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.
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.
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.
😆
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! 😠
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosIf 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.
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.
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.
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.".
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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 [openly] 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.
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.
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.