rape situations as this is purely about the power of one individual over another and has nothing to do with anything beyond degradation in my opinion.
I'm just gonna use the prison as an example because with the private school everything fits under confusion and horniness.

For attraction in prison, it's rarely about sexual attraction. Sex is used as a way to get things, whether it be materialistic things or protection. It's usually either used for payment or to just to relieve each other's horniness since they can't with their girlfriends, wives, etc.

[Whirlysplat]

they must be closing their eyes pretending its a woman , thats why the make the dude use red m&m's for lipstick.

You see I would say that was a power thing.

How do we explain constant bisexuality then? If people cannot choose. I see a number of factors. I do not consider all homosexuality to be genetic. Although for some a genetic component may be present. Socialisation is probably at least as big a part.

[Holly]

why do the gays keep hijacking threads

[Majik1387]

You see I would say that was a power thing.

How do we explain constant bisexuality then? If people cannot choose. I see a number of factors. I do not consider all homosexuality to be genetic. Although for some a genetic component may be present. Socialisation is probably at least as big a part.
The majority of people who engage in bisexuality, are not bisexual.
why do the gays keep hijacking threads
Because it's about homosexuality kinda.:cwink:

[turtlefocker]

You are gay man just deal with it

[Whirlysplat]

The majority of people who engage in bisexuality, are not bisexual.


Then what are they?

[Majik1387]

You are gay man just deal with it
:huh:
Then what are they?
They'd **** anything that they can.

[Whirlysplat]

:huh:

They'd **** anything that they can.

I think we again are catorgarising. I don't think it's that easy.

[turtlefocker]

They'd **** anything that they can.

Even turtles...

[Majik1387]

I think we again are catorgarising. I don't think it's that easy.
It's not categorizing at all.

[Whirlysplat]

It's not categorizing at all.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I see it as catorgorising.

[DBella]

The majority of people who engage in bisexuality, are not bisexual.


What category do they fall under?

[turtlefocker]

What category do they fall under?

Bisexual

[Steve Rogers]

I kind of dig bisexuals. They don't limit themselves like gays and straights do. :up:

[DBella]

Bisexual
Majik disagrees.

[bullets]

how could anyone disagree with that ?

[DBella]

how could anyone disagree with that ?
I'm waiting for Majik's answer. It's easy to make a statement but backing it up and explaining it can be hard sometimes.

[Majik1387]

What category do they fall under?
Not bisexuality.
The majority of bisexuals these days date only one gender and sometimes fool around with the other gender. Bisexuals don't limit themselves to only dating one gender then messing around with the other, they're open to dating both genders.

They're more bi-curious than bisexual.

[bullets]

Not bisexuality.
The majority of bisexuals these days date only one gender and sometimes fool around with the other gender. Bisexuals don't limit themselves to only dating one gender then messing around with the other, they're open to dating both genders.

They're more bi-curious than bisexual.



those are two different categories.

[Majik1387]

Ok then they're bi-curious, not bisexual.

[Whirlysplat]

Ok then they're bi-curious, not bisexual.

Why not bisexual? I don't get your line of reasoning in this my friend.

[lixdexia]

i've only been attracted to one man in my life, and that is a young antonio banderas. he's my one and only man-crush
don't want to have sex with him, but i totally would enjoy the process of him trying to woo me

[DBella]

Not bisexuality.
The majority of bisexuals these days date only one gender and sometimes fool around with the other gender. Bisexuals don't limit themselves to only dating one gender then messing around with the other, they're open to dating both genders.

They're more bi-curious than bisexual.
You're confusing me. Are you saying that people who are bisexual cannot have a committed relationship unless it's with both genders?

[Majik1387]

Why not bisexual? I don't get your line of reasoning in this my friend.
You're confusing me. Are you saying that people who are bisexual cannot have a committed relationship unless it's with both genders?
Okay, let me explain. Say there's this bisexual couple, male and female. If they break up, the male wouldn't limit himself to just dating females as the female wouldn't limit herself to just dating males.

Bisexuals can have a committed relationship, but when they have a preference to commit because of gender, then they're bi-curious, not bisexual.

[DBella]

Okay, let me explain. Say there's this bisexual couple, male and female. If they break up, the male wouldn't limit himself to just dating females as the female wouldn't limit herself to just dating males.

Bisexuals can have a committed relationship, but when they have a preference to commit because of gender, then they're bi-curious, not bisexual.
Maybe they commit because of love.

Is your explanation based on your own theory/logic?

[Whirlysplat]

Maybe they commit because of love.


That would be how I would see it also.

[Majik1387]

Maybe they commit because of love.

Is your explanation based on your own theory/logic?

It's based on my experience.
I'm not saying they can't commit. I'm saying when their preference is one gender over the other it's not bisexuality.

[AndThePickles]

Yes I have, but after much questioning I decided I was straight.

[pyromaniac]

Definitely not. I think people who use the religious aspect use it as an excuse for their dislike of it, while I do know it is an abomination in the bible I also realize it's unfair to judge them. If two men want to get together that's their choice, their lifestyle, and I'm not going to condemn them for their choices.

It's just I don't understand how men could be homosexuals. But I also know it's not meant for me to understand. Just as long as they're happy that's all that should matter.

What do you mean - it's not meant for you to understand?

Ever considered the same could be true of homosexuals who 'aren't meant to understand' heterosexuality...?

Bit of a cop out if you ask me. If you have to weigh in such questions, then find out, and you can then find whether you can actually agree or disagree with it, because how could you form an opinion of it in the first place that which you don't understand?

As for gay men hitting on you - it doesn't harm you so you may as well take a compliment. If women - whom you happen to like on the whole - were doing that, you would not be offended at all. I can't see the difference as long as no harm's done or that you don't let it.

As for your supposed like of wrestlers, they mean to say that it translates to homoeroticism, homosocialism, etc rooted in the subconscious. People, after all, have same sex role models and celebrities and authority figures to look up to. It's just psychology.

[pyromaniac]

You see I would say that was a power thing.

How do we explain constant bisexuality then? If people cannot choose. I see a number of factors. I do not consider all homosexuality to be genetic. Although for some a genetic component may be present. Socialisation is probably at least as big a part.

Do you wake up one morning and ask yourself: how did I become straight?

[bullets]

Do you wake up one morning and ask yourself: how did I become straight?


lmao ... what a question.

[Mr. Socko]

Not bisexuality.
The majority of bisexuals these days date only one gender and sometimes fool around with the other gender. Bisexuals don't limit themselves to only dating one gender then messing around with the other, they're open to dating both genders.

They're more bi-curious than bisexual.

I go under the term bisexual because I am attracted to people of both sexes. But I guess I’d say I prefer guys. How do I put it? Even though I find female to be attractive I mostly go out with males. If there’s a guy I really like and a girl I really like, I’d probably approach the guy first. Does that tell me something else about my sexuality that I may be unaware of, idk. But that’s not to say I dislike the girl, I’m just quicker to act on the gay side than the straight side. I’ve been like this for years but some say it’s a passing phase. Maybe it is, I couldn’t tell you. I have a friend who really is the opposite. He finds both sexes attractive but will act on his heterosexual side quicker than his homosexual side(fear maybe?). Does that mean something? Maybe someone here is a psychologist and knows better than Socko does. But If there was a poll I’d vote myself as bi but there are a lot of people who just say I’m just gay.

It’s one thing to be confused, wholly different when you don’t even know if you’re confused or not. I don't know if I should end this post with a LoL or a :csad:

[LastSunrise1981]

What do you mean - it's not meant for you to understand?

Ever considered the same could be true of homosexuals who 'aren't meant to understand' heterosexuality...?

Bit of a cop out if you ask me. If you have to weigh in such questions, then find out, and you can then find whether you can actually agree or disagree with it, because how could you form an opinion of it in the first place that which you don't understand?

As for gay men hitting on you - it doesn't harm you so you may as well take a compliment. If women - whom you happen to like on the whole - were doing that, you would not be offended at all. I can't see the difference as long as no harm's done or that you don't let it.

As for your supposed like of wrestlers, they mean to say that it translates to homoeroticism, homosocialism, etc rooted in the subconscious. People, after all, have same sex role models and celebrities and authority figures to look up to. It's just psychology.

I think you misunderstood me. From a personal persective I can't nor do I understand how men could be attracted to each other. But I'm not going to codemn them for a decision that obviously makes them happy. If they choose to be homosexuals then that's their right and their choice, however, I don't understand it at all.

My views is that I have no agree or disagree views of homosexuality. If two men get together and they're happy with one another, then that's all that should matter.

[Whirlysplat]

Do you wake up one morning and ask yourself: how did I become straight?


No, because, during puberty my body was flooded with testosterone, leading to a standard secondary sexual development and the urge to procreate.

[Holly]

Yes I have, but after much questioning I decided I was straight.

:csad:

[AndThePickles]

:csad:

I'll always make exceptions though, don't worry :heart:

[xGEMSKIx]

no... but once i saw a guy and said "oo hes nice!" turned out it was a girl dressed up but yeah.. except for that no lol

[Shuley]

come'on now, it's 2007, not 1957, If a guy or girls has a fling with the same sex as them,then that's perfectly fine.It doesn't mean they are gay/lesbian cause they did it once or twice.

[xisaacx]

cant help who you love, let them get married let them do whatever. as long as they pay their taxes who gives a fug

[Whirlysplat]

So true as John Lennon said to Brian Epstein, "Anything that brings love into the world is O.K. Brian".

[WalterKovacs]

I thought i had a crush on a firned of mine, but I know I'm straight or at least bisexual because of the feelings I've felt for women. I think it was jsu a phase, wether it was brought on by sexual repression, confusion, or i was just horny and had low standards that night. But if i ever felt like i truly loved another guy, I wouldn't care what anybody else says and say "I'm gay."

[tzarinna]

Can't say that I have, I've had extreme fondness for some females...but not crushes.

[LegendaryCaleb]

:csad:

I'll always make exceptions though, don't worry :heart:
Yummy?:oldrazz:

[gap5ewl]

...TRENT LOTT!!!!!!!

http://bigheaddc.com/2007/11/26/trent-lott-fallout-the-gay-escort-who-knew-too-much/


:wow:

[hammy]

:whatever: This stuff does get wearisome.

[AhabTheArab]

edit: i believe in karma.

[sinewave]

...TRENT LOTT!!!!!!!

http://bigheaddc.com/2007/11/26/trent-lott-fallout-the-gay-escort-who-knew-too-much/


:wow:

i won't believe it without more proof, but if it's true, HA-****ING-HA!!!

[bullets]

.....ew

[Tangled Web]

Trent Lott that racist ****.

[Ghostvirus]

Boy, the republicans have really been taking it in the ass lately.

[TBadora]

Boy, the republicans have really been taking it in the ass lately.

http://www.cybergifs.com/faces/LOL.gif

[Mr. Socko]

The boy happens to be real, and his “stage name” is Benjamin Nicholas. One of the politicos Big Head DC has learned he’s alleged to have been involved with is the married Sen. Trent Lott, 66, who unexpectedly announced his retirement on Monday. Lott is well-known to have been against a plethora of gay rights issues throughout his terms in Congress.

:whatever:

[shadowforce420]

Boy, the republicans have really been taking it in the ass lately.

Too easy, you can do better than that.

[Ghostvirus]

Not this late at night I can't.:csad:

[shadowforce420]

Could've atleast said "Another Republican gets shot in the face", just an idea.

[Ghostvirus]

Well I'll get some sleep, & come back with something better. Kay?

[shadowforce420]

Just dont dream about Trent Lott

[The Evolutionist]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Come on Specter, it's your turn now.

[Ghostvirus]

*sigh* fine. Cheney it is then.:csad:

[Superman]

Oh please let this be true. :woot:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071126/capt.362fa03dfef34fec9306094fbb9a1412.senate_lott_ jx105.jpg?x=378&y=345&sig=r9BFQaFVn.GajyxZz5RZQQ--
That's it, Let daddy take care of you.:cwink: :woot:

[Sandman138]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

I don't know why everybody is so surprised. :o

[C.F. Kane]

In other news: The support for the Republican party amongst closeted gay homophobic men went up several points today...

[Armand Z Trip]

Goodbye Trent.

[jaguarr]

Haha! Oh, those wacky Republicans. You just never know with them. If this turns out to be true I'm going to throw a Trent Lott Is Gay party.

jag

[Steve Rogers]

Gay Republican? Isn't that an oxymoron?

[Kent]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

I don't know why everybody is so surprised. :o

Conservapedia? Is that a joke?

[chamber-music]

By the rule of averages their has gotta be quite a few dudes in the closet.

[sinewave]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

I don't know why everybody is so surprised. :o

man, talk about being obsessed. creeps...

[Sandman138]

Conservapedia? Is that a joke?

Like the best of jokes, this is deadly serious.

[C.F. Kane]

Conservapedia? Is that a joke?

Wikipedia is based more or less on reality.

"And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

- Stephen Colbert

[Superman]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

I don't know why everybody is so surprised. :o

Most viewed pages


Main Page‎ [1,959,752]
Homosexuality‎ [1,938,915]
Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ [518,494]
Homosexuality and Parasites‎ [466,859]
Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ [437,047]
Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ [422,715]
Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence‎ [374,566]
Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ [332,310]
Homosexuality and Anal Cancer‎ [294,995]
Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ [294,440]




Man! They really have a thing for gay people, don't they? Homosexuality and Anal Cancer‎? :whatever:

I guess they are going to tell us that being gay causes cancer. :whatever:

[Lightning Strykez!]

Wow. Just...wow. I wonder if he's been doing any toe-tapping lately? ;)

[Backdrifter]

Apparently this is BS. I'm no Trent Lott supporter. But, this guys is saying its not true. Granted, he could be lying as well.

Monday, November 26, 2007

And I thought having my family in for Thanksgiving was wild...

It looks like a Washington DC-based blog called BigHeadDC is making claim that there was (or, is) a working relationship between myself and Senator Trent Lott. There are falsely pieced-together quotes that serve no purpose other than to sensationalize a completely fabricated scoop.

I will continue to offer a great sense of confidentiality to the people I see, but I have not, nor have I ever seen or had contact with Senator Trent Lott. It's as simple as that. It never happened.




Benjamin Nicholas

http://www.benjaminnicholas.com/blogger.html

[Superman]

I had a feeling that it was all BS but one can hope. :cwink: :woot:

[Superman4ever]

Haha! Oh, those wacky Republicans. You just never know with them. If this turns out to be true I'm going to throw a Trent Lott Is Gay party.

jag

I'll bring the hummus! :woot:

What is with these republicans? The more anti-gay or "Christian" they are the more they seem...well, to like cock!

[Superman4ever]

Apparently this is BS. I'm no Trent Lott supporter. But, this guys is saying its not true. Granted, he could be lying as well.

http://www.benjaminnicholas.com/blogger.html

:cmad:

He's LYING! I won't believe it...I WON'T!

[C.F. Kane]

Aw damn. It was fun while it lasted.

[Hotwire]

Was watching CNN, saw this topic, and thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

[Kaleb]

:confused:

[Hotwire]

Could a mod add (Gays in the military) to the title of this thread???

[AhabTheArab]

plenty other things they can work on in our military than worrying about gays....

[Ghostvirus]

plenty other things they can work on in our military than worrying about gays....

Yeah, no kidding like these damn woman coming into our fellow soldiers fox holes, & spraying there menstraul blood all over the place. It has to be stopped!:cmad:[/Gingrich]

[oakzap425]

Yeah, no kidding like these damn woman coming into our fellow soldiers fox holes, & spaying there menstraul blood all over the place. It has to be stopped!:cmad:[/Gingrich]

Spraying? :confused:

[Matt]

Its stupid, eliminate it.

[SuperFerret]

What exactly does "don't ask, don't tell" imply? If it does become known that a soldier is gay, does he then get kicked out?

[jaguarr]

plenty other things they can work on in our military than worrying about gays....

Its stupid, eliminate it.

:up:

What exactly does "don't ask, don't tell" imply? If it does become known that a soldier is gay, does he then get kicked out?

Most of the time, yes, that's exactly what happens. There have been instances of Arabic language experts, which we are in HUGE demand of in the military, being kicked out for being gay. Ridiculous.

jag

[terry78]

Like Chris Rock said, if they wanna fight, let 'em fight, cause I ain't fightin'.

[PemLam]

Let 'em in...maybe a few of them could spruce up our dress uniforms a bit. :hyper:

[bullets]

let em fight ! i dont see why they shouldnt be openly allowed in , unless they violate somebody i dont see what the problem is.

[bored]

The very concept is bigoted.

[CaptainAmerica]

It should be eliminated. Gay people should be allowed to serve.

[unstoppable]

This isn't the Navy son :cmad:

[oakzap425]

This isn't the Navy son :cmad:

...Your avvy is Ghey. :up:

[Moviefan2k4]

I wasn't aware of a "don't ask or tell" policy in the military concerning homosexuals. I knoew there was still a huge amount of debate over whether they should even be allowed into the armed forces to begin with, but this "policy" is news to me.

In my opinion, the main reason many people are opposed towards homosexuals serving in the military is because of a certain "image" represented by a soldier. This "standard" implies a requirement for the following, at least in many minds...


Excellent marksmanship with any and all firearms
Unparalelled bravery in any situation
Total obedience and loyalty to superior officers
Able to "charm" the opposite sex with ease and confidence.


Everything on that list describes what many folks think of when they hear the word "soldier". By contrast, many homosexuals are stereotyped as effeminate,
short-tempered, defiant towards authority, and even cowardly, preferring to stay away from violence...not to mention the obvious fact that they prefer the same sex, rather than the opposite.

In the minds of the general public, all these things combined do not amount to what most would see as "a proper soldier". Other soldiers have expressed past worries over the orientation of their comrades, in fact fearing a sexual advance from them, and thus reducing their own reliablity in the battlefield.

Plainly speaking, I doubt most straight guys in the military would feel very comfortable or secure with a homosexual as their combat partner. In the mind of an average straight officer, I suspect quite a few of them would be genuinely worried for their own safety in that situation. It's all about a mindset, which in turn stems from a belief that homosexuality is wrong. Personally, I don't think gays are actually less qualified to serve in the military, but I do think homosexuality is wrong in and of itself. Their presence often causes a great degree of uncertainty and even fear with other officers, because they want to be 100% sure their combat partner will be there in times of crisis. Generally speaking, military officers will likely trust a straight wingman, gunner, or co-pliot more than a gay one. Right or wrong (as far as the mindset is concerned), it seems that's how it's been for a long time, in the eyes of the military.

[knowsbleed]

^ Lol!

[Addendum]

Moviefan's post offers nothing with regard to keeping homosexuals out of the military

[Moviefan2k4]

I have nothing against men or women serving our country, be they gay or straight. was merely trying to explain my views with regard to why so many people are against it. Generally speaking, a 30-year-old soldier wants to be damn sure in times of crisis that his gunner won't try and hit on him, or run away screaming. He wants to be able to trust the other men in his company, and a lot of people, military or otherwise, find gays very difficult to trust. As for myself, I believe homosexuality is 100% wrong. I'm not in the military, but if I were, I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want my comrade trying to make a pass at me. I'd want him focusing on the enemy, or whatever battle situation we were in.

[knowsbleed]

I'm sure that a person's sexuality has nothing to do with their courage under fire.

[Moviefan2k4]

I'm sure that a person's sexuality has nothing to do with their courage under fire.Maybe not in reality, but in the minds of many officers, it probably has a great deal to do with it. the fear that results from that uncertainty can be the difference between life and death. My guess is that the military knew this, and so originally took the easy way out, by not wanting to allow homosexuals in the first place.

[The Evolutionist]

I'm sure that a person's sexuality has nothing to do with their courage under fire.

If it doesn't say it in the bible, MovieFan doesn't believe it.

[ShadowBoxing]

Maybe not in reality, but in the minds of many officers, it probably has a great deal to do with it. the fear that results from that uncertainty can be the difference between life and death. My guess is that the military knew this, and so originally took the easy way out, by not wanting to allow homosexuals in the first place.
You're right. The rationale against gays in the military has to do with uncertainty most people have with regards to homosexuality. However that is all kind of moot considering the rationale is wrong and based on highly biased, bigotted and false assumptions.

I don't feel like we need to bend over backwards to placate people's misconceptions when making policy, especially policy that aims at protecting our nation.

[knowsbleed]

Maybe not in reality, but in the minds of many officers, it probably has a great deal to do with it. the fear that results from that uncertainty can be the difference between life and death. My guess is that the military knew this, and so originally took the easy way out, by not wanting to allow homosexuals in the first place.

Military psychology does not root from biblical guidance. Try to be unbiased here when forming thoughts. It doesn't ALWAYS boil down to religious belief.

[Addendum]

Generally speaking, a 30-year-old soldier wants to be damn sure in times of crisis that his gunner won't try and hit on him, or run away screaming.

I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want my comrade trying to make a pass at me. I'd want him focusing on the enemy, or whatever battle situation we were in.

Because homosexual men hit on every guy that comes into view :whatever:

Just like us straight guys don't hit on every woman that we see, the same is true for gay men. Same thing with lesbians.

So what it all boils down to is the insecurity of the heterosexual

[Matt]

You're right. The rationale against gays in the military has to do with uncertainty most people have with regards to homosexuality. However that is all kind of moot considering the rationale is wrong and based on highly biased, bigotted and false assumptions.

I don't feel like we need to bend over backwards to placate people's misconceptions when making policy, especially policy that aims at protecting our nation.

No, but at the same time, why should be we bend over backwards to appease their homophobia and prejuidice?

[Mr. Socko]

What exactly does "don't ask, don't tell" imply? If it does become known that a soldier is gay, does he then get kicked out?

Yes and it's pretty damn stupid. I'm personally not going to; but anyone who wants to join the military and fight for their country should be able to, regardless of sexuality.


Plainly speaking, I doubt most straight guys in the military would feel very comfortable or secure with a homosexual as their combat partner. In the mind of an average straight officer, I suspect quite a few of them would be genuinely worried for their own safety in that situation. It's all about a mindset, which in turn stems from a belief that homosexuality is wrong. Personally, I don't think gays are actually less qualified to serve in the military, but I do think homosexuality is wrong in and of itself. Their presence often causes a great degree of uncertainty and even fear with other officers, because they want to be 100% sure their combat partner will be there in times of crisis. Generally speaking, military officers will likely trust a straight wingman, gunner, or co-pliot more than a gay one. Right or wrong (as far as the mindset is concerned), it seems that's how it's been for a long time, in the eyes of the military.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-001.gif

No, but at the same time, why should be we bend over backwards to appease their homophobia and prejuidice?

The U.S. wasn't bending over backwards when they allowed African-Americans to fight in the World War.

[Moviefan2k4]

Military psychology does not take root from Biblical guidance. Try to be unbiased here when forming thoughts. It doesn't ALWAYS boil down to religious belief.I've said it many times: as a Christian, my beliefs are founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible. As such, expecting me to separate my views from God's Word is just crazy. Why would I resort to my fallible human mind, when God is infallible, and knows much more than I do? I'd rather base my views on Someone whose stances don't change. That way, I know I can trust Him.

So what it all boils down to is the insecurity of the heterosexual.I think people would be more secure in their sexuality, if they looked to God for guidance with it, rather than trusting a world system that both tempts us like crazy, and then condemns us for giving in.

[Sloth7d]

In my opinion, the main reason many people are opposed towards homosexuals serving in the military is because of a certain "image" represented by a soldier. This "standard" implies a requirement for the following, at least in many minds...

Excellent marksmanship with any and all firearms
Unparalelled bravery in any situation
Total obedience and loyalty to superior officers
Able to "charm" the opposite sex with ease and confidence.

You'd think that image include-

Secure of their sexual preference enough not to let something like homophobia prevent him from fighting a war.

And that last line on your list is just a joke.

[Arkady Rossovich]

Eliminate it,gays should not serve in the military.

[Badger]

Hopefully one day, Moviefan2k4, will understand the difference between faith and blind faith. :up:

[knowsbleed]

I've said it many times: as a Christian, my beliefs are founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible. As such, expecting me to separate my views from God's Word is just crazy. Why would I resort to my fallible human mind, when God is infallible, and knows much more than I do? I'd rather base my views on Someone whose stances don't change. That way, I know I can trust Him.

Ugh...


just ugh.

[Badger]

Eliminate it,gays should not serve in the military.

:dry:, and bigots shouldn't be able to breathe.

[AhabTheArab]

:dry:, and bigots shouldn't be able to breathe.

seconded.

being gay shouldn't matter in defending your country. theres only one thing on the mind of a soldier in the field, regardless of sexual preference. and what about bi soldiers? are they banned too? where do we draw the line?

this country is scary, almost as scary as the mind of moviefan2k4 and arkady "america hater" rosso*****.

[Mr. Socko]

:dry:, and bigots shouldn't be able to breathe.


:up::up:

[The Evolutionist]

I've said it many times: as a Christian, my beliefs are founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible. As such, expecting me to separate my views from God's Word is just crazy. Why would I resort to my fallible human mind, when God is infallible, and knows much more than I do? I'd rather base my views on Someone whose stances don't change. That way, I know I can trust Him.

There's your problem right there. You've got a strong dose of the "God-Never-Changes" delusion. It's ok, just try some mind-opening exercises (like thinking for yourself, instead of whatever pastor/reverend/preist put all these false ideas about Gods nature in your head), and you'll be just fine.

[AhabTheArab]

There's your problem right there. You've got a strong dose of the "God-Never-Changes" delusion. It's ok, just try some mind-opening exercises (like thinking for yourself, instead of whatever pastor/reverend/preist put all these false ideas about Gods nature in your head), and you'll be just fine.[/quote]


but but but... that would destroy the time space continuum!

[Moviefan2k4]

God knows how to work with change, because His people do, but His stances on right and wrong never change. That's what makes Him reliable.

[ShadowBoxing]

No, but at the same time, why should be we bend over backwards to appease their homophobia and prejuidice?Thank you for rephrasing what I just said:huh:

[knowsbleed]

God knows how to work with change, because His people do, but His stances on right and wrong never change. That's what makes Him reliable.

So, let's not bring up the whole old testament vs new testament right and wrong...because that would just incite a flame war that has nothing to do w/the original subject.


in other words...:down

[Badger]

God knows how to work with change, because His people do, but His stances on right and wrong never change. That's what makes Him reliable.

Please show me where God said that being Gay is wrong. Not what someone wrote in the bible as their interpretation of Jesus's teachings.

[Superhobo]

God knows how to work with change, because His people do, but His stances on right and wrong never change. That's what makes Him reliable.

What knowsbleed said.

[terry78]

I never get why dudes don't want gay guys to hit on them. That means your ass must be pretty hot, and that means other chicks think the same thing. Focus, people.

[Matt]

Thank you for rephrasing what I just said:huh:

I'm sorry, I must've misread you.

[Hotwire]

Up until MovieFan went biblical on us, I was understanding where he was coming from. He wasn't realy stating his opinion on the subject, but rather giving insight as to why others may be against gays in the military. I can understand what he means, I was in the Army and a lot of the guys I served with were rather anti-gay.

[terry78]

I do think some people tend to overdo it to an extent, like if someone says they don't support homosexuality but don't have a problem with the people, they're deemed homophobes. I think that's a bit extreme.

[Moviefan2k4]

I do think some people tend to overdo it to an extent, like if someone says they don't support homosexuality but don't have a problem with the people, they're deemed homophobes. I think that's a bit extreme.So do I. By that kind of legalistic thinking, Jesus would've been considered a homophobe. He preached against homosexuality (among other things), and yet chose to hang out with prostitutes and a woman caught in the very act of adultery. He didn't condemn them for their sins, but rather taught them there was a way to be forgiven and cleansed. He loved everyone, no matter how despicable society thought they were. It's rather sad that even His own followers have the same problem the Pharisees did in those days.

[Superhobo]

So do I. By that kind of legalistic thinking, Jesus would've been considered a homophobe. He preached against homosexuality (among other things), and yet chose to hang out with prostitutes and a woman caught in the very act of adultery. He didn't condemn them for their sins, but rather taught them there was a way to be forgiven and cleansed. He loved everyone, no matter how despicable society thought they were. It's rather sad that even His own followers have the same problem the Pharisees did in those days.

Where did Jesus, specifically himself and not Paul or any of the others, preach against homosexuality?

?

[Badger]

Up until MovieFan went biblical on us, I was understanding where he was coming from. He wasn't realy stating his opinion on the subject, but rather giving insight as to why others may be against gays in the military. I can understand what he means, I was in the Army and a lot of the guys I served with were rather anti-gay.

Well understanding his stance on everything, for better or worse, it was pretty easy to see through his thinly veiled opinion on why "everyone" doesn't want gays in the military.

[Abaddon]

but how would it effect military training?

Drill Sergeant: What are you a *****ucking fa***t?!:cmad:
Private: Sir, yes sir!
Drill Sergeant: :huh:..:cmad:

[terry78]

Gives new meaning to the term "drill sergeant" Wocka wocka wocka. :o

[terry78]

Gives new meaning to the term "drill sergeant" Wocka wocka wocka. :o

[bored]

Here's what would happen if open homosexuals could join the military: we'd have more people in the military.


That's it.

[Abaddon]

*throws tomato*

[Badger]

I do think some people tend to overdo it to an extent, like if someone says they don't support homosexuality but don't have a problem with the people, they're deemed homophobes. I think that's a bit extreme.

Agreed, and I'm not saying Moviefan2k4 is a homophope. He seems like a very well spoken and respectful person. That does not, however, mean I agree with his "blind" stance on things. If his sole reason for believing what he does is because it's in the bible, then that is poor and uneducated thinking.

Though that is just my opinion.

[AhabTheArab]

The very idea that GOD HATED ANYONE is ridiculous.

[CaptainAmerica]

Ugh...


just ugh.

My thoughts exactly.

[Mr. Socko]

I never get why dudes don't want gay guys to hit on them. That means your ass must be pretty hot, and that means other chicks think the same thing. Focus, people.


I see where you're going with this terry. . .:cwink:

[Asteroid-Man]

Like Chris Rock said, if they wanna fight, let 'em fight, cause I ain't fightin'.
Beat me to it :up:

[SuperFerret]

I've said it many times: as a Christian, my beliefs are founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible. As such, expecting me to separate my views from God's Word is just crazy. Why would I resort to my fallible human mind, when God is infallible, and knows much more than I do? I'd rather base my views on Someone whose stances don't change. That way, I know I can trust Him.

I think people would be more secure in their sexuality, if they looked to God for guidance with it, rather than trusting a world system that both tempts us like crazy, and then condemns us for giving in.

Wow.. Not to jump on a bandwagon or anything, but, as a person who enjoys watching (and being involved in) debates, I found this to be interesting: MovieFan quickly killed any chance he had with this post. Prior to this post, he had said nothing regarding religion, only listing reasons why someone might feel uncomfortable with homosexuals in the military. Many other people brought in the fact (that really lay OUTSIDE this discussion) that MovieFan was a Christian in a way to either discredit or attack him somehow for what he had written in his posts. Now, nobody will take his opinions seriously, as he followed the lead of certain members of this debate and wound up outside the conversation.

[Kritish]

Sexual orientation isn't a factor when it comes to killing people (and that's all armies are for) and I'd be willing to bet in a life or death scenario the last thing going through a soldier's mind is if his buddy likes men.

[Moviefan2k4]

Agreed, and I'm not saying Moviefan2k4 is a homophope. He seems like a very well spoken and respectful person.Thanks for the kudos.

That does not, however, mean I agree with his "blind" stance on things. If his sole reason for believing what he does is because it's in the Bible, then that is poor and uneducated thinking.the Bible is the main foundation for my faith, but it's not the only source I have. Regarding homosexuality, I've seen it tear people's lives apart. I've seen the deceit, dishonesty, and lack of trust between the people involved. And to top it all off, I've also seen how it affects children. Taking my own expereinces into account, as well as the Bible, I've come to the concreete conclusion that God defined it as wrong for a very important reason. He wanted to protect us, and spare us from the pain and loneliness often associated with it. God even went so far as to call it "an abombination"; that's a pretty strong term, and yet most try to think of homosexuality as the sexual equivalent of a career choice. :(

[888]

Excellent marksmanship with any and all firearms


I've seen enough gay porn to know this is a non-issue.

Unparalelled bravery in any situation

considering the amount of bull**** people like you(i'm making an assumption, bare with me here) put many of them through their whole lives, i'd say they're far more qualified in this area than the white-bread, mid-west cretins that couldn't tell a palestinian from a puerto rican, that seem to be signing up in droves right now.

Total obedience and loyalty to superior officers

i'm not above making a bear/twink reference, so don't tempt me.


Able to "charm" the opposite sex with ease and confidence.



i didn't realize we're at war with goldfinger and our military ranks were filled with a bunch of james bonds and ethan hunts. c'mon, who really thinks this? even so, considering who we're fighting right now, i'm pretty sure a great deal of our current enemies would be far more susceptible to the charms of a brad pitt than an angelina jolie.



christ, this post was all over the place.

[Superhobo]

Thanks for the kudos.

the Bible is the main foundation for my faith, but it's not the only source I have. Regarding homosexuality, I've seen it tear people's lives apart. I've seen the deceit, dishonesty, and lack of trust between the people involved. And to top it all off, I've also seen how it affects children. Taking my own expereinces into account, as well as the Bible, I've come to the concreete conclusion that God defined it as wrong for a very important reason. He wanted to protect us, and spare us from the pain and loneliness often associated with it. God even went so far as to call it "an abombination"; that's a pretty strong term, and yet most try to think of homosexuality as the sexual equivalent of a career choice. :(

Getting your hair cut is also an abomination, btw. As well as eating crabs ( is it crabs or something else? I forget). And, you have yet to answer my question.

Where does JESUS HIMSELF condemn homosexuality? Matthew? Mark? Luke? John? Where? Where does HE HIMSELF condemn it?

Also, everything you said about homosexuality also applies to heterosexual relationships, in spades.

:dry:

[unstoppable]

...Your avvy is Ghey. :up:
you'd have to be gay to dance that good :o

[MaskedManJRK]

I propose a new military policy when it comes to gays in the military. It's called "Don't Ask, Don't Give a F**k."

Don't ask about a potential soldier's sexual orientation, and don't give a f**k if the soldier is gay or not.

[Badger]

Thanks for the kudos.

the Bible is the main foundation for my faith, but it's not the only source I have. Regarding homosexuality, I've seen it tear people's lives apart. I've seen the deceit, dishonesty, and lack of trust between the people involved. And to top it all off, I've also seen how it affects children. Taking my own expereinces into account, as well as the Bible, I've come to the concreete conclusion that God defined it as wrong for a very important reason. He wanted to protect us, and spare us from the pain and loneliness often associated with it. God even went so far as to call it "an abombination"; that's a pretty strong term, and yet most try to think of homosexuality as the sexual equivalent of a career choice. :(

Please show me where this is qouted. And, by qoute I mean a direct qoute.

As far as your "experience" with homosexuality, I think that has more to do with the people you've had in your life and not the their sexual orientation. Simple because my experience has been the complete and total opposite.

[Majik1387]

Get rid of it for christ's sake. It doesn't help the army in any way.

Any argument saying that gay people aren't as good as straight people is just bigoted hot air better left in the heads of the idiots who say them.

As for the whole flirting thing, I have yet to see a big scandal with heterosexual men and women in the army.

Seeing as how I have moviefan on ignore for obvious reasons all I have to say is he's wrong. So stop quoting him so I don't have to listen to his ridiculous statements!:cmad:



Please?:yay:


BTW, this poll sucks that we can't see who voted what.:cmad:

[888]

Thanks for the kudos.

the Bible is the main foundation for my faith, but it's not the only source I have. Regarding homosexuality, I've seen it tear people's lives apart. I've seen the deceit, dishonesty, and lack of trust between the people involved. And to top it all off, I've also seen how it affects children. Taking my own expereinces into account, as well as the Bible, I've come to the concreete conclusion that God defined it as wrong for a very important reason. He wanted to protect us, and spare us from the pain and loneliness often associated with it. God even went so far as to call it "an abombination"; that's a pretty strong term, and yet most try to think of homosexuality as the sexual equivalent of a career choice. :(

all the underlined stuff is because of all the red stuff.

[888]

Don't ask about a potential soldier's sexual orientation, and don't give a f**k if the soldier is gay or not.

but i have to know whether my gunner is going to try to seduce me while we're being napalmed!

[Moviefan2k4]

Where does JESUS HIMSELF condemn homosexuality?"I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day." ~Matthew 10:15~

In the above verse, Jesus clearly defines the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as "wicked". the account of events regarding that city (found in Genesis) mentions that homosexuality was one of the crimes its citizens were guilty of.

"But before they retired for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. 5 They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”"~Genesis 19:4-5~

Also, the angels who visited Lot's house took protective action agaisnt those men...

“Stand back!” they shouted. “This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he’s acting like our judge! We’ll treat you far worse than those other men!” And they lunged toward Lot to break down the door. But the two angels[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019;&version=51;#fen-NLT-468a)] reached out, pulled Lot into the house, and bolted the door. Then they blinded all the men, young and old, who were at the door of the house, so they gave up trying to get inside." ~Genesis 19:9-11~

In verses 6-8, Lot was even willing to go so far as to give his two virgin daughters to these idiots, in order to protect God's angels. But the men wanted the angels more than Lot's daughters, resulting in their blindness. God would have no reason to blind someone for an action He deemed right or proper. So therefore, the only other result can be that homosexuality is wrong.

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

Gays in the military breaks the uniformity of thought and function that is necessary to combat units. If they can't function in combat, I'm not sure if it would be fair to allow them into support elements. Everyone would start signing up wearing Lee Press-on nails.

[Superhobo]

"I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day." ~Matthew 10:15~

In the above verse, Jesus clearly defines the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as "wicked". the account of events regarding that city (found in Genesis) mentions that homosexuality was one of the crimes its citizens were guilty of.

"But before they retired for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. 5 They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”"~Genesis 19:4-5~

Also, the angels who visited Lot's house took protective action agaisnt those men...

“Stand back!” they shouted. “This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he’s acting like our judge! We’ll treat you far worse than those other men!” And they lunged toward Lot to break down the door. But the two angels[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019;&version=51;#fen-NLT-468a)] reached out, pulled Lot into the house, and bolted the door. Then they blinded all the men, young and old, who were at the door of the house, so they gave up trying to get inside." ~Genesis 19:9-11~

In verses 6-8, Lot was even willing to go so far as to give his two virgin daughters to these idiots, in order to protect God's angels. But the men wanted the angels more than Lot's daughters, resulting in their blindness. God would have no reason to blind someone for an action He deemed right or proper. So therefore, the only other result can be that homosexuality is wrong.

... and giving your daughters to a crowd of bloodthirsty homasechshauls is
right? 'Kay.

I'm gonna stop right here, because I'm tired. I'll give you a more complete answer tomorrow, moviefan. Same bat-time, same bat-channel. So, don't miss it.

[knowsbleed]

Gays in the military breaks the uniformity of thought and function that is necessary to combat units. If they can't function in combat, I'm not sure if it would be fair to allow them into support elements. Everyone would start signing up wearing Lee Press-on nails.

Women are not in combat units either...but they are allowed in the military.

[SuperFerret]

Gays in the military breaks the uniformity of thought and function that is necessary to combat units. If they can't function in combat, I'm not sure if it would be fair to allow them into support elements. Everyone would start signing up wearing Lee Press-on nails.

Finally, an on-topic post.

How does being homosexual break the uniformity of thought in combat? Gays can think Shoot to kill as well as any heterosexual person can.

[Majik1387]

Gays in the military breaks the uniformity of thought and function that is necessary to combat units. If they can't function in combat, I'm not sure if it would be fair to allow them into support elements. Everyone would start signing up wearing Lee Press-on nails.
You're a ****ing idiot if you really believe that.

[Abaddon]

Gays in the military breaks the uniformity of thought and function that is necessary to combat units. If they can't function in combat, I'm not sure if it would be fair to allow them into support elements. Everyone would start signing up wearing Lee Press-on nails.

there are already gays in the military.

nobody in the military would ever be allowed to wear press-on nails.

[888]

anyway, this policy is my get out of jail free card incase they bring back the draft, so it's a-ok with me. i'd rather take a load than lead in my behind. :(

[Majik1387]

anyway, this policy is my get out of jail free card incase they bring back the draft, so it's a-ok with me. i'd rather take a load than lead in my behind. :(
Wow you're a min moviefan aren't you.

[Badger]

"I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day." ~Matthew 10:15~

In the above verse, Jesus clearly defines the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as "wicked". the account of events regarding that city (found in Genesis) mentions that homosexuality was one of the crimes its citizens were guilty of.

"But before they retired for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. 5 They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”"~Genesis 19:4-5~

Also, the angels who visited Lot's house took protective action agaisnt those men...

“Stand back!” they shouted. “This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he’s acting like our judge! We’ll treat you far worse than those other men!” And they lunged toward Lot to break down the door. But the two angels[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019;&version=51;#fen-NLT-468a)] reached out, pulled Lot into the house, and bolted the door. Then they blinded all the men, young and old, who were at the door of the house, so they gave up trying to get inside." ~Genesis 19:9-11~

In verses 6-8, Lot was even willing to go so far as to give his two virgin daughters to these idiots, in order to protect God's angels. But the men wanted the angels more than Lot's daughters, resulting in their blindness. God would have no reason to blind someone for an action He deemed right or proper. So therefore, the only other result can be that homosexuality is wrong.

Nope, not Jesus or God. Try again.

[888]

Wow you're a min moviefan aren't you.


yes, praise be to jesus. that's how he does it right?

[Majik1387]

yes, praise be to jesus. that's how he does it right?

Ok so you're not a bible freak, you're just either ignorant or naive.

[Abaddon]

lol, you misinterpreted him Majikal.

[Kritish]

anyway, this policy is my get out of jail free card incase they bring back the draft, so it's a-ok with me. i'd rather take a load than lead in my behind. :(

Telling them you're a pacifist works better. It's almost impossible to disprove. :up:

[Moviefan2k4]

Majik and 888, I find your comments in no way humorous. I am not a homosexual, and following Christ doesn't make me a homophobe, either. I believe that homosexuality is 100% sinful, but I also refuse to condemn anyone for it. My job as a believer is to be a witness for Christ, and that means leaving true judgment to Him.

[888]

Ok so you're not a bible freak, you're just either ignorant or naive.

i'm not seeing the difference between the two?:huh:

[CaptainAmerica]

As well as eating crabs ( is it crabs or something else? I forget).

I believe it's eating crustaceans in general that's frowned upon.

[Kritish]

*Artist's impression of what Moviefan fears most.*

http://www.csus.edu/bulletin/bulletin032006/VillagePeople3.jpg

[888]

why? they look like a nice group of upstanding citizens? (except for the the tax dodging indian cheif)

[Majik1387]

i'm not seeing the difference between the two?:huh:
Ignorance - No information on the topic at all.
Naive - Little to no information, or false information on the topic.

The topic being homosexuals that is.

[888]

i was talking about the difference between a bib... eh, nevermind.

[Jack Rabbit]

If they want to fight, let them. We need bodies.

Edit - And ideally, isn't this the type of world we should be fighting for? One where everyone is tolerated for who they are? Everyone should be given a chance to fight for what they want.

[Mr. Socko]

anyway, this policy is my get out of jail free card incase they bring back the draft, so it's a-ok with me. i'd rather take a load than lead in my behind. :(


Does this ridiculousness precede a knock knock joke?

[Kritish]

why? they look like a nice group of upstanding citizens? (except for the the tax dodging indian cheif)

How can you not trust a cop in a leather uniform? :huh:

[MaskedManJRK]

If they want to fight, let them. We need bodies.

Good to hear that from someone within the military. In your expierence, have you known of any of your fellow officers being gay or anything relating to the subject?

[Jack Rabbit]

Good to hear that from someone within the military. In your expierence, have you known of any of your fellow officers being gay or anything relating to the subject?

Well, I'm not an officer, for one...but I know of men who served, gay, and weren't able to really live their lives until they got out. And they loved their service, and it, in a way, oppressed them. So -- that's ****ed up. If they're putting their lives on the line everyday for a country who won't let them be who they are, well, better men than me.

Also, if the dude following me into a fire fight likes the way my ass looks, hopefully he'll fight harder to defend it.:up:

[Kritish]

Also, if the dude following me into a fire fight likes the way my ass looks, hopefully he'll fight harder to defend it.:up:

Bwahahaha! :woot:

[Sloth7d]

Also, if the dude following me into a fire fight likes the way my ass looks, hopefully he'll fight harder to defend it.:up:

Quote of the day.

[unstoppable]

I hate gay related threads

[knowsbleed]

Jack Rabbit just saved the thread :up:

[Jack Rabbit]

Yut.

[Badger]

Also, if the dude following me into a fire fight likes the way my ass looks, hopefully he'll fight harder to defend it.:up:

We have a winner. :woot:

[Mr. Socko]

I laughed. That coupled with the classic quote in your sig make you the winner of this thread JR. Now put your coat on, I'm taking you to Jack Rabbit Slims for the evening. I'll even let you order the $5 shake :oldrazz:

[Kritish]

That quote must be saved for all eternity.

[Mr. Socko]

That quote must be saved for all eternity.


Win!:woot::oldrazz:

[unstoppable]

is that tivo thread still alive

[Jack Rabbit]

Haha, glad that's appreciated, gents.

Now, I must turn in, I have militant things to attend to at 0400.

[Badger]

I'd tivo it but I'm lazy and don't want to look for it.

[Kritish]

It's tivo'ed now

[Sandman138]

I wasn't aware of a "don't ask or tell" policy in the military concerning homosexuals. I knoew there was still a huge amount of debate over whether they should even be allowed into the armed forces to begin with, but this "policy" is news to me.

In my opinion, the main reason many people are opposed towards homosexuals serving in the military is because of a certain "image" represented by a soldier. This "standard" implies a requirement for the following, at least in many minds...


Excellent marksmanship with any and all firearms
Unparalelled bravery in any situation
Total obedience and loyalty to superior officers
Able to "charm" the opposite sex with ease and confidence.


Everything on that list describes what many folks think of when they hear the word "soldier". By contrast, many homosexuals are stereotyped as effeminate,
short-tempered, defiant towards authority, and even cowardly, preferring to stay away from violence...not to mention the obvious fact that they prefer the same sex, rather than the opposite.

In the minds of the general public, all these things combined do not amount to what most would see as "a proper soldier". Other soldiers have expressed past worries over the orientation of their comrades, in fact fearing a sexual advance from them, and thus reducing their own reliablity in the battlefield.

Plainly speaking, I doubt most straight guys in the military would feel very comfortable or secure with a homosexual as their combat partner. In the mind of an average straight officer, I suspect quite a few of them would be genuinely worried for their own safety in that situation. It's all about a mindset, which in turn stems from a belief that homosexuality is wrong. Personally, I don't think gays are actually less qualified to serve in the military, but I do think homosexuality is wrong in and of itself. Their presence often causes a great degree of uncertainty and even fear with other officers, because they want to be 100% sure their combat partner will be there in times of crisis. Generally speaking, military officers will likely trust a straight wingman, gunner, or co-pliot more than a gay one. Right or wrong (as far as the mindset is concerned), it seems that's how it's been for a long time, in the eyes of the military.

http://meninhats.com/comics/20021106.gif
http://meninhats.com/comics/20050218.gif

[S_H_F_4839]

I personally don't care one way or the other, If they want to fight to defend this country let them.

[888]

no, that would make too much sense.

[NateGray]

I've seen enough gay porn to know this is a non-issue.



considering the amount of bull**** people like you(i'm making an assumption, bare with me here) put many of them through their whole lives, i'd say they're far more qualified in this area than the white-bread, mid-west cretins that couldn't tell a palestinian from a puerto rican, that seem to be signing up in droves right now.



i'm not above making a bear/twink reference, so don't tempt me.



i didn't realize we're at war with goldfinger and our military ranks were filled with a bunch of james bonds and ethan hunts. c'mon, who really thinks this? even so, considering who we're fighting right now, i'm pretty sure a great deal of our current enemies would be far more susceptible to the charms of a brad pitt than an angelina jolie.



christ, this post was all over the place.

Sorry gay porn means they are good shots? yeh NO practice with a firearm makes one a good shot not practice with ones dick... now honestly how many gay people go to the range on a regular basis?
I am betting its a lot lower than herto men its a male bonding thing if you own a gun you would understand this.

Lmao you equate taking flack for your sexual preference to bravery....
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yeh no.
It's not the same as bravery when bullets are flying at you and your compatriots.

I will concede the last point though as I am lost on that one as well.

[888]

why do i feel like i just got reamed by henry kissinger?

[chamber-music]

Also, if the dude following me into a fire fight likes the way my ass looks, hopefully he'll fight harder to defend it.:up:

:woot: quote of the week.

Anyways as far as gays in the military. If they wanna fight then we should let them. When your under enemy fire the last thing your gonna be thinking about is if a member of your company is gonna hit on you.

[888]

now honestly how many gay people go to the range on a regular basis?
I am betting its a lot lower than herto men its a male bonding thing if you own a gun you would understand this.


anyway, that sounds alot gayer then anything i've seen in gay porn.

[Memphis Slim]

I'm sure that a person's sexuality has nothing to do with their courage under fire.


Of course not. But, it has everything to do with the coheshion of the fighting unit. Like it or not, sexuality is a very personal thing to people....especially men! This is not like race. This cuts to something deeper. And like it or not, straight men don't like this forced down there throats. That will cause a lot of tension in the barricks and the unit in general.

Homosexuals have always serviced among the troops. But not knowing what they feel is much better to keep the peace. You must be able to trust the man next to you. This would be a huge weakening of our armed forces.

[888]

And like it or not, straight men don't like this forced down there throats. That will cause a lot of tension in the barricks and the unit in general.

"...Armand sat dazed, a faint grin slowly encircling his exotic, freshly shaved face. He stared almost blankly at the words imprinted on the screen, his glazed eyes filled with a subtle satisfaction. As a cool miami breaze crept in quietly through a half open window above his nightstand, armand dipped his hand into one of the pockets of his zebra striped robe. He carefully shuffled his hand around the dark crevice until he grasped the object of his attention. He gently lifted his well manicured hand before stopping right at chest level as he opened his spider leg-like fingers. The silvery metallic surface of a small ciggerette case began to be ever so slowly revealed in the dim light of his well furnished boat-house. However, Just as fast as Armand took to open the case, there was a flash of lightening, but it wasn't coming from the fair, tropical climate that surrounded him, it was coming straight from Armand's spine. He dropped the case, as he suddenly realized he was being overtaken by a second orgasm! As the sweat began..."

[jaguarr]

Of course not. But, it has everything to do with the coheshion of the fighting unit. Like it or not, sexuality is a very personal thing to people....especially men! This is not like race. This cuts to something deeper. And like it or not, straight men don't like this forced down there throats. That will cause a lot of tension in the barricks and the unit in general.

Homosexuals have always serviced among the troops. But not knowing what they feel is much better to keep the peace. You must be able to trust the man next to you. This would be a huge weakening of our armed forces.

We just had someone in the actual military, the Marines in fact, say earlier in the thread that it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference as there are plenty of gay guys serving in the military already that just aren't "out" about their sexuality even though it's known by their fellow servicemen that they are gay, and that they are welcome and an effective and valuable part of their units. Your argument is one I frequently hear from guys who AREN'T in the military, interestingly enough. All of the U.S. servicemen in the various branches that I know or am related to have all said the "don't ask, don't tell" thing is stupid because gay people are already in the armed forces whether anyone likes it or not, and they have served honorably, heroically and successfully without any of the issues of weakening our armed forces as you say it would. As long as they don't flaunt it and make it a point to go out of their way to let people know they are gay, most C.O.'s just look the other way. But make no mistake, most of the people in their unit know they are gay. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a pointless policy that's discriminatory and doesn't stop what it's intended to stop in the slightest.

jag

[terry78]

Usually it's the outsiders that have more of a problem with things than the people actually involved. Then the people involved sometimes feel pressure to change because of it.

[Mr. Socko]

Sorry gay porn means they are good shots? yeh NO practice with a firearm makes one a good shot not practice with ones dick... now honestly how many gay people go to the range on a regular basis?
I am betting its a lot lower than herto men its a male bonding thing if you own a gun you would understand this.


err?...:dry::dry::dry::dry:

[PemLam]

We just had someone in the actual military, the Marines in fact, say earlier in the thread that it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference as there are plenty of gay guys serving in the military already that just aren't "out" about their sexuality even though it's known by their fellow servicemen that they are gay, and that they are welcome and an effective and valuable part of their units. Your argument is one I frequently hear from guys who AREN'T in the military, interestingly enough. All of the U.S. servicemen in the various branches that I know or am related to have all said the "don't ask, don't tell" thing is stupid because gay people are already in the armed forces whether anyone likes it or not, and they have served honorably, heroically and successfully without any of the issues of weakening our armed forces as you say it would. As long as they don't flaunt it and make it a point to go out of their way to let people know they are gay, most C.O.'s just look the other way. But make no mistake, most of the people in their unit know they are gay. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a pointless policy that's discriminatory and doesn't stop what it's intended to stop in the slightest.

jag

100% accurate.

*Considers going gay for Jag...but realizes he'd probably get kicked out and lose his retirement* :csad:

[jaguarr]

100% accurate.

*Considers going gay for Jag...but realizes he'd probably get kicked out and lose his retirement* :csad:

It would never work out between us anyway. I'd always be cheating on you with my wife. :(

jag

[PemLam]

It would never work out between us anyway. I'd always be cheating on you with my wife. :(

jag

Yeah...mine would be pretty pissed off too. She'd prove to me there are truly fates worse than death. :wow:

[Steve Rogers]

Up until MovieFan went biblical on us, I was understanding where he was coming from. He wasn't realy stating his opinion on the subject, but rather giving insight as to why others may be against gays in the military. I can understand what he means, I was in the Army and a lot of the guys I served with were rather anti-gay.I was in the Army too, which is why I think the policy has some pros as well. In an alpha male environment such as the Army where everything is a pissing contest, a gay man doesn't stand a chance of being considered an equal. I knew guys at Fort Bragg who got the s**t kicked out of them because they were rumored to be gay. Take away the don't ask don't tell policy, you take away the veil gays in the millitary are hiding behind. Is it wrong for them to have to hide? Absolutely, however, it is also keeping them safe. In a place like Bragg, if they ever found out, 100% sure that someone was gay, the poor guy would end up geting seriously beat or worse.

[888]

but... but, i support the troops. :( i already had to take the "kerry '04" bumper sticker off my chevy, don't make me take this one off too. :(

[Mr. Socko]

I was in the Army too, which is why I think the policy has some pros as well. In an alpha male environment such as the Army where everything is a pissing contest, a gay man doesn't stand a chance of being considered an equal. I knew guys at Fort Bragg who got the s**t kicked out of them because they were rumored to be gay. Take away the don't ask don't tell policy, you take away the veil gays in the millitary are hiding behind. Is it wrong for them to have to hide? Absolutely, however, it is also keeping them safe. In a place like Bragg, if they ever found out, 100% sure that someone was gay, the poor guy would end up geting seriously beat or worse.

Those type of idiots are the real problem. They're the ones fighting for freedom and equality on a battlefield when they really don't believe in it. Oh yea, forgot this was America for a second:dry:

[jaguarr]

I was in the Army too, which is why I think the policy has some pros as well. In an alpha male environment such as the Army where everything is a pissing contest, a gay man doesn't stand a chance of being considered an equal. I knew guys at Fort Bragg who got the s**t kicked out of them because they were rumored to be gay. Take away the don't ask don't tell policy, you take away the veil gays in the millitary are hiding behind. Is it wrong for them to have to hide? Absolutely, however, it is also keeping them safe. In a place like Bragg, if they ever found out, 100% sure that someone was gay, the poor guy would end up geting seriously beat or worse.

That's honestly the first time I've heard of violence being perpetrated on people even suspected of being gay in the military. I've heard of some pretty hardcore teasing or hazing, maybe a fist fight here and there. But not really full-blown well.....what really constitutes hate-crimes.

jag

[Memphis Slim]

We just had someone in the actual military, the Marines in fact, say earlier in the thread that it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference as there are plenty of gay guys serving in the military already that just aren't "out" about their sexuality even though it's known by their fellow servicemen that they are gay, and that they are welcome and an effective and valuable part of their units. Your argument is one I frequently hear from guys who AREN'T in the military, interestingly enough. All of the U.S. servicemen in the various branches that I know or am related to have all said the "don't ask, don't tell" thing is stupid because gay people are already in the armed forces whether anyone likes it or not, and they have served honorably, heroically and successfully without any of the issues of weakening our armed forces as you say it would. As long as they don't flaunt it and make it a point to go out of their way to let people know they are gay, most C.O.'s just look the other way. But make no mistake, most of the people in their unit know they are gay. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a pointless policy that's discriminatory and doesn't stop what it's intended to stop in the slightest.

jag


And he's the authority for every fighting man?? You will always have people who are cool with it. But I guarantee there will be more who are not! And that will kill our military. Not knowing is better.

I say they should vote on this amongst our troops. Let them tell us what they think. I

[PemLam]

I was in the Army too, which is why I think the policy has some pros as well. In an alpha male environment such as the Army where everything is a pissing contest, a gay man doesn't stand a chance of being considered an equal. I knew guys at Fort Bragg who got the s**t kicked out of them because they were rumored to be gay. Take away the don't ask don't tell policy, you take away the veil gays in the millitary are hiding behind. Is it wrong for them to have to hide? Absolutely, however, it is also keeping them safe. In a place like Bragg, if they ever found out, 100% sure that someone was gay, the poor guy would end up geting seriously beat or worse.

Those type of idiots are the real problem. They're the ones fighting for freedom and equality on a battlefield when they really don't believe in it. Oh yea, forgot this was America for a second:dry:

That's honestly the first time I've heard of violence being perpetrated on people even suspected of being gay in the military. I've heard of some pretty hardcore teasing or hazing, maybe a fist fight here and there. But not really full-blown well.....what really constitutes hate-crimes.

jag

Of course when it happens on a Navy vessel, it's the other way around...boats full of gay sailors beating on the hetero minority.

Friggin' squids. :cmad: :oldrazz:

[jaguarr]

And he's the authority for every fighting man?? You will always have people who are cool with it. But I guarantee there will be more who are not! And that will kill our military. Not knowing is better.

I say they should vote on this amongst our troops. Let them tell us what they think. I

Are you for real? The post of yours that I was addressing went on and on about how gays being "out" in the military would, as a hard and fast indisputable rule, weaken our armed forces and cause dissent amongst all our troops. Jack Rabbit's post alone proves you wrong about that. I notice that you don't address the fact that gays have been in the military since it began, quite often with the knowledge of the people they serve with, and it hasn't caused the downfall of our military.

jag

[jaguarr]

Of course when it happens on a Navy vessel, it's the other way around...boats full of gay sailors beating on the hetero minority.

Friggin' squids. :cmad: :oldrazz:

Haha! My brother-in-law retired from the Navy last year and I ask him all the time if he gets love letters from his shipmates. Haha! :D

jag

[Memphis Slim]

Are you for real? The post of yours that I was addressing went on and on about how gays being "out" in the military would, as a hard and fast indisputable rule, weaken our armed forces and cause dissent amongst all our troops. Jack Rabbit's post alone proves you wrong about that. I notice that you don't address the fact that gays have been in the military since it began, quite often with the knowledge of the people they serve with, and it hasn't caused the downfall of our military.

jag


Let the men and women vote on this issue.

[jaguarr]

Let the men and women vote on this issue.

Well, I've heard from quite a few military people, both in real life and online, that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a joke and doesn't accomplish anything, so I guess we need to get rid of it.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

And he's the authority for every fighting man?? You will always have people who are cool with it. But I guarantee there will be more who are not! And that will kill our military. Not knowing is better.

I say they should vote on this amongst our troops. Let them tell us what they think. I


ahahahaha OH MY GOD! LMAO!

[Jack Rabbit]

And he's the authority for every fighting man?? You will always have people who are cool with it. But I guarantee there will be more who are not! And that will kill our military. Not knowing is better.

He's right on that point. I don't represent everyone, not by a long shot. I don't care, if someone is operationally capable, I don't have a problem with what he does on liberty.

The military tends to attract a certain demographic and that demographic can be notoriously bigoted and narrow-minded, and in that respect, the policy is a good thing, it can spare them ridicule or worse.

As Steve Rogers said before, things can get nasty. I've never heard of things coming to down to that, not in the Marine Corps, but I've heard of it on other service's installations.

I do, however, think some Marines would draw the line at sexual preference. There's no color in the Corps, we're all green, and that's a great environment -- but I don't know how tolerant some people can become.

[Memphis Slim]

Well, I've heard from quite a few military people, both in real life and online, that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a joke and doesn't accomplish anything, so I guess we need to get rid of it.

jag


But you having heard from all of them. A let's face it Jag, you probably talk to thost think like you do, most of the time. You don't probably hang out with cats that think like me. But there are a lot who think like me in the military. So before we go tearing down this rule, you better darn well know how they feel about it. This will effect them. Not me and you. That's just reality.

That's why this needs to be put to a vote amonst them once and for all.

[PemLam]

But you having heard from all of them. A let's face it Jag, you probably talk to thost think like you do, most of the time. You don't probably hang out with cats that think like me. But there are a lot who think like me in the military. So before we go tearing down this rule, you better darn well know how they feel about it.

That's why this needs to be put to a vote amonst them once and for all.

Alrighty then...

I'm active duty...eliminate the policy.

100% so far!

[jaguarr]

But you having heard from all of them. A let's face it Jag, you probably talk to thost think like you do, most of the time. You don't probably hang out with cats that think like me. But there are a lot who think like me in the military. So before we go tearing down this rule, you better darn well know how they feel about it. This will effect them. Not me and you. That's just reality.

That's why this needs to be put to a vote amonst them once and for all.

All I'm saying is that you applied across the board blanket statement to the entire military which were then promptly debunked by someone IN the military. YOU purported to speak for the entire military in your post, in other words.

I'm certainly not against a vote within the military, but I have to wonder how truly democratic such a thing might be, depending on how much influence certain officers and sergeants might try to put on their soldier's voting decisions.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

yeah.
why stamp out homophobia when you can have the Army sponsor it?

[Memphis Slim]

Jack Rabbit: I do, however, think some Marines would draw the line at sexual preference. There's no color in the Corps, we're all green, and that's a great environment -- but I don't know how tolerant some people can become.


As I stated before, a man's sexuality runs a lot deeper than race. This is a highly sensitive issue.
Manhood and masculinity is what it is. It is fought for and protected.

A lot of straight men would rather be called a racial slur than be called "gay". Like it or not.

[Mr Sparkle]

A lot of straight men would rather be called a racial slur than be called "gay". Like it or not.

repressed homosexuals tend to be that way.

[Mr Sparkle]

and ...weird, because I like girls and I never " fought " for my masculinity.
it was just, sort of there.
ascribing these noble connotations of pursuit to something you are either given or not is stupid.

[Jack Rabbit]

I'm not saying it wouldn't case friction...but didn't blacks or hispanics in the military do the same thing? We've come a long way from segregated companies -- I don't see the problem here.

If they want to fight, if they can fight, and they will fight -- let them fight.

[ShadowBoxing]

As I stated before, a man's sexuality runs a lot deeper than race. This is a highly sensitive issue.
Manhood and masculinity is what it is. It is fought for and protected.

A lot of straight men would rather be called a racial slur than be called "gay". Like it or not.
Masculinity and homosexuality are two different things.

[Memphis Slim]

All I'm saying is that you applied across the board blanket statement to the entire military which were then promptly debunked by someone IN the military. YOU purported to speak for the entire military in your post, in other words.

I'm certainly not against a vote within the military, but I have to wonder how truly democratic such a thing might be, depending on how much influence certain officers and sergeants might try to put on their soldier's voting decisions.

jag


It wasn't debunked. He just gave his opinion like I'm giving mine. He cannot speak for thousands of his brothers world-wide. Period.
And you can't worry about how democratic it would be. They still deserve their chance to speak out on this issue. Surely everybody would be okay with it....right? :whatever:

[ShadowBoxing]

I'm certainly not against a vote within the military, but I have to wonder how truly democratic such a thing might be, depending on how much influence certain officers and sergeants might try to put on their soldier's voting decisions.

jag
That, and, the majority usually isn't too reliable when it comes to determining what's best for minorities.

[Memphis Slim]

Masculinity and homosexuality are two different things.



Oh really?

How so?.