DADT Dies on the Senate Floor

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Symmetric Chaos
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19cong.html?_r=1

Obama just has to sign it. Awesome.

BackFire
About damn time. DADT has been shaming this country since its inception.

The Dark Cloud
With all the other far more serious problems facing the country right now why is this even an issue?

skekUng
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
With all the other far more serious problems facing the country right now why is this even an issue?

Simply because an issue does not affect you personally, then you can still be bright enough to realize it affects others. In this case, in a negative way. But, feel free to shit all over it and then start babbling about how everything we do in America is right simply because it's done in America. Would it help you to know it was a restriction from the Clinton era?

Kinneary
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
With all the other far more serious problems facing the country right now why is this even an issue?
Yeah. Who cares about basic human civil rights? It's sooo 1960s.

Omega Vision
Good riddance.

And lol at those who think this will somehow cause major problems and impair the operational effectiveness of the military.

Quiero Mota
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/iwojimagay.jpg

dadudemon
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
With all the other far more serious problems facing the country right now why is this even an issue?

I agree. However, I'm glad to see it go.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Yeah. Who cares about basic human civil rights? It's sooo 1960s.

I agree with the literal interpretation of your statement, not the sarcastic interpretation for which it was intended.

Like I said above, though, I'm glad to see it go. It should never have existed.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Good riddance.

And lol at those who think this will somehow cause major problems and impair the operational effectiveness of the military.

Yeah, it really does depend on the unit.


I knew a gay fella, we'll call him Randy, that worked for Cingular (Now called AT&T) with me that joined the military. He wanted to join because he looked forward, greatly, to being around "all those sexy young men" and also because he was patriotic. He found out quick fast an in a hurry that pretty much none of those men were his type and the military can be serious business. I told that story to tell this one: the concept of a "buff young men" is good in theory, but I do not think the majority of gay men join the military for "hook-ups." That's one reason I thought DADT was stupid to begin with.

I still think we spent too much time on it: both at the federal level and from our Media. It should have been a one day ordeal and that's it.


Originally posted by Quiero Mota
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/iwojimagay.jpg

LMAO!

skekUng
Originally posted by dadudemon
It should have been a one day ordeal and that's it.

How about the rights enjoyed by one citizen should not be up for debate, for even one day, moment or instant, by their fellow citizens? For far too long the reality of equal rights for homosexuals has been made a matter of public debate, by both parties. This is not a simple democracy. This country is a republic ruled by a constitution that was meant to change with the times and carry on the most noble aspects of it's own evolution. Leaving the rights of homosexuals up to their bigoted, ignorant, scared neighbors is a shameful aspect of this country. This is why the time you agree has been wasted on an issue that does not affect you is still important and relevant, even in these tough economic times. It might be a relic from the Clinton era, but let's not forget that before Don't Ask, Don't Tell, homosexuals were sought out and summarily tossed out of the military. It was a step forward at the time, despite being outdated in these days. Is this perhaps one of those moments where Mitt Romney would have yeilded to equal rights, or kept preaching his supposedly mormon-based bullshit? You can't agree with every perspective and then say your position is justified whenever any one of them comes up for debate. This is one of those instances where Mr. Romeny would not have been a better president. This is one of those moments where a congress Mr. Romeny would have supported would not be better than the position preached by the one that is in control for the moment.

dadudemon
Originally posted by skekUng
How about the rights enjoyed by one citizen should not be up for debate, for even one day, moment or instant, by their fellow citizens? For far too long the reality of equal rights for homosexuals has been made a matter of public debate, by both parties. This is not a simple democracy. This country is a republic ruled by a constitution that was meant to change with the times and carry on the most noble aspects of it's own evolution. Leaving the rights of homosexuals up to their bigoted, ignorant, scared neighbors is a shameful aspect of this country. This is why the time you agree has been wasted on an issue that does not affect you is still important and relevant, even in these tough economic times. It might be a relic from the Clinton era, but let's not forget that before Don't Ask, Don't Tell, homosexuals were sought out and summarily tossed out of the military. It was a step forward at the time, despite being outdated in these days. Is this perhaps one of those moments where Mitt Romney would have yeilded to equal rights, or kept preaching his supposedly mormon-based bullshit? You can't agree with every perspective and then say your position is justified whenever any one of them comes up for debate. This is one of those instances where Mr. Romeny would not have been a better president. This is one of those moments where a congress Mr. Romeny would have supported would not be better than the position preached by the one that is in control for the moment.
I'm not reading any of that.

You responded with far too much for such a simple statement.

I mean what I said and it is my opinion: it should have only taken one day to be done with this entire ordeal. We should not have spent as much time on it: it was wrong from day 1 and should have been repealed the first or second day in Obama's administration.

That's it.

I am not sure why you felt the need to write out a huge paragraph to address that one particular point in my post when your probably agreed with it 100%.

Bardock42
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
With all the other far more serious problems facing the country right now why is this even an issue?

I don't know, I'd rather have something happening about a smaller problem, than lots of talk and absolutely nothing happening about a bigger one.

skekUng
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not reading any of that.

You responded with far too much for such a simple statement.

I mean what I said and it is my opinion: it should have only taken one day to be done with this entire ordeal. We should not have spent as much time on it: it was wrong from day 1 and should have been repealed the first or second day in Obama's administration.

That's it.

I am not sure why you felt the need to write out a huge paragraph to address that one particular point in my post when your probably agreed with it 100%.

Read it, and then you'll see how right or wrong you are. Reading shouldn't be a problem for you. Besides, no one here is stupid enough to believe you don't read every word addressed to you. That makes about as much sense as the ignore button.

RE: Blaxican
To be fair, I didn't read what you said either. Not out of malevolence, so much as general laziness. Plus, your posts are a little too diehard liberal, like Kandy's.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by skekUng
Simply because an issue does not affect you personally, then you can still be bright enough to realize it affects others. In this case, in a negative way. But, feel free to shit all over it and then start babbling about how everything we do in America is right simply because it's done in America. Would it help you to know it was a restriction from the Clinton era?


Just wait 5-10 years from now when unemployment is 25-35% inflation is 20-50% (or more), oil is $400 a barrell the Mexican Drug war has completely spilled over into much of the US, Iran has possibly nuked Israel, there is a second Korean War, etc and see how much you give a shit about crap like DADT, gay marriage, abortion, etc

We need to set our priorities NOW or there will be no future for us.

RE: Blaxican
That's a very strange thing to say, considering how little our Gov't gets done in regards to those issues even when it IS focused on them, regardless of civil rights.

Bicnarok

RE: Blaxican
This is just the Gov't's way of trying to save face.

It will go down in the History books that America only lost the war on terror due to our soldiers being distracted by their treasonous gay comrades.

Bicnarok

The MISTER
DADT is already company policy at most places of business. Both telling and asking co-workers about specific sexual preferences is considered harassment.

If I asked a co-workers if they like their toes sucked I'd stand the risk of getting fired. Also if I told my co-workers that I liked to be bitten on my toes during sex my job would be at risk there too.

The military can't just fire people like a McDonalds can. Wasn't DADT just a way to deter unwanted sexual advances? Homosexuality isn't a race or gender, it's a sexual preference. Sexual preferences can be very powerful but that doesn't mean that they deserve respect like races do. If that were the case then child sex advocates should be allowed to marry children as a constitutional right. If a guy likes it up the butt more power to him but what's to gain in giving him special rights to share his sex life details with his co-workers. Giving details about sex with the wife can cost you your job anywhere in America if the wrong person hears you. Why should special right's be given to a specific sex story?

RE: Blaxican
Because it's not special rights. Do you think that heterosexual soldiers don't sit around and talk about all the pussy they get (or wish they were getting), all the time?

Don't believe the fantasy world that King Kandy tells you about the military. Most soldiers are dudes who are ****ing bored at work 90% of the time, and they talk about crap all day long, sex included.

dadudemon
Originally posted by skekUng
Read it, and then you'll see how right or wrong you are. Reading shouldn't be a problem for you. Besides, no one here is stupid enough to believe you don't read every word addressed to you. That makes about as much sense as the ignore button.

I literally did not read anything in your post. It's very much not worth my time.

Give me a 3 sentence summary.

Edit - For all I know, you agreed with me.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by BackFire
inception. Good movie.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by The MISTER
Wasn't DADT just a way to deter unwanted sexual advances?

No, gay people are no more likely to do that than straight people.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If that were the case then child sex advocates should be allowed to marry children as a constitutional right.

You don't see any important differences between children and adults?

Originally posted by The MISTER
If a guy likes it up the butt more power to him but what's to gain in giving him special rights to share his sex life details with his co-workers. Giving details about sex with the wife can cost you your job anywhere in America if the wrong person hears you. Why should special right's be given to a specific sex story?

This adds no special rights, all it does is remove a restriction.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This adds no special rights, all it does is remove a restriction.

Bingo.

I do not think this will increase, significantly, the enrollment of homosexuals in the military. There should be a marginal increase for those that "feared" DADT or the anti-gay mentality, but it should not increase very much at all. There's already plenty serving. smile Some are even open about and no one gives a flying ****.

Ushgarak
13000 people dismissed under it since its inception shows that it had a significant effect, so implying that dismissing it is trivial is not reasonable.

This is obviously a victory, and a significant one at that, well worth the time spent on it and the jubilation at the outcome. In defence of Clinton, DADT isn't what he aimed for, of course; it was the compromise he was forced into. A failure, but not one of intent. The hope was at the time that it would effectively allow gays in without too much fuss, but the dismissal rate has in fact been enormous and it needed to go.

Furthermore, this is a notable cultural moment in the history of the United States.

Lord Lucien
But God hates gays, so letting them serve openly will endanger the military. No one should want to piss off God.

Peach
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
With all the other far more serious problems facing the country right now why is this even an issue?

Believe it or not, people can care about more than one thing at a time!

Anyway, good, I say. About damned time DADT was gotten rid of.

Bicnarok
I think that those who do come out about their gay sexual orientation might have a very hard time, the military is different than other normal jobs. I wish them luck.

skekUng
Originally posted by dadudemon
I literally did not read anything in your post. It's very much not worth my time.

Give me a 3 sentence summary.

Edit - For all I know, you agreed with me.

There's no need to repeat anything I said. You read every word of it.
You just can't respond.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Ushgarak
13000 people dismissed under it since its inception shows that it had a significant effect, so implying that dismissing it is trivial is not reasonable.

This is obviously a victory, and a significant one at that, well worth the time spent on it and the jubilation at the outcome. In defence of Clinton, DADT isn't what he aimed for, of course; it was the compromise he was forced into. A failure, but not one of intent. The hope was at the time that it would effectively allow gays in without too much fuss, but the dismissal rate has in fact been enormous and it needed to go.

Furthermore, this is a notable cultural moment in the history of the United States.

I was under the impression that 13,000 was an insignificant number to the total number of armed service personnel and that this was only a "cultural victory".

Of course, those are both subjective terms we are using.

But let's take a look at the current numbers to see why I called it "insignificant."

Current active numbers:

1,445,000

Current Reserve numbers:
833,600

Total: 2,278,600

Some may note, who know about DADT, that DADT does not apply to reservists. Well, that's only after they have enlisted that DADT does not apply. Not all are rejected as frequently as the active members, but they are still rejected. Indeed, some recruiters even for the active service branches still let gays pass through and they tell them to keep quiet about it. (anecdotal, at best, as I only know of one fella from highschool that that exception was made for.)

Still, how does 13,000 stack up against all the personnel that have served in the forces since 1993?

It is very insignificant.

Now, some may argue that that is a subjective statement on my part. But is it?

It is not.

There is an objective and scientific way to approach this.

What is generally accepted as "statistically significant"? That would be two standard deviations, meaning, if we add in the number of gay rejections, it will create at least 2 standard deviations, year over year.

Do the year over year numbers for 13,000 create a statistical significance, aka, two standard deviations?

Not even close. It is not even 1% of the DoD's 77,000 troop increase over 2007s numbers, much less the entire lifetime of DADT since 1993.

When I say it is "insignificant", that's because it really is. This is not only my subjective opinion, it is a literal fact: they (homosexuals) do not make up nearly enough of the population to be statistically significant for total # of personnel if they were proportianlly represented in the military; much less the obviously disproportionate representation in the armed forces, currently. (Because many are afraid to even apply, do not want to apply, or prefer other options.)

If they become proportionally representative of the population, they still will not be statistically significant. This is part of the reason that DADT was stupid to begin with...and one of the reasons I wanted it repealed (other than it being culturally repulsive, of course.)


Originally posted by skekUng
There's no need to repeat anything I said. You read every word of it.
You just can't respond.

You're correct. Everything you stated, I read completely (Honestly, I didn't read a single word).

And whatever points you made were correct, especially if the contradicted my opinions.

I just can't compare to your awesome might of internet discussion and I am incapable of overlooking a post that seems like a waste of time to me because I am not lazy and I itch to read every last post that is responding to me (not true, I'm lazy especially when it comes to reading walls of text or google searching).

You have complete victory on the contents of that post and I bow to your awesome internet might.


Originally posted by Peach
Believe it or not, people can care about more than one thing at a time!

Anyway, good, I say. About damned time DADT was gotten rid of.

I just don't understand why Obama is taking so long to sign it. There's not catch 22 about it, unlike other repeals.

Bardock42
Hmm, how big is the number 13000 if you compare it to all early dismissals over that time period rather than all service personnel?

King Kandy
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Because it's not special rights. Do you think that heterosexual soldiers don't sit around and talk about all the pussy they get (or wish they were getting), all the time?

Don't believe the fantasy world that King Kandy tells you about the military. Most soldiers are dudes who are ****ing bored at work 90% of the time, and they talk about crap all day long, sex included.
I have no idea why you mentioned me in regards to that statement. I actually agree with what you're saying 100%.

Bardock42
Originally posted by King Kandy
I have no idea why you mentioned me in regards to that statement. I actually agree with what you're saying 100%.

If I had to bet, I'd say he meant King Castle.

King Kandy
Oh, yeah, that would make sense.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, how big is the number 13000 if you compare it to all early dismissals over that time period rather than all service personnel?


Early dismissals for what (such as drug use, admitting to homosexuality, no more need, etc)? Or early dismissals, period?

What about honorable vs. dishonorable discharges?

What distinction are you looking for?

Also, about 3 minutes of google searching could net you whatever you're looking for...maybe. I'm not sure what you're asking for so it may not be there.

If you want to know how many "enlist" in the military, it's between 165,000 and 180,000, each year.

Try http://www.military.com/ as they may have what you're looking for....again... maybe. Obviously, I do not want to lead you astray on what you're looking for.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Early dismissals for what (such as drug use, admitting to homosexuality, no more need, etc)? Or early dismissals, period?

What about honorable vs. dishonorable discharges?

What distinction are you looking for?

Also, about 3 minutes of google searching could net you whatever you're looking for...maybe. I'm not sure what you're asking for so it may not be there.

If you want to know how many "enlist" in the military, it's between 165,000 and 180,000, each year.

Try http://www.military.com/ as they may have what you're looking for....again... maybe. Obviously, I do not want to lead you astray on what you're looking for.

Well, we could discuss what we should look at, I'm just saying perhaps that comparing it to the number of all servicemen may not be the best way to judge its impact.

Is a DADT dismissal a dishonorable discharge?

Ushgarak
Good Lord, dadude, you have such a skewed idea about objective facts and what-not. Basically, you are making a pompous ass of yourself in this thread by suggesting that 13000 does not matter. Seeing as the number of people that should be being kicked out for that reason is 0, the fact that it's more than one every day is a source of shame. Of course, this is before we get into the fact that you are quoting utterly irrelevant figures and trying to pass them off as some trump card of yours.

Irrelevant and inaccurate- sums up your attitude to too many things really. Luckily, your gibberish here will be mostly ignored.

As mentioned, this is a very relevant and significant day.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good Lord, dadude, you have such a skewed idea about objective facts and what-not... Seeing as the number of people that should be being kicked out for that reason is 0, the fact that it's more than one every day is a source of shame. Of course, this is before we get into the fact that you are quoting utterly irrelevant figures and trying to pass them off as some trump card of yours.

Two standard deviations is not a "skewed idea about objective facts". You have more secondary (possibly tertiary) education than I am so I will not inadvertently patronize you with this point, further (Even if you were not a global mod, I would still do this simply out of respect for you professional and educational endeavors.)

I never said that 13,000 "does not matter."

I agree that it was a bigoted practice that was morally wrong.

I said they were insignificant on an account of the total numbers (no conversational context is required as that was explicitly outlined in the post you responded to, originally). You disagreed and said it was significant. I put what I said, earlier, into a most direct and factual context to illustrate where I why I said what I said because you disagreed with it being insignificant.


To the bottom line:

I'm more than open to you showing me that, annually, the numbers of rejected homosexual applicants would result in a statistically significant number if added to the total number of accepted. You can do this with an annual average or the average for each year from 1994 to 2009 and then show what the standard deviation would be and compare than number to the average rejected applicants that were rejected, specifically, for being homosexual. I will definitely admit if I'm wrong. I have done it before and even to you and at least two occasions. I will not get immature or dismissive about it: I will apologize if it exceeded more than 2 standard deviations in a year.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
..Basically, you are making a pompous ass of yourself in this thread by suggesting that 13000 does not matter...

Irrelevant and inaccurate- sums up your attitude to too many things really. Luckily, your gibberish here will be mostly ignored.

Reported for member bashing and trolling.

Ushgarak
Abuse of report then, seeing as this is a criticism of your posting behaviour.

Your standard deviations are meaningless- you are stacking them against the numbers of total servicemen. These are irrelevant numbers to compare to. Very basic stuff, this. Like Bardock has been trying to do, you should at least compare it to discharges for other reasons. I'll give you another to look for- look at it compared to the number of homosexuals estimated to be in the armed forces. That's rather telling.

And meanwhile, of course, that's just discharge numbers- it does not take into account those who never joined because of the law, are discriminated against because of the law or live in fear because of the law. Not to mention the general effect on society having such enshrined discrimination has. No-one is saying that DADT is wiping out the army's ability to fight on grounds of numbers. But people are saying that a. it is wrong, very much so and b. as I said, it's ended up having far more of an effect than originally intended when Clinton signed it.

Your attempts to marginalise its impact, and hence the very good reasons for rejoicing at its downfall, are based on erroneous ideas and your attitude as displayed here says a lot about you.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, we could discuss what we should look at, I'm just saying perhaps that comparing it to the number of all servicemen may not be the best way to judge its impact.

The demographics of the servicemen and women are excellent measures as the only thing we have to do is check to see if they are proportionally represented in the military services compared to the population averages/percentages. (For instance, percentage of homosexuals in the US population versus the percentage of homosexuals in the military or those dismissed for homosexuality and how those numbers compare to the total number in the military. Then, from there, you'd have to find your standard deviation to create your statistical significance.)

We know for a fact that homosexuals are not proportionally represented in the military which lends credence to the idea that those dismissed or rejected would definitely have some sort of statistical representation, but the question I indirectly posed was, "Would that number be significant?"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is a DADT dismissal a dishonorable discharge?

Discharge would be dishonorable as that would entail lying when applying.

Peach
Any number getting kicked out because of their sexuality, or not being allowed to join up, and basically being forced to hide part of who they are, is a significant number. It's discrimination, plain and simple. So yes, 13,000 is a significant number. 100 people would have been a significant number, as it should have been zero.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your standard deviations are meaningless- you are stacking them against the numbers of total servicemen. These are irrelevant numbers to compare to. Very basic stuff, this. Like Bardock has been trying to do, you should at least compare it to discharges for other reasons. I'll give you another to look for- look at it compared to the number of homosexuals estimated to be in the armed forces. That's rather telling.

And meanwhile, of course, that's just discharge numbers- it does not take into account those who never joined because of the law, are discriminated against because of the law or live in fear because of the law. Not to mention the general effect on society having such enshrined discrimination has. No-one is saying that DADT is wiping out the army's ability to fight. But people are saying that a. it is wring, very much so and b. as I said, it's ended up having far more of an effect than originally intended when Clinton signed it.


Since it was my point, and not yours, originally, you cannot say it was wrong unless you prove that exact point, incorrect.

My context was quite clear: repealing DADT will not impact, significantly, the number of homosexuals serving in the military. It is statistically insignificant, now, and will be after the repeal.

Mind, you could make an argument that the number of open gays serving in the military, compared to previous years, could, in and of itself, but statistically significant. We should definitely see multiples of the standard deviation since 1993. If that was your point, I would agree to it. That does not seem like your point. You are approaching this (the "insignificant" point) strictly from a moral standpoint and I have not.

Originally posted by Peach
Any number getting kicked out because of their sexuality, or not being allowed to join up, and basically being forced to hide part of who they are, is a significant number. It's discrimination, plain and simple. So yes, 13,000 is a significant number. 100 people would have been a significant number, as it should have been zero.

But that wasn't my point and the counter to that is a strawman as I agree that any number rejected for being homosexual was morally wrong, but definitely not statistically significant and I've clearly outlined that in my post even before I was responded to.

The Dark Cloud
Originally posted by dadudemon



Discharge would be dishonorable as that would entail lying when applying.

No, it would be "Other Than Honerable" which isn't the same thing

A Dishonorable discharge can only be given via a General Court Martial and you literally have to commit murder, or desert in the heat of combat to get one.

Ushgarak
Your point was irrelevant. Trying to dismiss DADT numbers based on ia meaningless comparison means you are just wasting everyone's time. To use that as a basis of your objective success is feeble.

I'll give you the estimated numbers of homosexuals in the armed forces- it's about 70000. It should be much higher, of course, but discriminatory laws have kept them away. Stacked up on those odds, the situation looks very different. Of course, as mentioned above, DADT basically affects everyone in the armed forces because of the culture it creates. Nonetheless, that 13000 is a very significant number- not astonishingly vast, but significant. Your idea it is not is PRECISELY your subjective opinion and your attempts to make out otherwise are laughably unconvincing. I think you will find how wrong history makes you out to be when you say you don't think repealing this will have an effect on homosexual enlistments.

Your attempted dismissal of the moral side speaks poorly of you as well. There you are just hiding.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your point was irrelevant. Trying to dismiss DADT numbers based on ia meaningless comparison means you are just wasting everyone's time. To use that as a basis of your objective success is feeble.

I'll give you the estimated numbers of homosexuals in the armed forces- it's about 70000. It should be much higher, of course, but discriminatory laws have kept them away. Stacked up on those odds, the situation looks very different. Of course, as mentioned above, DADT basically effects everyone in the armed forces because of the culture it creates. Nonetheless, that 13000 is a very significant number. Your idea it is not is PRECISELY your subjective opinion and your attempts to make out otherwise are laughably unconvincing.

I'm definitely not trying to convince you of my factual approach as that is an impossibility. You've strawman argued your point from you first reply and any further attempt to show you were you've made your error has failed and will definitely fail in the future as we have a fundamental disagreement on our approaches of what should be measured.

Also, what does 70,000 represent...those that identify as being exclusively homosexual, or those that are also bisexual?

Based on a "couples" estimate, only 1.2 million Americans out of the 105.5 million Americans that reported living with a mate, were same-sex partners. That represents about 1.14% of Americans are homosexual. But that number may have multiple things wrong with it. But if it is the most accurate number, then that would make the military numbers slightly disproportionate to the population numbers in favor of more homosexuals serving in the military, as a percentage of the whole, that are represented in the population average.

The high end estimate is 10%, but that could include those that simply participated, at one point, in homosexual acts but do not identify themselves as homosexual, on the whole. I consider both numbers to be incorrect because I do not think a person that currently identifies themselves as heterosexual or a bisexual is a homosexual.

But 3-5% seems to be the number quoted as being "most likely."

So 3% versus 3-5%.

In order for us to see a huge jump in numbers, it would rise, at the most, 2% of total service members.

Do we have that already in the armed services? Certainly for active military, that would mean 42,000 of the 1.44 million.

But based on the current numbers, 3% would be 68,358, which already puts it at the low end. (it definitely is if your 70,000 number is even more accurate than the federal eye's number.)

What about the high end of 5%?

That would be 113,930 people: a jump of 60%. A huge increase.

Will the repeal of DADT significantly impact the ratios of the US military? It will most likely remain between 60,000 and 100,000, depending on the total number of service members. But, it should increase.

This is probably irrelevant to you, though, but I feel that it fits nicely into the thread.


Edit - Just thought of something that is important.

My approach is definitely not "misguided" or "feeble" because part of the justification for repealing DADT was how many gays were already serving in the military and the impact of money spent on supporting DADT: it was a very large waste of money and time to even try to support it because we were already approaching population averages but everyone has to "shutup" about it...pretty much a huge waste of time.

See my previous points about population representation.

Ushgarak
I think most people will find you trying to say that the numbers affected by this law apparently do not matter to be irrelevant also. It's certainly nothing to do with anything useful, nor does any of that stuff you said change any of my points or any of what was said. This IS significant. Very, very significant, Believe otherwise all you like; even believe your fake numerical justifications if you will. You are simply wrong.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think most people will find you trying to say that the numbers affected by this law apparently do not matter to be irrelevant also. It;'s certainly nothing to do with anything useful, nor does any of that stuff you said change any of my points or any of what was said. This IS significant. Very, very significant, Believer otherwise all you like; even believe your fake numerical justifications if you will. You are simply wrong.

You have yet to prove any statistical significance, which is the point you argued against from the beginning (with a strawman, no less).

Also, checking to see how the repealing of DADT will affect current military participation is directly associated with this thread. That much is very obvious.


Person 1: "What will be the impact of the DADT repeal?"

Person2: "Servicemen and women will be able to openly service in the US Military, but the actual numbers of homosexuals serving will not change very much."

Person 1:"But it is an important moral victory, isn't it?"

Person 2: "That it is."


"Fake numerical justifications" is incorrect and I proved that. You have yet to disprove that.

Ushgarak
That's just noise from you, dadude. Your assumption of the numbers not changing much is breathtaking and most likely untrue, though only history will tell. I'd also add "Gay people will no longer have such a huge chance of being fired for their sexual orientation, or have to live a lie to avoid it", which is also statistically significant., Still, no point arguing with someone closed to reason; my points are made so I am done aruging the matter with you.

Quiero Mota

RE: Blaxican
Originally posted by King Kandy
I have no idea why you mentioned me in regards to that statement. I actually agree with what you're saying 100%. Yeah, Bardock's right. I could have sworn that I'd edited that to say Kastle...

You need to change your name, man. no expression

dadudemon
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's just noise from you, dadude. Your assumption of the numbers not changing much is breathtaking and most likely untrue, though only history will tell. I'd also add "Gay people will no longer have such a huge chance of being fired for their sexual orientation, or have to live a lie to avoid it", which is also statistically significant., Still, no point arguing with someone closed to reason; my points are made so I am done aruging the matter with you.

Actually, I directly showed you a correlation between the population and military representations. That was very clearly outlined for you. I do not see how you can just brush that aside and pretend it doesn't exist.

And, the chance of being fired for being gay is obviously very very slim by your own numbers.

70,000 serving with, at most, 1278 people being "fired". That's a 1.8% chance of being fired in the "hugest" situation possible. How is that even remotely a "huge chance"?

Also, I have not been closed to reason as I agreed that it is definitely morally significant. You, however, have been closed to the idea that there is another measure of "significance" as you believe that no math can compare to the morally appalling discrimination: despite the direct reasons for these, isn't that the very definition of "closed-minded"? I have agreed about the moral approach being significant but you have not agreed that the numbers will not increase a a significant p-value.



In fact, I've conceded that if we measure gay numbers against just themselves (rather than comparatively, against the whole as a function of the population ratios), it would be statistically significant (with a ceiling of about a 60% increase...which IS statistically significant.) But that was not my original point and is a bit silly for me to concede a point I did not argue against...especially when that number is not a good measure as it should be an element compared to the system, as a whole.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Yeah, Bardock's right. I could have sworn that I'd edited that to say Kastle...

You need to change your name, man. no expression

laughing

"The earth is the center of the universe", right?

The MISTER
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Because it's not special rights. Do you think that heterosexual soldiers don't sit around and talk about all the pussy they get (or wish they were getting), all the time?

Don't believe the fantasy world that King Kandy tells you about the military. Most soldiers are dudes who are ****ing bored at work 90% of the time, and they talk about crap all day long, sex included. Those guys have to do that in groups that accept that type of talk. They can't do it wherever they want to. Homsexuals already have that same right. Amongst like minded people religion and politics aren't discouraged. They're discouraged as conversation topics at work however. What homosexuals want is equal to two heterosexual soldiers loudly talking about their sexual exploits while surrounded by a room of female soldiers. If heterosexual soldiers will never (and rightly so) never have these special rights again then why should homosexuals have the right to harass people with sexual information that they didn't ask for? Also asking people about their sexual preferences shouldn't be done on the job even though it quite regularly is. This type of talk should be reserved to off duty hours of any job. The rights that homosexuals deserve is to not be harassed by anti-gay sentiment. If harassed the gay man or woman should complain about it and it should be handled as the crime that it is as sexual preference is not a choice and nobody should be mistreated because of who they are. Likewise that person shouldn't have a special right to make others uncomfortable discussing sexual details at work.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by The MISTER
What homosexuals want is equal to two heterosexual soldiers loudly talking about their sexual exploits while surrounded by a room of female soldiers.

Which is already totally allowed. Also, that's not what they're asking for they're just asking not to be thrown out if someone finds out that they're gay.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is already totally allowed.

As long as they do not mind that conversation. "Sexual harassment" charges can and have been brought up...so that's an iffy situation.

However, that does not stop the servicemen and women from saying pretty much whatever the hell they want.

Badabing
I never really cared about this topic. If someone is willing to fight for my freedom and rights, it's not a real issue what "team" they play for imo.

That said, I don't think that people should come out during basic training. I have a bad feeling there would be some heavy duty hazing in those weeks.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
As long as they do not mind that conversation. "Sexual harassment" charges can and have been brought up...so that's an iffy situation.

Right, but repealing DADT has no effect on sexual harassment rules.

inimalist
ddm - your argument is: because there is not a statistically large enough population of gays in the military, the actual impact on how many gays are kicked out will not reach a significant portion of the total people kicked out anyways?

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
ddm - your argument is: because there is not a statistically large enough population of gays in the military, the actual impact on how many gays are kicked out will not reach a significant portion of the total people kicked out anyways?

Uh...no.


I don't understand what you were saying. sad But I understand the confusion because we got a little off track from my original point.


But, what I was saying is that there will not be a significant increase in gays in the military because we were close to population average, already...they can just be more open about it, now, and discrimination will not be tolerated even more so than it is not tolerated now(I hope.)

Here's the original point:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Bingo.

I do not think this will increase, significantly, the enrollment of homosexuals in the military. There should be a marginal increase for those that "feared" DADT or the anti-gay mentality, but it should not increase very much at all. There's already plenty serving. smile Some are even open about and no one gives a flying ****.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Right, but repealing DADT has no effect on sexual harassment rules.

I agree with the second part, too. Well, I hate to make all encompassing statements like that...there probably is an effect...I just don't know how significant it would be.

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
Uh...no.


I don't understand what you were saying. sad But I understand the confusion because we got a little off track from my original point.


But, what I was saying is that there will not be a significant increase in gays in the military because we were close to population average, already...they can just be more open about it, now, and discrimination will not be tolerated even more so than it is not tolerated now(I hope.)

Here's the original point:

so, the repeal is insignificant because there will be no impact on enrollment?

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
so, the repeal is insignificant because there will be no impact on enrollment?

I did say it would be insignificant on enrollment. The increase would be marginal and later, I outlined why I said that: we are already over a 3% "saturation" which is greater than some conservative measures of the homosexual population percentage of America and nicely within the accepted measures (3-5%).

To directly answer you question, no, there WILL be an impact on enrollment, but it will be insignificant because there is not much room left for the numbers to grow.

inimalist
cool, thanks, really didn't want to read all that

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
cool, thanks, really didn't want to read all that

No problem. At the heart of things, there really wasn't a disagreement: DADT was plain discrimination and that was wrong.


In fact, I do not know if anyone wants to keep DADT, in this thread, except for The Mister.


Like I said on page 1, I'm glad to see it finally go...just wish Obama would hurry up with that signature.

skekUng
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're correct. Everything you stated, I read completely (Honestly, I didn't read a single word).

And whatever points you made were correct, especially if the contradicted my opinions.

I just can't compare to your awesome might of internet discussion and I am incapable of overlooking a post that seems like a waste of time to me because I am not lazy and I itch to read every last post that is responding to me (not true, I'm lazy especially when it comes to reading walls of text or google searching).

You have complete victory on the contents of that post and I bow to your awesome internet might.

Why was that so hard for you to do? It's like pulling teeth to get a little compliment from you. Mr. Romney, though, would not have pushed for the repeal of this law.

Impediment
Being an ex-military man, one of the few here on KMC, I can say, in my opinion, that DADT is an outmoded policy that is, thankfully, finally dead and over. Gay, straight, bi...... Who is anyone to tell someone that they cannot serve in the military because of who they have sex with?

dadudemon
Originally posted by skekUng
Why was that so hard for you to do? It's like pulling teeth to get a little compliment from you. Mr. Romney, though, would not have pushed for the repeal of this law.

laughing

Okay..okay...I'll throw you a bone.


That's not the only thing Romney and I disagree on: he opposes the legalization of marijuana and even opposes medical marijuana. Not cool! mad

skekUng
Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay..okay...I'll throw you a bone.

I want nothing to do with your bone. I'm not in the military.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is already totally allowed. Also, that's not what they're asking for they're just asking not to be thrown out if someone finds out that they're gay. If that's what DADT is used for then I hate it. I'm only for respecting peoples rights to not have unwelcome sexual conversations become a right for anyone. Be realistic as well, heterosexual sexual conversations aren't incapable of getting the people having the conversation in trouble when they're at work. I don't know where you work but sexual harassment is RIDICULOUSLY easy to commit and be fired for. Political correctness is required while on the job at most places.

Robtard
Besides the odd disciplinary charge brought against gay-bashing soldiers who decide to pick on an openly-gay member, this shouldn't have a huge impact on/in the military.

I do wonder if the anti-gay front will now try and push some 'gays in gay-units only' type of legislation.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm only for respecting peoples rights to not have unwelcome sexual conversations become a right for anyone. Be realistic as well, heterosexual sexual conversations aren't incapable of getting the people having the conversation in trouble when they're at work. I don't know where you work but sexual harassment is RIDICULOUSLY easy to commit and be fired for. Political correctness is required while on the job at most places.

I'm not sure why you're so focused about "at work" we're talking about "in the army". Most soldiers are manly men in their twenties, of course they brag about their sexual exploits and they'll do it somewhat even if regulations are against it. If that gets deemed inappropriate by a superior they get thrown out. Repealing DADT does not mean gays can now say anything they want (I don't even know where you got that impression), it just means they can't be thrown out purely on the basis that they're gay.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most soldiers are manly men in their twenties, of course they brag about their sexual exploits and they'll do it somewhat even if regulations are against it.

Did you mean to say "mainly men" or did you actually mean "manly men"? Either way the statement would be correct.

The regs against it really only apply in professional situations like meetings or using the correct protocol in front of one's CO. But if they're off the clock, or bored-shitless at their post, or in a Cold Zone (military term: nothing happening, no enemies present), then of course sex will come up when they're BS'ing. That's when DATD might become an issue; some gay soldier has a slip of the tongue "Yeah, and I banged two dudes last week in Manila.".

inimalist
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Did you mean to say "mainly men" or did you actually mean "manly men"? Either way the statement would be correct.

The regs against it really only apply in professional situations like meetings or using the correct protocol in front of one's CO. But if they're off the clock, or bored-shitless at their post, or in a Cold Zone (military term: nothing happening, no enemies present), then of course sex will come up when they're BS'ing. That's when DATD might become an issue; some gay soldier has a slip of the tongue "Yeah, and I banged two dudes last week in Manila.".

thankfully, though, that would now be dealt with as sexual harrassment, and not just immediately result in the soldier being booted out

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
thankfully, though, that would now be dealt with as sexual harrassment, and not just immediately result in the soldier being booted out

The thing though, guys talking about how much "pussy they be gettin" in the barracks is common and no one really gives a shit. But if a gay-soldier talks about how much dick and/or ass he's into, it can/will be considered sexual harassment towards the straight-soldiers? Doesn't seem logical or fair for that matter.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Robtard
The thing though, guys talking about how much "pussy they be gettin" in the barracks is common and no one really gives a shit. But if a gay-soldier talks about how much dick and/or ass he's into, it can/will be considered sexual harassment towards the straight-soldiers? Doesn't seem logical or fair for that matter.

Then I guess they'll have to learn to keep their gay quest stories to themselves, won't they? Or at least be sure they're in the company of other gay soldiers.

In my unit we could always tell who the gay guys were (or at least suspected), because when it came to trading "gettin pussy" stories, they were either stone-quiet or had the most outlandish, whack-ass stories.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
The thing though, guys talking about how much "pussy they be gettin" in the barracks is common and no one really gives a shit. But if a gay-soldier talks about how much dick and/or ass he's into, it can/will be considered sexual harassment towards the straight-soldiers? Doesn't seem logical or fair for that matter.

so long a it isnt just a systemic way to kick out gays, sure, they might get more complaints, but inquiry should favor them. if it is fair, they probably won't get booted for participating in that kind of banter, IMHO of course

Tattoos N Scars
Another sign this country is going the way of the old Roman Empire.

Robtard
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Then I guess they'll have to learn to keep their gay quest stories to themselves, won't they? Or at least be sure they're in the company of other gay soldiers.

In my unit we could always tell who the gay guys were (or at least suspected), because when it came to trading "gettin pussy" stories, they were either stone-quiet or had the most outlandish, whack-ass stories.

Which would be smart on their end, but still shows the clear level of inequality in the system. Baby-steps, I guess.

Hahahahaa.

Robtard
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Another sign this country is going the way of the old Roman Empire.

Homosexual men served in the Legions and they were treated as equals to any other soldier. This was common from the onset of Roman expansion. Go figure.

Do you honestly think gay soldiers are going to impact the US military even marginally? There are gays serving now and they have been serving since the the Revolutionay War.

skekUng
Originally posted by The MISTER
If that's what DADT is used for then I hate it. I'm only for respecting peoples rights to not have unwelcome sexual conversations become a right for anyone. Be realistic as well, heterosexual sexual conversations aren't incapable of getting the people having the conversation in trouble when they're at work. I don't know where you work but sexual harassment is RIDICULOUSLY easy to commit and be fired for. Political correctness is required while on the job at most places.

That is the same bullshit argument I've heard about displays of public affection. When someone says they "don't want to see heterosexual displays of public affection, either!", they're really just talking about how gross they find homosexuality. "I don't want to see a straight couple sucking face and molesting each other, either" is a silly argument. No one wants to watch two people slather all over each other, no matter their orientation. But, two guys holding hands are prone to get their asses kicked, while two heterosexuals are in no danger. But, the real shame is that you feel the need to turn this into a discussion of blatant sexuality. It isn't even your fault, per se. It's how the debate has been framed since before either of us were born, and it remains the refuge of the people who think of homosexuals as nothing other then their sexual orientation.

skekUng
Originally posted by Robtard
The thing though, guys talking about how much "pussy they be gettin" in the barracks is common and no one really gives a shit. But if a gay-soldier talks about how much dick and/or ass he's into, it can/will be considered sexual harassment towards the straight-soldiers? Doesn't seem logical or fair for that matter.

Even though most soldiers in this situation are young, they are better equiped to understand and even relate to other homosexuals their own age, than people a generation or two removed. When the bragging is former sexual conquests, male or female, the intent is the same. There is a far greater level of acceptance by people in their teens and early 20s than ever before. I think they'll be fine. Besides, most homosexuals in the military will still likely not become the flaming parade queens most people think of gays.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Robtard
Homosexual men served in the Legions and they were treated as equals to any other soldier. This was common from the onset of Roman expansion. Go figure.

The Spartans and Samurai as well. In fact the ancient Greeks actually encouraged gay-sex in their military.

Robtard
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Spartans and Samurai as well. In fact the ancient Greeks actually encouraged gay-sex in their military.

And all had very a successful militaries.

Robtard
Originally posted by skekUng
Even though most soldiers in this situation are young, they are better equiped to understand and even relate to other homosexuals their own age, than people a generation or two removed. When the bragging is former sexual conquests, male or female, the intent is the same. There is a far greater level of acceptance by people in their teens and early 20s than ever before. I think they'll be fine. Besides, most homosexuals in the military will still likely not become the flaming parade queens most people think of gays.

I think many of the rampant ant-gay people imagine gay soldiers prancing about with their shirts opened and tied-up like Daisey Duke, their pants cut into short-shorts and dancing/singing to Y.M.C.A.

Just not so. Rules and regulations still apply and I suspect an openly gay soldier to adhere to those rules and regulations even more-so, since they'll be watched more closely, at least until this blows over in several years and no one really cares anymore.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Robtard
I think many of the rampant ant-gay people imagine gay soldiers prancing about with their shirts opened and tied-up like Daisey Duke, their pants cut into short-shorts and dancing/singing to Y.M.C.A.

Just not so. Rules and regulations still apply and I suspect an openly gay soldier to adhere to those rules and regulations even more-so, since they'll be watched more closely, at least until this blows over in several years and no one really cares anymore.

Well obviously, when they're on duty they'll have to adhere to the regs and wear the BDU's and other standard attire. But when off-duty, on leave, or R&R, a soldier can can dress however they please. So when on vacation, some openly gay soldiers could wear Daisy Dukes and sing along to the Village People, and it would not be in violation of anything.

Robtard
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well obviously, when they're on duty they'll have to adhere to the regs and wear the BDU's and other standard attire.

But when off-duty, on leave, or R&R, a soldier can can dress however they please. So when on vacation, some openly gay soldiers could wear Daisy Dukes and sing along to the Village People, and it would not be in violation of anything.

Well yes, that was my point. They'll adhere just like a straight soldier.

And that's there own business.

The MISTER
Originally posted by skekUng
That is the same bullshit argument I've heard about displays of public affection. When someone says they "don't want to see heterosexual displays of public affection, either!", they're really just talking about how gross they find homosexuality. "I don't want to see a straight couple sucking face and molesting each other, either" is a silly argument. No one wants to watch two people slather all over each other, no matter their orientation. But, two guys holding hands are prone to get their asses kicked, while two heterosexuals are in no danger. But, the real shame is that you feel the need to turn this into a discussion of blatant sexuality. It isn't even your fault, per se. It's how the debate has been framed since before either of us were born, and it remains the refuge of the people who think of homosexuals as nothing other then their sexual orientation. Why don't we just cut the bullshit out and deal with the reality of two men screwing as something that might turn the stomach of a straight man. We obviously aren't talking about women who are gay as that will not turn the stomach of many straight men. Feces comes out of the butt. Gay men having spontaneous sex run the risk of dealing with shit on their penis. Shit stinks. The mental image of shitty, man on man sex has the potential to turn a straight mans stomach unlike heterosexual sex that does not normally involve feces. You can blame the nose if you want to blame anything. Anything that involves dealing with shit is usually deemed unpleasant. Doo Doo is a foregone conclusion in spontaneus anal sex whether it's a man or a womans anus. In straight sex, shit and ass mucous aren't in the mental image at all. Also you're crazy if you think that people don't want to see straight people slathering all over each other. It's called porn and it's quite popular. People don't choose what they like and dislike but if someone likes something that many other people find disgusting then it's not those other peoples faults. If a man likes to eat shit then he will be asked to refrain from sharing the details of his meals even if it's totally legal to share that information with anyone he chooses. It's not homosexuality that most men find gross, it's a potential feces covered penis. How many straight guys do you think find women on women gross? Many straight people probably find straight anal sex gross. With man on man sex anal mucous and feces are part of the organs that they use to have intercourse. And don't try to suggest that feces is not naturally what the anus deals with. smokin'

Robtard
Originally posted by The MISTER
It's not homosexuality that most men find gross, it's a potential feces covered penis.

Hahahaahha, you've got some issues, bro.

I don't watch gay porn simply because I don't find men sexually attractive, not because of some 'there will be shit' aspect if two guys start ****ing. Though scat-porn is repulsive to me.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Robtard
Hahahaahha, you've got some issues, bro.

I don't watch gay porn simply because I don't find men sexually attractive, not because of some 'there will be shit' aspect if two guys start ****ing. Though scat-porn is repulsive to me. I'm a FREAK (happily married) so I don't judge peoples personal preferences....But I do share your disgust with scat period. Gay porn probably doesn't have any scat in it cause straight porn doesn't unless it's labeled to have it. A straight spontaneous anal encounter might turn out stinkier than a person might expect from watching porn.

You probably forgot that gay porn includes women only scenes too. See how the mind works when discussing scat and gay people? Your brain excluded gay women without even trying. DADT probably caused about ten women any trouble at all while thousands of guys where unfairly treated. Bottom line is I'm glad that it's gone but people should be realistic about what it is that's disgusting to some folks and it doesn't apply to gay women.

Robtard
Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm a FREAK (happily married) so I don't judge peoples personal preferences....But I do share your disgust with scat period. Gay porn probably doesn't have any scat in it cause straight porn doesn't unless it's labeled to have it. A straight spontaneous anal encounter might turn out stinkier than a person might expect from watching porn.

You probably forgot that gay porn includes women only scenes too. See how the mind works when discussing scat and gay people? Your brain excluded gay women without even trying. DADT probably caused about ten women any trouble at all while thousands of guys where unfairly treated. Bottom line is I'm glad that it's gone but people should be realistic about what it is that's disgusting to some folks and it doesn't apply to gay women.

K. I still thing you're got some issues, bro.

No, I've not forgotten that "gay" does/can include homosexual women, but it's often referred to 'gay and lesbian' denoting the difference and since the topic at hand was "gay man sex" my use of "gay" obviously reflected only the male aspect.

There were no "mind tricks". I don't associate feces with male homosexually, no more than I associate urine with lesbians, cos you know, the urethera is part of the vagina.

skekUng
Originally posted by The MISTER
Why don't we just cut the bullshit out and deal with the reality of two men screwing as something that might turn the stomach of a straight man. We obviously aren't talking about women who are gay as that will not turn the stomach of many straight men. Feces comes out of the butt. Gay men having spontaneous sex run the risk of dealing with shit on their penis. Shit stinks. The mental image of shitty, man on man sex has the potential to turn a straight mans stomach unlike heterosexual sex that does not normally involve feces. You can blame the nose if you want to blame anything. Anything that involves dealing with shit is usually deemed unpleasant. Doo Doo is a foregone conclusion in spontaneus anal sex whether it's a man or a womans anus. In straight sex, shit and ass mucous aren't in the mental image at all. Also you're crazy if you think that people don't want to see straight people slathering all over each other. It's called porn and it's quite popular. People don't choose what they like and dislike but if someone likes something that many other people find disgusting then it's not those other peoples faults. If a man likes to eat shit then he will be asked to refrain from sharing the details of his meals even if it's totally legal to share that information with anyone he chooses. It's not homosexuality that most men find gross, it's a potential feces covered penis. How many straight guys do you think find women on women gross? Many straight people probably find straight anal sex gross. With man on man sex anal mucous and feces are part of the organs that they use to have intercourse. And don't try to suggest that feces is not naturally what the anus deals with. smokin'

And the penis and vagina are used to piss, so I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your point. Now, if you'd like to copy and past this post into a thread about why bible beaters or rednecks or forum trolls hate homosexuals, then I think you'll have a very valid point.

No one does want to see a straight couple, or a gay couple -male or female gay couple- slathering all over each other. If you want to compare PDsA with pornography, roll your computer into a McDonalds or a Wal-Mart and start publically playing pornography. Pornography is best enjoyed in private, where you can masturbate until mucous comes out of your anus, just like two adult human beings licking each other about the face while I'm trying to eat. All sex is gross, that's your all knowing god putting our reproductive organs in the same place as our waste disposal organs. Havent you ever watched any of this porn you're talking about?

If the first thing you see is a shit covered dick when you see two guys holding hands, then you are the one with issues, not them.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Robtard
K. I still thing you're got some issues, bro.

No, I've not forgotten that "gay" does/can include homosexual women, but it's often referred to 'gay and lesbian' denoting the difference and since the topic at hand was "gay man sex" my use of "gay" obviously reflected only the male aspect.

There were no "mind tricks". I don't associate feces with male homosexually, no more than I associate urine with lesbians, cos you know, the urethera is part of the vagina. I do have issues. I'm far too blunt and honest for most people. My preference is pretty feet. I consider this a blessing but other people don't understand unless they feel the exact same. I can actually relate to being born with an unexplainable preference that other people don't understand. It's fairly easy for me to determine who at my job could care less to know exactly what I do with with my wife's feet. Don't get the wrong idea Robtard. I have an uncle whom I love dearly who prefers men. I don't care about that and I can say that he's never discussed his encounters with me and I've never asked him about any. I'm not accusing you of mind tricks, just reffering to how easy it is to forget women when talking about what's undesirable about gay sex. Squirting is an old fetish considering the urethra. Squirting diarrhea might be one too but I'm sure it's less popular.

The MISTER
Originally posted by skekUng
And the penis and vagina are used to piss, so I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your point. Now, if you'd like to copy and past this post into a thread about why bible beaters or rednecks or forum trolls hate homosexuals, then I think you'll have a very valid point.

No one does want to see a straight couple, or a gay couple -male or female gay couple- slathering all over each other. If you want to compare PDsA with pornography, roll your computer into a McDonalds or a Wal-Mart and start publically playing pornography. Pornography is best enjoyed in private, where you can masturbate until mucous comes out of your anus, just like two adult human beings licking each other about the face while I'm trying to eat. All sex is gross, that's your all knowing god putting our reproductive organs in the same place as our waste disposal organs. Havent you ever watched any of this porn you're talking about?

If the first thing you see is a shit covered dick when you see two guys holding hands, then you are the one with issues, not them. Public displays of affection are fine with me and so are two guys holding hands. Humans are finicky creatures and so any display is judged by the crowd present. People are usually jealous of public displays of affection and that's why they complain so much. GET A ROOM!! is what many people say but it's because they're uncomfortable. My point is and remains this: People make mental images against their will and discourage anything that sparks unpleasant ones whether it seems fair or not.

skekUng
Originally posted by The MISTER
I can actually relate to being born with an unexplainable preference that other people don't understand.

Then do your uncle a favor and stop equating his homosexuality with your foot fetish.

You're only trying to paint homosexuality as a choice when you make such a comparison. It's silly to say you were born with a foot fetish, which is eaxctly what you want someone to point out, so that you can then say that homosexuality is something you learn and choose.

Your tactic of professing happiness over this repeal while also talking about shit covered dicks, foot fetishes and basically illustrating your total -and likely willful- inability to understand homosexuality, are at odds with each other. You know this and are simply trying to get people to paint themselves into a conversational corner.

The MISTER
Originally posted by skekUng
Then do your uncle a favor and stop equating his homosexuality with your foot fetish.

You're only trying to paint homosexuality as a choice when you make such a comparison. It's silly to say you were born with a foot fetish, which is eaxctly what you want someone to point out, so that you can then say that homosexuality is something you learn and choose.

Your tactic of professing happiness over this repeal while also talking about shit covered dicks, foot fetishes and basically illustrating your total -and likely willful- inability to understand homosexuality, are at odds with each other. You know this and are simply trying to get people to paint themselves into a conversational corner.

I don't think homosexuality is a choice. Where did you get that at all? Why do you make up junk and then attack the junk that you made up?
I've noticed that you do it all the time.

Show me where I suggested that sexual preference was a choice, ever. If you can't then the fact that you make false accusations is confirmed Skekung.

skekUng
Originally posted by The MISTER
Public displays of affection are fine with me and so are two guys holding hands. Humans are finicky creatures and so any display is judged by the crowd present. People are usually jealous of public displays of affection and that's why they complain so much. GET A ROOM!! is what many people say but it's because they're uncomfortable. My point is and remains this: People make mental images against their will and discourage anything that sparks unpleasant ones whether it seems fair or not.

So, your point is that your wife thinks about you pissing on her face when the two of you are engaging in oral sex?

I can understand that some people are jealous of two others in a happy relationship. Jealous and uncomfortable are two different things, though. I'm rarely jealous of those couples, only embarassed for them.

skekUng
Originally posted by The MISTER
I don't think homosexuality is a choice. Where did you get that at all? Why do you make up junk and then attack the junk that you made up?
I've noticed that you do it all the time.

Show me where I suggested that sexual preference was a choice, ever. If you can't then the fact that you make false accusations is confirmed Skekung.

I didn't say you said it. I said I'm certain that is where you're going with it. If you want to equate being a homosexual with having a foot fetish, there's really only one way you can go with that train of thought. That's like saying Ted Haggard was born with a speed problem and is straight, but just likes sleeping with male prostitutes in seedy motels. Homosexuality isn't just a fetish people have so they can get off and go back to their normal lives. Being gay is exactly the same as being straight, only the person with whom you're having the sex is the same gender. You're a straight guy with a foot fetish. Joe Schmoe is a gay guy with a thing for tight asses. See?

And that brings it full circle: the repeal of this law will free those homosexuals who have been forced to live a lie to go on in their jobs with a bit more dignity and protection.

The MISTER
Originally posted by The MISTER
I don't think homosexuality is a choice. Where did you get that at all? Why do you make up junk and then attack the junk that you made up?
I've noticed that you do it all the time.

Show me where I suggested that sexual preference was a choice, ever. If you can't then the fact that you make false accusations is confirmed Skekung. Are you going to ignore this too? Like you ignore so many things. I can see your tactics as well skekung. The problem is you suck at predicting peoples motives. You're constantly telling people what they're trying to do even when you're dead wrong. Show me where I suggested any preference was a choice to support your earlier accusation.

At least you didn't ignore it.

Robtard
Originally posted by The MISTER
I do have issues. I'm far too blunt and honest for most people. My preference is pretty feet. I consider this a blessing but other people don't understand unless they feel the exact same. I can actually relate to being born with an unexplainable preference that other people don't understand. It's fairly easy for me to determine who at my job could care less to know exactly what I do with with my wife's feet. Don't get the wrong idea Robtard. I have an uncle whom I love dearly who prefers men. I don't care about that and I can say that he's never discussed his encounters with me and I've never asked him about any. I'm not accusing you of mind tricks, just reffering to how easy it is to forget women when talking about what's undesirable about gay sex. Squirting is an old fetish considering the urethra. Squirting diarrhea might be one too but I'm sure it's less popular.

WTF? I told you exactly why and how I used the word "gay", I was referring to male-homosexuality(and this was the main point of discusion) as this is common verbiage these days. Gay is typically now used to denote male-homosexuality, ie "gay, lesbian and transgendered."

Every aspect of gay(see above) sex is undesirable(not gross) to me, as I don't find men attractive; it's got nothing to do with "shit covered dicks." I don't think about that when I discuss male homosexuality, "shit-dick" isn't something that instantly comes to mind. Just as I said above, "urine" wouldn't be the first thought in my head in a topic concerning lesbian sex. Your mind may work that way, doesn't mean others do.

WTF #2"Squirting" isn't urine, it's female ejaculate, though some amounts of urine coming out is common during vaginal intercourse/play, especially during female orgasm. Just the way the body is made.

jaden101
Enough with the gay as **** arguments, you bunch of faggy homo bum boys.

Robtard
Originally posted by jaden101
Enough with the gay as **** arguments, you bunch of faggy homo bum boys.

You want to stop masturbating but can't, gotcha.

The MISTER
Originally posted by skekUng
I didn't say you said it. I said I'm certain that is where you're going with it. If you want to equate being a homosexual with having a foot fetish, there's really only one way you can go with that train of thought. That's like saying Ted Haggard was born with a speed problem and is straight, but just likes sleeping with male prostitutes in seedy motels. Homosexuality isn't just a fetish people have so they can get off and go back to their normal lives. Being gay is exactly the same as being straight, only the person with whom you're having the sex is the same gender. You're a straight guy with a foot fetish. Joe Schmoe is a gay guy with a thing for tight asses. See?

And that brings it full circle: the repeal of this law will free those homosexuals who have been forced to live a lie to go on in their jobs with a bit more dignity and protection.

'And that brings it full circle: the repeal of this law will free those homosexuals who have been forced to live a lie to go on in their jobs with a bit more dignity and protection.'

I agree 100%

As for being certain where people are going with things I suggest that you wait and see whether you are right or not. I really don't see why all preferences can't be classified as the same. I'm sure that straight and gay are just labels that like all labels leave much to be desired. Is a man gay if he wants a masculine woman to use a huge dildo on him? Is the woman gay because she wants him to wear a dress while she does this? These gay and straight labels are vague and only help to describe some of an individuals preferences.

jaden101
Originally posted by Robtard
You want to stop masturbating but can't, gotcha.

I'm using the over-arm under-legger stranger technique today. FYI

Robtard
Originally posted by The MISTER
Is a man gay if he wants a masculine woman to use a huge dildo on him? Is the woman gay because she wants him to wear a dress while she does this? These gay and straight labels are vague and only help to describe some of an individuals preferences.

It's not gay as homsexual-sex is clearly same gender on same gender. It is 'ghey' though, imo.

I did find it hilarious you felt the need to specify "huge" in the dildo. You want to confess something to the board, hmm?

Robtard
Originally posted by jaden101
I'm using the over-arm under-legger stranger technique today. FYI

How do you overcome the strain in your shoulder?

skekUng
Originally posted by The MISTER
'And that brings it full circle: the repeal of this law will free those homosexuals who have been forced to live a lie to go on in their jobs with a bit more dignity and protection.'

I agree 100%

As for being certain where people are going with things I suggest that you wait and see whether you are right or not. I really don't see why all preferences can't be classified as the same. I'm sure that straight and gay are just labels that like all labels leave much to be desired. Is a man gay if he wants a masculine woman to use a huge dildo on him? Is the woman gay because she wants him to wear a dress while she does this? These gay and straight labels are vague and only help to describe some of an individuals preferences.

Oh, I don't need to wait and see where you're going. I only hope that once I point them out, that you'll be forced to come up with new directions to take your spew.

jaden101
Originally posted by Robtard
How do you overcome the strain in your shoulder?

Riddick style.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Robtard
WTF? I told you exactly why and how I used the word "gay", I was referring to male-homosexuality(and this was the main point of discusion) as this is common verbiage these days. Gay is typically now used to denote male-homosexuality, ie "gay, lesbian and transgendered."

Every aspect of gay(see above) sex is undesirable(not gross) to me, as I don't find men attractive; it's got nothing to do with "shit covered dicks." I don't think about that when I discuss male homosexuality, "shit-dick" isn't something that instantly comes to mind. Just as I said above, "urine" wouldn't be the first thought in my head in a topic concerning lesbian sex. Your mind may work that way, doesn't mean others do.

WTF #2"Squirting" isn't urine, it's female ejaculate, though some amounts of urine coming out is common during vaginal intercourse/play, especially during female orgasm. Just the way the body is made. laughing Don't get mad man I've seen a lot of porn and a straight anal scene can get a s*** dick and when it happens its gross to me (it can ruin an otherwise good scene actually). Sorry cause I forget that lesbian is a term too. To hell with all of this I was really just trying to look at the situation from both sides. Straight guys aren't just homo-hunters looking to commit hate crimes.

Robtard
Originally posted by The MISTER
laughing Don't get mad man I've seen a lot of porn and a straight anal scene can get a s*** dick and when it happens its gross to me (it can ruin an otherwise good scene actually). Sorry cause I forget that lesbian is a term too.

To hell with all of this I was really just trying to look at the situation from both sides. Straight guys aren't just homo-hunters looking to commit hate crimes.

See, I avoid scat-film all together. But that's just me.

Who said they were?

The MISTER
Originally posted by Robtard
It's not gay as homsexual-sex is clearly same gender on same gender. It is 'ghey' though, imo.

I did find it hilarious you felt the need to specify "huge" in the dildo. You want to confess something to the board, hmm? Small ones are boring!

Robtard
Originally posted by The MISTER
Small ones are boring!
IE

"No honey, only use the 8" strap-on, anything larger would be gay." -The MISTER

The MISTER
Originally posted by Robtard
See, I avoid scat-film all together. But that's just me.

Who said they were? I think straight guys are considered the cavemen of society. Masculinity is associated with being hairy, getting musty, belching, scratching, fighting, hunting...so on and so on.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Robtard
IE

"No honey, only use the 8" strap-on, anything larger would be gay." -The MISTER 8 inches isn't huge.. Upgrade to 12 to 15 for the best prostate explosion! Happy Dance

Robtard
Originally posted by The MISTER
I think straight guys are considered the cavemen of society. Masculinity is associated with being hairy, getting musty, belching, scratching, fighting, hunting...so on and so on.

There are plenty of gays that fit those descriptions.

Jaden10 above for example, he's hairy (just not his head), stinks, burps, farts and is just as likely to kick your ass as he is to f--k it.

Ushgarak
Ok folks, stick to the topic please.

The MISTER
Originally posted by skekUng
Oh, I don't need to wait and see where you're going. I only hope that once I point them out, that you'll be forced to come up with new directions to take your spew. You don't even know where you're going as you constantly contradict the hell out of yourself. I've already seen it myself. Word games are where you do have skill. You're lawyer level.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Robtard
There are plenty of gays that fit those descriptions.

Jaden10 above for example, he's hairy (just not his head), stinks, burps, farts and is just as likely to kick your ass as he is to f--k it. Getting back on topic, I'm saying that straight guys have become scapegoats for anti-gay sentiment. The mans man is a gay-basher. That's how things are being portrayed when it's actually majority vs minority which is an ever present part of humans not just straight men. smokin'

Robtard
Originally posted by The MISTER
Getting back on topic, I'm saying that straight guys have become scapegoats for anti-gay sentiment. The mans man is a gay-basher. That's how things are being portrayed when it's actually majority vs minority which is an ever present part of humans not just straight men. smokin'

Considering it's typically straight-males (imo closeted homos) who have a problem with homosexuality and to be on topic it will be mostly straight-male soldiers who will have an issue with openly gay soldiers, it really isn't a "scapegoat", just something that is.

Do you really see a gaggle of gay soldiers bashing a straight soldier because of his sexuality?

Peach
Originally posted by The MISTER
Getting back on topic, I'm saying that straight guys have become scapegoats for anti-gay sentiment. The mans man is a gay-basher. That's how things are being portrayed when it's actually majority vs minority which is an ever present part of humans not just straight men. smokin'

Oh no, those poor straight guys. I feel so bad for them, having things so hard because someone might think they're a bigot! Horrible.

Shut up.

dadudemon
We've already established that the military got along almost completely fine without DADT (there were a few isolated cases of abuse on gay men...and maybe women (I do not know about lesbian hate CRIME in the military, I always hear/read about gay male hate crime)), so this discussion of "but straight people will be offended" is complete bullshit.

The only thing that needs to happen if straight men commit any CRIMES against gay men is a criminal prosecution from the military courts needs to take place. After a few cases get pushed through, we should see the hate stop. It needs to be let known that "gay hate" will not be tolerated. I want to hear Obama make that a military priority to his Joint Chiefs.

Originally posted by Peach
Oh no, those poor straight guys. I feel so bad for them, having things so hard because someone might think they're a bigot! Horrible.

Shut up.

laughing laughing laughing laughing

crylaugh

Best post in the thread.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Robtard
Considering it's typically straight-males (imo closeted homos) who have a problem with homosexuality and to be on topic it will be mostly straight-male soldiers who will have an issue with openly gay soldiers, it really isn't a "scapegoat", just something that is.

Do you really see a gaggle of gay soldiers bashing a straight soldier because of his sexuality?

Now that DADT is history, I doubt we'll see tons of screaming queens flocking to the nearest recruiting station. Openly gay guys who join the service will probably look 'normal' and dress and act in a typically straight way.

I just can't see someone like Richard Simmons firing a machine gun or flying a jet.

Robtard
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Now that DADT is history, I doubt we'll see tons of screaming queens flocking to the nearest recruiting station. Openly gay guys who join the service will probably look 'normal' and dress and act in a typically straight way.

I just can't see someone like Richard Simmons firing a machine gun or flying a jet.

Agreed, I've said as much previously; I do think the anti-gay attitude from many do believe that doing away with DADT will result in what you said above. Flocks of Queens now joining up and doing drills to the background music of The Village People; it just isn't so.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Robtard
Considering it's typically straight-males (imo closeted homos) who have a problem with homosexuality and to be on topic it will be mostly straight-male soldiers who will have an issue with openly gay soldiers, it really isn't a "scapegoat", just something that is.

Do you really see a gaggle of gay soldiers bashing a straight soldier because of his sexuality? You're right. No.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Peach
Oh no, those poor straight guys. I feel so bad for them, having things so hard because someone might think they're a bigot! Horrible.

Shut up. I'll never shut up. And I feel sorry for any group that gets loads of negative stereotypes. I think it's ignorance.

The MISTER
Originally posted by dadudemon
We've already established that the military got along almost completely fine without DADT (there were a few isolated cases of abuse on gay men...and maybe women (I do not know about lesbian hate CRIME in the military, I always hear/read about gay male hate crime)), so this discussion of "but straight people will be offended" is complete bullshit.

The only thing that needs to happen if straight men commit any CRIMES against gay men is a criminal prosecution from the military courts needs to take place. After a few cases get pushed through, we should see the hate stop. It needs to be let known that "gay hate" will not be tolerated. I want to hear Obama make that a military priority to his Joint Chiefs. I agree. I personally could care less who is offended by another persons existence.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Robtard
Flocks of Queens now joining up and doing drills to the background music of The Village People; it just isn't so.

They probably wouldn't even last a week in bootcamp anyways.

Peach
Originally posted by The MISTER
I'll never shut up. And I feel sorry for any group that gets loads of negative stereotypes. I think it's ignorance.

And I'll just continue to roll my eyes and tell anyone who thinks that straight white males in the US (or the entire Western world) are in any way oppressed and discriminated against simply because they're being told that they're not the center of the universe that they need to shut up.

Hate crimes against homosexuals are nearly always committed by straight men. Yes, there is bigotry present amongst the GLBT communities (in some areas there's discrimination against bisexuality, and the gay rights movement doesn't seem to really give a damn about trans issues and can be extremely transphobic), but when it comes down to it, it's straight people perpetuating homophobia and bigotry against anyone who isn't cissexual and heterosexual.

So if you think that being called a homophobic bigot is a big deal, sit down and shut up. You have it easy, and straight men aren't commonly mocked, ridiculed, or have to fear for their lives because of their sexuality.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Peach
And I'll just continue to roll my eyes and tell anyone who thinks that straight white males in the US (or the entire Western world) are in any way oppressed and discriminated against simply because they're being told that they're not the center of the universe that they need to shut up.

Hate crimes against homosexuals are nearly always committed by straight men. Yes, there is bigotry present amongst the GLBT communities (in some areas there's discrimination against bisexuality, and the gay rights movement doesn't seem to really give a damn about trans issues and can be extremely transphobic), but when it comes down to it, it's straight people perpetuating homophobia and bigotry against anyone who isn't cissexual and heterosexual.

So if you think that being called a homophobic bigot is a big deal, sit down and shut up. You have it easy, and straight men aren't commonly mocked, ridiculed, or have to fear for their lives because of their sexuality. I'm not white. But I don't hate white people. Some of the most horrible anti-gay people are women. I know that straight men have been guilty of more anti-gay hate crimes but many are willing to live and let live. Ignorant hateful people get far more attention than the ones who enjoy peace and other people. But a group will be identified by the negative people in it. Though I'm black I don't hate whites because some would hang me for the color of my skin. There are still places in Florida where I'm told not to go if I value my life. I guess I have it easy cause I can just refrain from going where I'm not welcome. Hiding my differences from the majority isn't an option but that doesn't make me hate the group that hates my skin. I think being called anything that you're not is a big deal, it's called prejudice. People who have anything in common as the majority give the minority a hard time and it isn't right but that shouldn't make that minority group mirror the stupidity of the cruelest portion of the majority. smokin'

dadudemon
Originally posted by The MISTER
I'm not white. But I don't hate white people. Some of the most horrible anti-gay people are women. I know that straight men have been guilty of more anti-gay hate crimes but many are willing to live and let live. Ignorant hateful people get far more attention than the ones who enjoy peace and other people. But a group will be identified by the negative people in it. Though I'm black I don't hate whites because some would hang me for the color of my skin. There are still places in Florida where I'm told not to go if I value my life. I guess I have it easy cause I can just refrain from going where I'm not welcome. Hiding my differences from the majority isn't an option but that doesn't make me hate the group that hates my skin. I think being called anything that you're not is a big deal, it's called prejudice. People who have anything in common as the majority give the minority a hard time and it isn't right but that shouldn't make that minority group mirror the stupidity of the cruelest portion of the majority. smokin'

Odd.

I've never encountered this "extremely bigoted white woman" in the real world. I've seen the Westboro baptist church, though. Anyway, they exist, but they are in fewer numbers than their male counterparts, for sure.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Peach
And I'll just continue to roll my eyes and tell anyone who thinks that straight white males in the US (or the entire Western world) are in any way oppressed and discriminated against simply because they're being told that they're not the center of the universe that they need to shut up.


*Christian, too.

skekUng
Originally posted by The MISTER
You don't even know where you're going as you constantly contradict the hell out of yourself. I've already seen it myself. Word games are where you do have skill. You're lawyer level.

Feel free to point out these contradictions.

I see where you're trying to take certain conversations, and I will point it out whenever I encounter it. I won't get the luxury of being proven right by where you take these conversations, because pointing them out forces you to take them elsewhere. I simply get the gratification of cutting your troll tactics off at the knees. Not to turn you on or anything.

The MISTER
Originally posted by skekUng
Feel free to point out these contradictions.

I see where you're trying to take certain conversations, and I will point it out whenever I encounter it. I won't get the luxury of being proven right by where you take these conversations, because pointing them out forces you to take them elsewhere. I simply get the gratification of cutting your troll tactics off at the knees. Not to turn you on or anything. This post right here is preventing you from wetting yourself. You can thank me later. Predicting something that's not going to happen and then gloating about keeping it from happening by predicting it sounds pretty vain. You actually are just a know it all and they don't ever admit being wrong. I already pointed out one of your contradictions in the "are soldiers heroes thread. You're so eager to argue that you forget what stance you've made. smokin'

Ushgarak
Cut it out you two.

skekUng
Originally posted by The MISTER
This post right here is preventing you from wetting yourself. You can thank me later. Predicting something that's not going to happen and then gloating about keeping it from happening by predicting it sounds pretty vain. You actually are just a know it all and they don't ever admit being wrong. I already pointed out one of your contradictions in the "are soldiers heroes thread. You're so eager to argue that you forget what stance you've made. smokin'

That doesn't look like the easily quotable posts I've made that you are so easily referencing.

I have already pointed out how neither of us are going to actually best each other. With you, my only objective is to point out how you are trying to screw with people. I also pointed out that by doing so, your only option is to change your approach to a given conversation. Your approach to these conversations is to babble and bait, then make accusations that you never substantiate with any evidence that you so easily offer as proof of your own accusations. You're only mad at me because I point out what you're trying to do before you're able to do it. You say I contradict myself, but have never been able or willing to show me where these contradictions have taken place. You talk out of both sides of your face in a lot of conversations. The easiest way of deflecting from that blatant fact is to accuse everyone but yourself of doing it. Every position you take is a contradiction to many others you've also decided to profess, very publically. That is either schizophrenia, trolling or baiting. The reality of your situation is up to you.

The MISTER
Originally posted by skekUng
That doesn't look like the easily quotable posts I've made that you are so easily referencing.

I have already pointed out how neither of us are going to actually best each other. With you, my only objective is to point out how you are trying to screw with people. I also pointed out that by doing so, your only option is to change your approach to a given conversation. Your approach to these conversations is to babble and bait, then make accusations that you never substantiate with any evidence that you so easily offer as proof of your own accusations. You're only mad at me because I point out what you're trying to do before you're able to do it. You say I contradict myself, but have never been able or willing to show me where these contradictions have taken place. You talk out of both sides of your face in a lot of conversations. The easiest way of deflecting from that blatant fact is to accuse everyone but yourself of doing it. Every position you take is a contradiction to many others you've also decided to profess, very publically. That is either schizophrenia, trolling or baiting. The reality of your situation is up to you. I have not changed my stance on anything based on your lame accusations. However my stance on things is subject to change as I learn more about subjects and can better imagine situations from another person's perspective. I will empathize with every person I can, man, woman, or child, to the best of my abilities. The stance I took at the beginning of this discussion about DADT was that I thought it was protection against sexual harassment for straight soldiers that do deserve consideration ( the notion that straight men don't matter is repugnant) All sexual harassment stems from touching, asking, and telling. After learning that DADT was not what I thought ( a simple clause added to include a more unique form of sexual harassment) but instead a law that is used to disenfranchise individuals simply for belonging to a certain group, I did adjust my assessment of DADT. More people should be willing to publicly profess their ability to say that they were wrong. I am not a lawyer defending a client that I thought was innocent and have now found is guilty. I can openly say what I believe was wrong with my former arguments. At least people can know that when discussing things with me I will not refuse to agree with them no matter what.

If I'm mad at you about anything it's about how you make accusations from a high horse rather than to climb down and engage in discussion as a person who is confident in their ideas. You are basically depriving me of high quality discussion with you by positioning yourself on high and making unfounded accusations, skipping posts, and presenting your suspicions as irrefutably true. I don't have to opt to change my views because of anything someone pointed out, there are examples all over the forum of people who won't sway even when presented with concrete evidence that they are wrong. It's not me screwing with anyone on purpose but it's obviously screwing with you. You have been and still are wrong about me. But if my guess is right you will never adjust your assessment. However I do leave room for unlikely events, unlike some other people. smokin'

skekUng
Originally posted by skekUng
Your approach to these conversations is to babble and bait

No one has said that straight soldiers don't matter. Again, you're changing the conversation.

Ushgarak
I told you two to cut it out. A warning if you don't stop.

The MISTER
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I told you two to cut it out. A warning if you don't stop. Should I ignore him? I've never really done that to anyone.

Ushgarak
Better that than getting yourself banned.

Impediment
DADT is finally dead.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/12/22/VI2010122202226.html?sid=ST2010122201948

King Kandy
Yes, it expired. And the marines have actually sent out recruiters to gay centers.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.