General Wants Gay Ban Lifted [Archive] - Page 7 - Debate Policy

Pale Rider

04-01-2008, 02:17 PM

yes, I have. I have clearly stated over and over again that they should be processed through basic training no differently than any other enlistee. period. If they make a mistake and engage in sexual misconduct, they get tossed. If some other straight enlistee engages in any acts of retributive assault, they get tossed. Simple as that.

No... you've hinted... but this is the first time you've spoke directly to the question. However, your answer won't work. To put fag men in with straight men, en mass, would be no different than putting straight men, en mass, in with straight girls, or vice versa. Straight men are sexual attracted to women. Queer men are sexually attracted to MEN. You may as well just throw out all the rules and put anybody and everybody no matter what sex they are in with each other. There'd be no order at all.

"Openly homo" men and women in with straights, en mass... won't work, and military officials know it. That's why it hasn't been done. There doesn't seem to be a solution that's workable.

retiredman

04-01-2008, 03:13 PM

No... you've hinted... but this is the first time you've spoke directly to the question. However, your answer won't work. To put fag men in with straight men, en mass, would be no different than putting straight men, en mass, in with straight girls, or vice versa. Straight men are sexual attracted to women. Queer men are sexually attracted to MEN. You may as well just throw out all the rules and put anybody and everybody no matter what sex they are in with each other. There'd be no order at all.

"Openly homo" men and women in with straights, en mass... won't work, and military officials know it. That's why it hasn't been done. There doesn't seem to be a solution that's workable.

Let us just say that I disagree with your opinion. YOU claim my idea won't work, and that is your opinion and you certainly are entitled to it. I have a different opinion. YOu claim there would not be any order. I claim that the UCMJ provides all the order needed. These folks would all know going into their enlistment what the deal was. If homophobes would be freaked out by serving with gays, they wouldn't have to enlist. If gays could not bear to forego sodomy for the term of their enlistment, they would not have to either.

Noir

04-01-2008, 06:11 PM

You know... the board has enough tap dancers already, so if that's all you're going to do... skip it. Otherwise, answer my question in a concrete fashion with something tangible, instead of, "oh, nothings wrong, it doesn't matter, aaahh, duh..."

Ok, my apoligies i normally only have debates with people who can understand how too string several sentances together. So i'll put this as clearly as i can.

Your Question; Where do you keep the gay troops during basic training?
My Answer; Keep them with the rest of the troops, why do they need ny specail treatment?

A point to yourself; the problem does not exist as people who are currently in the army that are gay are sleeping with the rest of the troops, they just can't say they are gay, so what changes when you find out they are?

Pale Rider

04-01-2008, 07:03 PM

Let us just say that I disagree with your opinion. YOU claim my idea won't work, and that is your opinion and you certainly are entitled to it. I have a different opinion. YOu claim there would not be any order. I claim that the UCMJ provides all the order needed. These folks would all know going into their enlistment what the deal was. If homophobes would be freaked out by serving with gays, they wouldn't have to enlist. If gays could not bear to forego sodomy for the term of their enlistment, they would not have to either.

Alright... we disagree. If you're going to put homo butt boys in with straight men, "knowingly," then you may as well put straight men and women in together too. Just throw out all the rules.

Won't work. Experts know it. That's why it hasn't been done.

Pale Rider

04-01-2008, 07:07 PM

Ok, my apoligies i normally only have debates with people who can understand how too string several sentances together. So i'll put this as clearly as i can.

Your Question; Where do you keep the gay troops during basic training?
My Answer; Keep them with the rest of the troops, why do they need ny specail treatment?

A point to yourself; the problem does not exist as people who are currently in the army that are gay are sleeping with the rest of the troops, they just can't say they are gay, so what changes when you find out they are?

"Gay?" We're not talking about "happy" people here... we're talking about homos... queers... faggots... pole smokers... slit lickers... ya know, and there's nothing happy about any of that perversion.

The premise was, "IF" homos were allowed to join, so they wouldn't have to hide the fact anymore, and they would be able to enlist en mass, keeping in mind what their sexual perversion is, it would be wrong to put openly homo men in with straight men, and openly homo women with straight women. You may as well put straight men and women together then. Same thing, and that's why it wouldn't work.

Noir

04-01-2008, 07:17 PM

"Gay?" We're not talking about "happy" people here... we're talking about homos... queers... faggots... pole smokers... slit lickers... ya know, and there's nothing happy about any of that perversion.
And you say that i dance about? there are many words that mean the same thing, i used one of them what difference does it make? This really is pathetic.

The premise was, "IF" homos were allowed to join, so they wouldn't have to hide the fact anymore, and they would be able to enlist en mass, keeping in mind what their sexual perversion is, it would be wrong to put openly homo men in with straight men, and openly homo women with straight women. You may as well put straight men and women together then. Same thing, and that's why it wouldn't work.

Why? "Oh shit some guy is looking at me...AND HE'S A [INSERT YOUR FAVORITE WORD TO DESCRIBE A HOMOSEXUAL] HOW CAN I GO ON!!!!???"
Like i said just because they will be with men and women of the same sex doesn't mean they're gonna go raping them all.

retiredman

04-01-2008, 08:37 PM

"Won't work. Experts know it. That's why it hasn't been done."

I suppose with your eight years in the air force, you are more "Expert" than these guys?

LOL

General Wants Gay Ban Lifted

Military.com | January 03, 2007

In an op-ed published in Tuesday's New York Times, John M. Shalikashvili, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Congress should give "serious reconsideration" to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on openly lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. Shalikashvili, who supported the ban on open service in 1993, writes that "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," and goes on to say that "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is out of step with both the American public and those within our armed forces," said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "The counsel of military leaders increasingly supports repeal of the law. Congress must, as General Shalikashvili urges, consider the overwhelming evidence of the past fourteen years. If they do, the clear answer is that we must lift the ban."

Shalikashvili, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 1993 to 1997, joins other senior retired military officers who have called for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." In May 2006, Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, USA (Ret.), the first female three-star officer in Army history, called the law "a hollow policy that serves no useful purpose." Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, former superintendent of West Point, recently told The New York Times that "It is clear that national attitudes toward this issue have evolved considerably in the last decade. This has been led by a new generation of service members who take a more relaxed and tolerant view toward homosexuality." Retired Admiral John Hutson, who currently serves as Dean of Franklin Pierce Law School, also recently wrote that "It would be a great tragedy if we didn't take advantage of (the) chance to correct a flawed policy."

In 2003, two retired generals and an admiral 'came out' in the New York Times, and in November 2006 fourteen senior retired military officers urged the First Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ban. They wrote that the law "undermines the military's ability to fulfill its primary mission of providing national security by discouraging the enlistment of gay persons qualified to serve their country and by expelling from the military those who have served with honor."

In today's op-ed, General Shalikashvili writes that "Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers."

A December 18th Zogby poll also found that 73% of military personnel polled were comfortable with lesbians and gays.

"General Shalikashvili's statement is the first by a Joint Chiefs Chairman to call for repeal, and as such is enormously significant," said Osburn. "The Pentagon has dismissed more than 11,000 men and women under this law. It is clear that enforcement of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is arbitrary. We continue to lose critical personnel who happen to be gay. As General Shalikashvili points out, continuing to keep this law on the books is detrimental to our national security."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121509,00.html?ESRC=airforce.nl

Yurt

04-01-2008, 09:07 PM

so someone's experience alone makes them more qualified?

LiberalNation

04-01-2008, 09:15 PM

It works for Israel, it works for Britian, both allow gays to serve, it would work here.

retiredman

04-01-2008, 09:37 PM

so someone's experience alone makes them more qualified?

the level of their experience and the level of responsibility they had for making tough decisions makes senior military commanders more qualified to address the impact of removing the ban on gays in the military..... certainly more qualified than an eight year air farce member.

Yurt

04-01-2008, 09:50 PM

the level of their experience and the level of responsibility they had for making tough decisions makes senior military commanders more qualified to address the impact of removing the ban on gays in the military..... certainly more qualified than an eight year air farce member.

so people who have more military experience are more qualified to decide what is best for the military?

retiredman

04-01-2008, 09:54 PM

so people who have more military experience are more qualified to decide what is best for the military?

decide? probably not. the great decider in the white house has taken on those responsibilities. Senior flag officers in the military are certainly qualified to discuss what would and would not happen if the ban against gays were dropped.

Pale Rider

04-02-2008, 12:57 AM

And you say that i dance about? there are many words that mean the same thing, i used one of them what difference does it make? This really is pathetic.

Why? "Oh shit some guy is looking at me...AND HE'S A [INSERT YOUR FAVORITE WORD TO DESCRIBE A HOMOSEXUAL] HOW CAN I GO ON!!!!???"
Like i said just because they will be with men and women of the same sex doesn't mean they're gonna go raping them all.

You're inability to grasp the gravity of the situation tells me you're either very young, or just another liberal waving your poms poms in support the perverted homosexual lifestyle.

In any case, it's also obvious you have zero military experience.

Pale Rider

04-02-2008, 01:08 AM

"Won't work. Experts know it. That's why it hasn't been done."

I suppose with your eight years in the air force, you are more "Expert" than these guys?

LOL

Aha ha, aha ha ha... yeah... when you're done laughing at nothing, there is little I disagree with in that article. I think queers should be allowed to serve in the military. Fact of the matter is, right now, the military needs every man and woman they can get that's willing to join up.

My question is, and has been for three pages now, how would you handle an immediate influx of homos in basic training. That is where I don't seem to get a good answer from anyone, and your answer I simply disagree with. There doesn't seem to be any good solution. But again, if they propose to put homosexual men in with hetero men and lesbian women in with hetero women where they're all romping around naked, then you may as well put hetero men and women in with each other also. Fact is, the sexual attraction is the same for straight men for women as it is for homo men to ANY male. In light of that fact, it would just be WRONG to put openly queer men in with straight men. The ONLY way I could see an openly homosexual man going through basic training would be to put them, one by one, in with the girls, because they're not sexually attracted to girls, and I guess you'd have to do the same thing with a lesbian. You'd have to put them in, one by one, with the men. But there's even problems with that idea.... it's just one big headache to deal with homosexuals, and I believe that is the main reason they haven't been allowed to openly serve as yet.

Figure out how to process them through basic as to not have them in with whatever sex it is they're attracted to, and let them serve. Put a weapon in their hands and ship them off to war. Send some of our over worked reserve and guard troops home.

Noir

04-02-2008, 06:01 AM

You're inability to grasp the gravity of the situation tells me you're either very young, or just another liberal waving your poms poms in support the perverted homosexual lifestyle.
Wow look at you go, you asked a question, i answered it, so you asked another question and i answered it aswell, so now all you can try and do is disregard my points because i am young? Whats wrong with sleeping in the same room as a gay/homsexual/fag/ect...?

In any case, it's also obvious you have zero military experience.
Lawl, and again what does this have to do with anything? since when do you need military experience to comment on military matters? Not even the fact that it is a military matter its a human rights matter. And if you must know my family has a very strong military connection with my dad, 5 of my uncles and both my Granfathers serving in Army. and guess what? my dad knew gay people in the army and they where able to do their basic training with everyone else *shock*

My question is, and has been for three pages now, how would you handle an immediate influx of homos in basic training. That is where I don't seem to get a good answer from anyone, and your answer I simply disagree with. There doesn't seem to be any good solution.
My answer is -and has been for 3 pages now- let them sleep with other members of the same sex...i keep sayin it but for some reason you keep ignoring it...i know i'll put it in bold, hope this helps :)

retiredman

04-02-2008, 06:01 AM

Aha ha, aha ha ha... yeah... when you're done laughing at nothing, there is little I disagree with in that article. I think queers should be allowed to serve in the military. Fact of the matter is, right now, the military needs every man and woman they can get that's willing to join up.

My question is, and has been for three pages now, how would you handle an immediate influx of homos in basic training. That is where I don't seem to get a good answer from anyone, and your answer I simply disagree with. There doesn't seem to be any good solution. But again, if they propose to put homosexual men in with hetero men and lesbian women in with hetero women where they're all romping around naked, then you may as well put hetero men and women in with each other also. Fact is, the sexual attraction is the same for straight men for women as it is for homo men to ANY male. In light of that fact, it would just be WRONG to put openly queer men in with straight men. The ONLY way I could see an openly homosexual man going through basic training would be to put them, one by one, in with the girls, because they're not sexually attracted to girls, and I guess you'd have to do the same thing with a lesbian. You'd have to put them in, one by one, with the men. But there's even problems with that idea.... it's just one big headache to deal with homosexuals, and I believe that is the main reason they haven't been allowed to openly serve as yet.

Figure out how to process them through basic as to not have them in with whatever sex it is they're attracted to, and let them serve. Put a weapon in their hands and ship them off to war. Send some of our over worked reserve and guard troops home.

again...we agree to disagree. I would agree that the transitionwould be problematic, but so was transitioning women onto warships. In the case of gay men, my belief is that they would not have to wear a big pink "G" on their uniforms and the knowledge of their sexuality would not even need to be common knowledge beyond the recruiter who processed them in and the commisioned and senior non-commissioned leadership of the unit. It's a volunteer armed force. If you know before enlisting that there are gays amongst you (like there have always been, by the way), then if you can't deal with it you don't have to join.

LiberalNation

04-02-2008, 06:54 AM

My question is, and has been for three pages now, how would you handle an immediate influx of homos in basic training.
You wont see it, gays aren't going to join in mass wearing their sexuality on their sleeves. Nothing would really change if that one line was except for the few who have to hide who their are out of fear of blackmail/loosing their job.

Fact is, the sexual attraction is the same for straight men for women as it is for homo men to ANY male. In light of that fact, it would just be WRONG to put openly queer men in with straight men.
Fact is, you don't hafta act on sexual attraction. Fact is, just being around nakid people of my own or opposit sex isn't that great a turn on. It would work the same as it's working now.

Pale Rider

04-02-2008, 05:08 PM

again...we agree to disagree. I would agree that the transitionwould be problematic, but so was transitioning women onto warships. In the case of gay men, my belief is that they would not have to wear a big pink "G" on their uniforms and the knowledge of their sexuality would not even need to be common knowledge beyond the recruiter who processed them in and the commisioned and senior non-commissioned leadership of the unit. It's a volunteer armed force. If you know before enlisting that there are gays amongst you (like there have always been, by the way), then if you can't deal with it you don't have to join.

I would just anticipate many more joining if it was made allowable. Therein would lie the problem. Not saying they shouldn't at this point. If our glorious elected men and women in Washington are too spineless to reenact the draft, they we're going to have to pick up the drop in enlistments somewhere.

Pale Rider

04-02-2008, 05:11 PM

You wont see it, gays aren't going to join in mass wearing their sexuality on their sleeves. Nothing would really change if that one line was except for the few who have to hide who their are out of fear of blackmail/loosing their job.
Just saying if it was allowed... I would think more would join. That's where things would get problematic.

Fact is, you don't hafta act on sexual attraction. Fact is, just being around nakid people of my own or opposit sex isn't that great a turn on. It would work the same as it's working now.
I find that odd about you.

Put me in a room full of naked girls and I most CERTAINLY will get turned on... especially a nice, steamy shower room where everything is glistening and soaped up getting rubbed down and jiggling all over, not to mention if you DROP THE SOAP... OK... maybe you need some viagra...

Noir

04-02-2008, 06:18 PM

Pale Pale Pale....yet again you have ignored my post :( i'm starting to feel unloved (in a completey hetrosexual way ofcourse ;) )

You moan that 'no one has answerd your question' but i have...twice now, so i'll say it again and hope you don't miss it again...
let them sleep with other members of the same sex

Put me in a room full of naked girls and I most CERTAINLY will get turned on...
Don't drag the rest of us down with you pale, i've had the joy of such an experience and just because people are naked doesn't mean everyones gonna be turned on, that would only occur if their had been a sexual buildup

retiredman

04-02-2008, 07:54 PM

I would just anticipate many more joining if it was made allowable. Therein would lie the problem. Not saying they shouldn't at this point. If our glorious elected men and women in Washington are too spineless to reenact the draft, they we're going to have to pick up the drop in enlistments somewhere.
I do not see the problem. You punish behavior, not inclination.

Pale Rider

04-04-2008, 01:36 PM

I do not see the problem. You punish behavior, not inclination.

Not punishment... it's a dilemma, created by a perversion.

Maybe we should have a crack homo unit... no pun intended, and since homosexuals are killed in the muslim world, maybe the islamo jihadists would be afraid of the homo fighters. We may have a secret weapon here... and dip their ammo in pigs blood. Maybe just hearing they were coming would send the mussies running.... :laugh:

Pale Rider

04-04-2008, 01:38 PM

Pale Pale Pale....yet again you have ignored my post :( i'm starting to feel unloved (in a completey hetrosexual way ofcourse ;) )

You moan that 'no one has answerd your question' but i have...twice now, so i'll say it again and hope you don't miss it again...
let them sleep with other members of the same sex

Don't drag the rest of us down with you pale, i've had the joy of such an experience and just because people are naked doesn't mean everyones gonna be turned on, that would only occur if their had been a sexual buildup

You don't have an argument. You have no experience, you don't know how the military works, and you've just turned out to be another garden variety faggot excuse panderer. Save it, I've heard it all before.

Be original, or STFU.

Noir

04-04-2008, 03:17 PM

You don't have an argument. You have no experience, you don't know how the military works.

What experience do i need to post here exactly? as far as i see my argument holds water, what (in your experience) would be the problem in sleeping in the same building with homsexuals? (sorry, i forgot there's not a peoblem with that, thats ok. The problem is sleeping in the same building with open homosexuals)

Pale Rider

04-04-2008, 05:29 PM

What experience do i need to post here exactly? as far as i see my argument holds water, what (in your experience) would be the problem in sleeping in the same building with homsexuals? (sorry, i forgot there's not a peoblem with that, thats ok. The problem is sleeping in the same building with open homosexuals)

Say you own a machining business, and you want to hire a consultant to come in and streamline your CNC machine programs, would you hire someone without a stitch of experience on CNC machine programs?

I rest my case.

Missileman

04-04-2008, 06:46 PM

Say you own a machining business, and you want to hire a consultant to come in and streamline your CNC machine programs, would you hire someone without a stitch of experience on CNC machine programs?

I rest my case.

And yet, your "experience" led you to an erroneous understanding of what the actual policy regarding homosexuals is. Six weeks of having to shower with and sleep next to 40 or 50 other guys hardly qualifies you as an expert in group dynamics.

Noir

04-04-2008, 08:19 PM

Say you own a machining business, and you want to hire a consultant to come in and streamline your CNC machine programs, would you hire someone without a stitch of experience on CNC machine programs?

I rest my case.

:laugh2:
In which case i may aswell leave the site, becasue i'm too young and can't program the metaphorical CNC machine on any topic.

Please do tell me what the problem is with openly homosexual people in basic training, when the same people would be fine as long as they do not say they are homosexual. Its just ridiculous, the military is half in and half out, they don't mind homosexuals in the army...as long as they don't tell anyone =/

And as for having no experience, you simply ignored my point about my family, and the fact that my dad served in the army with people who are openly gay, Isn't it funny how the US are going to have a problem that the UK don't? Maybe thats because no problem exists, and that the US army are institutionally homophobic.

And please, if i make several points in a post don't just quote the whole post, 'answer' one point and leave the rest, could you please be kind enough to address all the points, here's a summery, to ensure you haven't missed any points...

There is no problem in being homosexual in the US army, there is only a problem in being openly homosexual, why so?
In the UK we have openly homosexual troops, and there is no problem as you describe, does this not mean your problem is simply a load of hot air?
Is not the real problem that the US army is institutionally homophobic?

glockmail

04-07-2008, 08:20 AM

:laugh2:
In which case i may aswell leave the site, .... Don't let the metaphorical door hit you on the metaphorical ass on the way out. :pee:

Noir

04-07-2008, 10:25 AM

Don't let the metaphorical door hit you on the metaphorical ass on the way out. :pee:

Thankies for the advice, I'll tip my metaphorical hat in your direction :)

Pale Rider

04-09-2008, 07:23 PM

And yet, your "experience" led you to an erroneous understanding of what the actual policy regarding homosexuals is. Six weeks of having to shower with and sleep next to 40 or 50 other guys hardly qualifies you as an expert in group dynamics.

Whatever understanding I have, it's more accurate than yours would ever be, seeing as you have ZERO military experience. So once again, your comments are nullified as just more liberal homo defense crap.

Noir

04-10-2008, 08:14 AM

Whatever understanding I have, it's more accurate than yours would ever be, seeing as you have ZERO military experience. So once again, your comments are nullified as just more liberal homo defense crap.

ok..and again you've left me out =/ so what about my famiys collective experience? combined my dad, my uncles and my grandfather have over 100 years milatery experience. So don't give me the 'My idea's are better than you cus you have no militery understanding' crap, cus i was broght up on the bloody stuff.

I would not like to copy and paste my old points just to make sure they don't slip out of view

* There is no problem in being homosexual in the US army, there is only a problem in being openly homosexual, why so?
* In the UK we have openly homosexual troops, and there is no problem as you describe, does this not mean your problem is simply a load of hot air?
* Is not the real problem that the US army is institutionally homophobic?

Pale Rider

04-10-2008, 01:16 PM

ok..and again you've left me out =/ so what about my famiys collective experience? combined my dad, my uncles and my grandfather have over 100 years milatery experience. So don't give me the 'My idea's are better than you cus you have no militery understanding' crap, cus i was broght up on the bloody stuff.

I would not like to copy and paste my old points just to make sure they don't slip out of view

* There is no problem in being homosexual in the US army, there is only a problem in being openly homosexual, why so?
* In the UK we have openly homosexual troops, and there is no problem as you describe, does this not mean your problem is simply a load of hot air?
* Is not the real problem that the US army is institutionally homophobic?

You reply to one thread and one thread only. You are a homo apologist, liberal, socialist in Europe. Well ya know what? Keep your stinking liberal, socialist ideas in Europe. We don't need them here, we don't want them here. We kicked your asses out of America long ago for just that very reason.

glockmail

04-10-2008, 01:30 PM

.....

* There is no problem in being homosexual in the US army, there is only a problem in being openly homosexual, why so?
* In the UK we have openly homosexual troops, and there is no problem as you describe, does this not mean your problem is simply a load of hot air?
* Is not the real problem that the US army is institutionally homophobic?

1. Because its about the behaivior.
2. According to you, but US military thinks differently.
3. Irrelevant.

Noir

04-10-2008, 01:31 PM

You reply to one thread and one thread only. You are a homo apologist, liberal, socialist in Europe. Well ya know what? Keep your stinking liberal, socialist ideas in Europe. We don't need them here, we don't want them here. We kicked your asses out of America long ago for just that very reason.

Well it seems that your general does want them, or does he not count? You can not just discount my posts because i'm not from america, you really shoudl have more respect for yourself than that.

As for replying to one thread, yes quite a few of my posts are on this thread, but what difference does that make? Due to not being American i am not able to comment on allot of the topics on this board, but in this one i clearly can so i do.

"homo apologist, liberal, socialist in Europe."
Is there something wrong in standing up for what i believe? Yes i am a liberal...well done...was that meant to be an insult? and where on earth did you get 'socialist' from? Its news to me.

Oh look, surprise surprise, you didn't answer any of the points i made, instead you went on to attack me, :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Really man GROW UP, now i shall restate my points, if you want to go on another rant about me being a liberal fair enough, but if you want to be taken seriously maybe you'll try and retort my points, cus at the min you just look like a fool to me.

* There is no problem in being homosexual in the US army, there is only a problem in being openly homosexual, why so?
* In the UK we have openly homosexual troops, and there is no problem as you describe, does this not mean your problem is simply a load of hot air?
* Is not the real problem that the US army is institutionally homophobic?

Noir

04-10-2008, 01:37 PM

1. Because its about the behaivior.
2. According to you, but US military thinks differently.
3. Irrelevant.

Atleast you had the decency to reply to the points i made :)

1. How diffrent would someone act just because they could tell you they were gay? they would still be the same person with the same personality

2.You didn't answer the question, we have not got a problem in the UK, why would you have it in the US? I think there would be no difference and this 'problem' is more a show of homophobia than a realistic look at what this change would mean.

3.No its not, this 'problem' comes from the fact that the army are institutionally homophobic, that is the real problem

glockmail

04-10-2008, 01:45 PM

Atleast you had the decency to reply to the points i made :)

1. How diffrent would someone act just because they could tell you they were gay? they would still be the same person with the same personality

2.You didn't answer the question, we have not got a problem in the UK, why would you have it in the US? I think there would be no difference and this 'problem' is more a show of homophobia than a realistic look at what this change would mean.

3.No its not, this 'problem' comes from the fact that the army are institutionally homophobic, that is the real problem

1. Moot point. Openly queer queers act queer. They're not like normal people. At least the male ones that I've known- every one of them.
2. I don't answer a question if the premise appears to be factually untrue. Besides, the UK is not the US of A. There is a reason why we fought a revolution. We are a different type of people then y'all.
3. Its not a problem, therefore your claim is moot.

Pale Rider

04-10-2008, 02:19 PM

Well it seems that your general does want them, or does he not count? You can not just discount my posts because i'm not from america, you really shoudl have more respect for yourself than that.

As for replying to one thread, yes quite a few of my posts are on this thread, but what difference does that make? Due to not being American i am not able to comment on allot of the topics on this board, but in this one i clearly can so i do.

"homo apologist, liberal, socialist in Europe."
Is there something wrong in standing up for what i believe? Yes i am a liberal...well done...was that meant to be an insult? and where on earth did you get 'socialist' from? Its news to me.

Oh look, surprise surprise, you didn't answer any of the points i made, instead you went on to attack me, :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Really man GROW UP, now i shall restate my points, if you want to go on another rant about me being a liberal fair enough, but if you want to be taken seriously maybe you'll try and retort my points, cus at the min you just look like a fool to me.

* There is no problem in being homosexual in the US army, there is only a problem in being openly homosexual, why so?
* In the UK we have openly homosexual troops, and there is no problem as you describe, does this not mean your problem is simply a load of hot air?
* Is not the real problem that the US army is institutionally homophobic?

Oh look... surprise, surprise... you have no points worth addressing.

Missileman

04-10-2008, 04:40 PM

Whatever understanding I have, it's more accurate than yours would ever be, seeing as you have ZERO military experience. So once again, your comments are nullified as just more liberal homo defense crap.

My 21 years in the AF equals ZERO military experience? Just another shining example of you posting without a clue of what you're talking about.

Noir

04-10-2008, 06:51 PM

1. Moot point. Openly queer queers act queer. They're not like normal people. At least the male ones that I've known- every one of them.
2. I don't answer a question if the premise appears to be factually untrue. Besides, the UK is not the US of A. There is a reason why we fought a revolution. We are a different type of people then y'all.
3. Its not a problem, therefore your claim is moot.

1. Yeah some homosexual people are more extravagant than others, in the same way that some men will be more chauvinistic than others, but this is all down to personality. So what will be so horribly wrong in having some camp men or some butch women in the army?

2. Yeah, we aren't the same country, doesn't mean we can't learn things from eachother, and draw on eachothers experiences.

3.It is a problem, i'm sure the Army would come down harder on an open Homosexual than they would someone who is openly homophobic. Can you not see what is wrong with this?

I'll say again, these men and women want to serve there country, who are you to say their sexuality dictates they can not?

Oh look... surprise, surprise... you have no points worth addressing
:poke:Really?
Funny that, afterall glockmail was able to pick up on some points, which we are currently debating.
I really don't know what more i can do, i repeated my points many times, i even put them in bullet points and in bold at times...yet you could not see one point...this leaves me with 2 thoughts;
Either you are slow and unable to understand basic points, even when laid out in a clear manor, or
You are trolling, not caring about what i say, you are more concerned in attacking the poster rather than challenging the post, which is most pathetic if you ask me.
In the end only you know, but either way it seems you have some issues, for which i pity you.

Pale Rider

04-11-2008, 05:11 PM

My 21 years in the AF equals ZERO military experience? Just another shining example of you posting without a clue of what you're talking about.

Obviously it didn't teach you much. You're still a faggot apologist dredging up every lame excuse you can imagine.

Pale Rider

04-11-2008, 05:14 PM

1. Yeah some homosexual people are more extravagant than others, in the same way that some men will be more chauvinistic than others, but this is all down to personality. So what will be so horribly wrong in having some camp men or some butch women in the army?

2. Yeah, we aren't the same country, doesn't mean we can't learn things from eachother, and draw on eachothers experiences.

3.It is a problem, i'm sure the Army would come down harder on an open Homosexual than they would someone who is openly homophobic. Can you not see what is wrong with this?

I'll say again, these men and women want to serve there country, who are you to say their sexuality dictates they can not?

:poke:Really?
Funny that, afterall glockmail was able to pick up on some points, which we are currently debating.
I really don't know what more i can do, i repeated my points many times, i even put them in bullet points and in bold at times...yet you could not see one point...this leaves me with 2 thoughts;
Either you are slow and unable to understand basic points, even when laid out in a clear manor, or
You are trolling, not caring about what i say, you are more concerned in attacking the poster rather than challenging the post, which is most pathetic if you ask me.
In the end only you know, but either way it seems you have some issues, for which i pity you.

You can keep your comments about our military to yourself, since you don't matter anyway. You liberal eurofucks allow butt fuckers in your military. Well, good for you. We don't, because the real men in our military don't like the sick fuckers. Anything else?

Missileman

04-11-2008, 05:36 PM

Obviously it didn't teach you much. You're still a faggot apologist dredging up every lame excuse you can imagine.

C'mon numbnuts...let's hear all the reasons your 8 years of experience is superior to my 21. You weren't even in the service when "don't ask, don't tell" became policy.

actsnoblemartin

04-11-2008, 06:23 PM

im confused, what makes one an expert on dont ask dont tell, its not exactly rocket science is it?

dont ask :coffee:

dont tell :laugh2:

C'mon numbnuts...let's hear all the reasons your 8 years of experience is superior to my 21. You weren't even in the service when "don't ask, don't tell" became policy.

Pale Rider

04-11-2008, 07:07 PM

C'mon numbnuts...let's hear all the reasons your 8 years of experience is superior to my 21. You weren't even in the service when "don't ask, don't tell" became policy.

Well johnny jiingle nuts, I'm not going to bother with superior this or superior that, because the topic at hand boils down to pure rational logic and not lying to yourself trying to defend a sickness. I'm not... you are. Pretty simple actually. Wouldn't you say bed wetter?

Missileman

04-11-2008, 07:20 PM

im confused, what makes one an expert on dont ask dont tell, its not exactly rocket science is it?

dont ask :coffee:

dont tell :laugh2:

There were provisions in the code that even if someone came out, if they weren't actually engaging in homosexual activity, they weren't automatically discharged. Ol' numbnuts refuses to acknowledge the existence of those parts of the code.

Pale Rider

04-12-2008, 12:25 AM

There were provisions in the code that even if someone came out, if they weren't actually engaging in homosexual activity, they weren't automatically discharged. Ol' numbnuts refuses to acknowledge the existence of those parts of the code.

Wrong scabby... *has propensity for* gets your homo butt kicked out, period. Wise up jingle nuts.

Noir

04-12-2008, 05:11 AM

You can keep your comments about our military to yourself, since you don't matter anyway. You liberal eurofucks allow butt fuckers in your military. Well, good for you. We don't, because the real men in our military don't like the sick fuckers. Anything else?

Right, so i am to keep my opinions to myself....you do realise this is a debating board?..where you are meant to share your opinions with others? Its isn't paleriderpolicy.com much as you may hope it is.

We don't, because the real men in our military don't like the sick fuckers.
I see, so the British aren't 'real men' funny how we are considered one of the worlds greatest armed forces, and have been for centuries, even with a notable lack of resources. And trust me from the stories i have herd about Americans in training and on the battlefield it is your superior resources that keep ya's going (but that is for another debate)

Anything else?
Whats the point? you are a troll through and through. You have never made one attempt to counteract any of my points. Instead you disregard them because i'm a 'liberal Eurofuck' you even went as far as to call me a socialist (i still have no idea why you think that)

And its not only on me, its extending to others too, The reasons you could ignore my posts 1) I'm European your American 2)I personally do not have Army experience you have 8 years...then suddenly MM pops out, like you he is American, and he has 21 years experience.
So surly you would show him respect and debate with him..."Obviously it didn't teach you much. You're still a faggot apologist dredging up every lame excuse you can imagine."...Or you could just troll, whichever comes naturally to you i guess...

Missileman

04-12-2008, 07:58 AM

Wrong scabby... *has propensity for* gets your homo butt kicked out, period. Wise up jingle nuts.

Read it again you illiterate ass. The code clearly states propensity to ENGAGE in the acts. A person can admit to having the attraction but if they refrain from acting on it, they are allowed to remain in the military. Maybe regulations written to the 8th-10th grade reading level are too complex for you.

Pale Rider

04-12-2008, 02:39 PM

Read it again you illiterate ass. The code clearly states propensity to ENGAGE in the acts. A person can admit to having the attraction but if they refrain from acting on it, they are allowed to remain in the military. Maybe regulations written to the 8th-10th grade reading level are too complex for you.

Wrong dick lick boy... any soldier that walks into their commanding officers office and says, "I'm a flaming homo," they're next stop is going to be CBPO, to be handed their discharge papers. Now pretend that's not the case all you want tube licker, but you're still going to be wrong at the end of the day. Get a clue moron.

actsnoblemartin

04-12-2008, 02:40 PM

This is very simple, let the military decide for itself what it wants, and each state should do the same, through the voters, not judges, or legislators

retiredman

04-12-2008, 05:09 PM

This is very simple, let the military decide for itself what it wants, and each state should do the same, through the voters, not judges, or legislators
the military works for the executive branch. And the executive branch is elected by us and works for us.

retiredman

04-12-2008, 05:10 PM

Wrong dick lick boy... any soldier that walks into their commanding officers office and says, "I'm a flaming homo," they're next stop is going to be CBPO, to be handed their discharge papers. Now pretend that's not the case all you want tube licker, but you're still going to be wrong at the end of the day. Get a clue moron.

you are wrong, pole rider.... and you don't have the grace to just admit it. Why don't you go away like a good greasemonkey?

Missileman

04-12-2008, 05:11 PM

dick lick boy...

In YOUR dreams closet queer. Sorry to disappoint, but you're the only one of us that'll go that way.

Your continued denial of what the code CLEARLY states doesn't make you right, it only makes you look more and more stupid each time.

actsnoblemartin

04-12-2008, 07:14 PM

fine then have a nation wide vote or something.

my point, id rather have voters, not courts decide.

and if voters dont like a law that is passed by the legislator, they should have a process to try and over turn it, not with courts, but with a petition.

the military works for the executive branch. And the executive branch is elected by us and works for us.

actsnoblemartin

04-12-2008, 07:15 PM

retiredman

04-12-2008, 07:20 PM

so veterans, how would you have felt serving with an openly gay male, what if they hit on you, or even sexually harrassed you, whats your remedy then. because if gays live with straights, how is it different from males living in the same exact room as females,

im listening :dance:

if a gay sailor hit on me, I would tell him to stop. If he sexually harassed me, I would report him to my commanding officer. It is an all volunteer armed force. If you can't maintain your behavior within the boundaries of the UCMJ, you get bounced.

Like I said, when flight ops are going on the carrier, sex is the last thing on your mind.

well... for normal folks...I guess, for retarded porn addicts, it might be different, but retarded porn addicts don't normally make it onto aircraft carriers to begin with.

actsnoblemartin

04-12-2008, 07:22 PM

I asked an honest question, in good faith, and there you go acting like you again.

You couldnt be nice if your life depended on it.

or honest either, since having aspburgers does not mean retard

if a gay sailor hit on me, I would tell him to stop. If he sexually harassed me, I would report him to my commanding officer. It is an all volunteer armed force. If you can't maintain your behavior within the boundaries of the UCMJ, you get bounced.

Like I said, when flight ops are going on the carrier, sex is the last thing on your mind.

well... for normal folks...I guess, for retarded porn addicts, it might be different, but retarded porn addicts don't normally make it onto aircraft carriers to begin with.

retiredman

04-12-2008, 07:27 PM

Pale Rider

04-14-2008, 05:02 AM

if a gay sailor hit on me, I would tell him to stop. If he sexually harassed me, I would report him to my commanding officer. It is an all volunteer armed force. If you can't maintain your behavior within the boundaries of the UCMJ, you get bounced.

Like I said, when flight ops are going on the carrier, sex is the last thing on your mind.

well... for normal folks...I guess, for retarded porn addicts, it might be different, but retarded porn addicts don't normally make it onto aircraft carriers to begin with.

Sounds to me like air craft carrier duty in the Navy is the duty of choice for homos.... like you?

glockmail

04-14-2008, 07:57 AM

There were provisions in the code that even if someone came out, if they weren't actually engaging in homosexual activity, they weren't automatically discharged. Ol' numbnuts refuses to acknowledge the existence of those parts of the code. I suspect that you’re right. I had a friend in HS who was as normal as could be. He did a stint in the military then re-enlisted. The something happened to his Mom (his parents were divorced) and he had to get home to take care of her, and could not get an extended leave. So he walked into his CO's office and told him that he was gay, and they shipped him home immediately. In fact he and I rode our motorcycles from Boston to Burlington VT that summer to see his Dad, and he had a Harley so I knew that he wasn't queer. :laugh2:

Pale Rider

04-14-2008, 01:36 PM

I suspect that you’re right. I had a friend in HS who was as normal as could be. He did a stint in the military then re-enlisted. The something happened to his Mom (his parents were divorced) and he had to get home to take care of her, and could not get an extended leave. So he walked into his CO's office and told him that he was gay, and they shipped him home immediately. In fact he and I rode our motorcycles from Boston to Burlington VT that summer to see his Dad, and he had a Harley so I knew that he wasn't queer. :laugh2:

I'm waiting for Mm to call you a liar... because according to him that can't happen.

retiredman

04-14-2008, 03:54 PM

I'm waiting for Mm to call you a liar... because according to him that can't happen.

I would suggest that glock's close and dear friend might very well have admitted to not only "being" gay but for having a "propensity for" performing homosexual acts that are against the UCMJ and the admission of such propensity is a violation of the don't ask don't tell policy.

glockmail

04-14-2008, 04:17 PM

I would suggest that glock's close and dear friend might very well have admitted to not only "being" gay but for having a "propensity for" performing homosexual acts that are against the UCMJ and the admission of such propensity is a violation of the don't ask don't tell policy.
Nah, he just walked in and said that he was gay. :coffee:

retiredman

04-14-2008, 04:52 PM

Nah, he just walked in and said that he was gay. :coffee:

and you KNOW that because you walked in with him?

glockmail

04-14-2008, 05:43 PM

and you KNOW that because you walked in with him?
Because that's what he told me.

Missileman

04-14-2008, 06:26 PM

and you KNOW that because you walked in with him?

Attached at the tip! :lmao:

glockmail

04-14-2008, 06:36 PM

Attached at the tip! :lmao: Hello chief Queer Enabler! Show us how you would have done it! :laugh2:

retiredman

04-14-2008, 07:14 PM

Because that's what he told me.

he didn't tell me, and since you don't believe much of what I say, you'll understand why I feel similarly to your pronouncements.

glockmail

04-15-2008, 08:38 AM

he didn't tell me, and since you don't believe much of what I say, you'll understand why I feel similarly to your pronouncements. It's not a friggin' "pronouncement", its just what he casually mentioned to me. You can believe me or not. I don't fucking care either way.:slap:

retiredman

04-15-2008, 08:40 AM

It's not a friggin' "pronouncement", its just what he casually mentioned to me. You can believe me or not. I don't fucking care either way.:slap:

I don't.

and the feeling is mutual:lol:

Pale Rider

04-15-2008, 07:14 PM

Well at the end of the day, I really don't see a viable solution to allowing openly homo men or women in the military. Just won't work.

glockmail

04-15-2008, 07:21 PM

I don't.

... So basically you are calling me a liar. Yet another "opinion" of maineman's with no logical basis. :pee:

glockmail

04-15-2008, 07:23 PM

Well at the end of the day, I really don't see a viable solution to allowing openly homo men or women in the military. Just won't work.
Hold on now, don't they allow queers in the French military? That works, doesn't it?

Pale Rider

04-21-2008, 10:18 PM

Hold on now, don't they allow queers in the French military? That works, doesn't it?

Yeah well... all they do is hold up the white flag... :laugh:

My Winter Storm

04-23-2008, 03:27 AM

Well at the end of the day, I really don't see a viable solution to allowing openly homo men or women in the military. Just won't work.

So only heterosexuals have the right to defend their country? Is this what you are saying?

Pale Rider

04-23-2008, 05:44 AM

So only heterosexuals have the right to defend their country? Is this what you are saying?

Nope. Read back through the hundred or so pages I've posted in. I think by that time you'll "know what I'm saying."

glockmail

04-23-2008, 07:46 AM

So only heterosexuals have the right to defend their country? Is this what you are saying?
There's plenty of ways to defend their country and not serve in the military. For starters they can stop voting for liberal Democrats. :laugh2:

My Winter Storm

04-24-2008, 12:12 AM

There's plenty of ways to defend their country and not serve in the military. For starters they can stop voting for liberal Democrats. :laugh2:

I cannot for the life of me think of any reason why gays should not be able to serve in the military. As long as they are discreet, and don't parade their sexuality, I see nothing wrong with it. Don't know why anyone else would.

actsnoblemartin

04-24-2008, 01:15 AM

an interesting article on homosexuality and military service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service#Countries_ with_other_policies

i saw two things of interest in this article.

of the 25 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit open lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to serve;

Israel is the only country in the middle east region that openly allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military.

I cannot for the life of me think of any reason why gays should not be able to serve in the military. As long as they are discreet, and don't parade their sexuality, I see nothing wrong with it. Don't know why anyone else would.

glockmail

04-24-2008, 08:47 AM

Pale Rider

04-24-2008, 06:35 PM

I cannot for the life of me think of any reason why gays should not be able to serve in the military. As long as they are discreet, and don't parade their sexuality, I see nothing wrong with it. Don't know why anyone else would.

That's pretty much how things are now. "Don't ask, don't tell." However, having openly homo people in the military would cause all kinds. First of which, basic training, where people are FORCED to be naked in large groups. Having homo men and women in with heteros where the homos would be permitted to be openly homo, just wouldn't work. It would create a very volatile situation. People would get hurt.

glockmail

04-24-2008, 07:37 PM

....People would get hurt.

Hey- you could put someone's eye out with that thing!

Missileman

04-24-2008, 07:49 PM

glockmail

04-24-2008, 08:16 PM

Like they're supposed to have cameras or MP's to police the queers in the frickin' shower. :lame2:

Noir

04-25-2008, 04:18 AM

Having homo men and women in with heteros where the homos would be permitted to be openly homo, just wouldn't work. It would create a very volatile situation. People would get hurt.

You are implying that being aloud to be openly homo would give them the right to grope other troops, catch a grip, any form of grouping/sexual contact could be treated as such. Yet again you seem to be creating problems to suit your homophobic ideals.

Since you've never been in the military that is perfectly explainable.
Well I’ve never herd that one before *rolls eyes* so only those who have been in the military should comment on military matters? Only those who work in the stock exchange market should be able to comment on the economy? we're back to this metaphorical CSS machine (or what ever it was) aka bollocks.
And as i have stated before this is not a military matter, its a human rights matter, and even by using your flawed logic, as we all have human rights we can all comment on them

Well at the end of the day, I really don't see a viable solution to allowing openly homo men or women in the military. Just won't work.

You know maybe your right...maybe it will never work...o wait, you may have missed something a little up the page.

of the 25 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit open lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to serve;

...oh..well still that’s only about 80% of NATO, surly you need better grounds than that
/sarcasm

Pale Rider

04-25-2008, 02:08 PM

You appear to be the only person here suffering from the delusion that the military would permit homosexuals to engage in games of slap and tickle in the shower. There are standards of conduct that they would be just as accountable for as a straight enlistee.

Well it would also appear that you know a hell of a lot about faggot games.

It would also appear I'm the only one dumb enough to waste my time arguing with you homo apologists. I just have a hard time accepting anyone can be as ignorant as you people.

Pale Rider

04-25-2008, 02:15 PM

You are implying that being aloud to be openly homo would give them the right to grope other troops, catch a grip, any form of grouping/sexual contact could be treated as such. Yet again you seem to be creating problems to suit your homophobic ideals.
And you are implying they never would, which in reality is far more ridiculous than implying they would. If anyone needs to get a grip, it's you.

And let me educate you what "homophobic" means. Homophobia is a "fear" of homosexuals. A "phobia" is a "fear." NO ONE here has uttered ONE WORD of "fear" for homosexuality. Disgust, yes. Fear, no. Get that straight, because using liberal, faggot apologist buzz words won't work here junior. It just makes you look stupid.

Well I’ve never herd that one before *rolls eyes* so only those who have been in the military should comment on military matters? Only those who work in the stock exchange market should be able to comment on the economy? we're back to this metaphorical CSS machine (or what ever it was) aka bollocks.
And as i have stated before this is not a military matter, its a human rights matter, and even by using your flawed logic, as we all have human rights we can all comment on them.
Wrong keemosbee... your ignorance of the military since you've never served is showing in spades. When you enlist in the military, you become property of the United States military. You are given the status of XB3, which means you are a G.I., "government issue," each one, "EXPENDABLE." You're fucking "rights" are GONE, and if you're a fairy little faggot that wants to play dick sucking, butt poking games, and you happen to get your ass kicked because you made an advance to the wrong person, that's going to be your problem, and to take that one step further, that IS the problem. That's the WHOLE problem with faggots in the military.

...oh..well still that’s only about 80% of NATO, surly you need better grounds than that
/sarcasm
Europe is a filthy, liberal cesspool. God help us if we EVER become like them.

Missileman

04-25-2008, 04:33 PM

Well it would also appear that you know a hell of a lot about faggot games.

It would also appear I'm the only one dumb enough to waste my time arguing with you homo apologists. I just have a hard time accepting anyone can be as ignorant as you people.

How about actually arguing the point for a change. Do you really believe that the military is going to allow homosexuals to open their own "bathhouses" in the showers at boot camp?

Pale Rider

04-25-2008, 04:43 PM

How about actually arguing the point for a change. Do you really believe that the military is going to allow homosexuals to open their own "bathhouses" in the showers at boot camp?

1594 posts of "me arguing the point," and you think you're going to make it look as though I haven't? Please Mm... don't be an idiot... if you can.

I believe that sooner or later, it's inevitable, if you allow homos to be "openly homo," yes, you bet, there's going to be trouble. To think otherwise is off your rocker ignorant.

Missileman

04-25-2008, 04:58 PM

1594 posts of "me arguing the point," and you think you're going to make it look as though I haven't? Please Mm... don't be an idiot... if you can.

Actually, you spend about 5% of your responses actually arguing a point, and the other 95% is spent berating the people who disagree with those 5%.

I believe that sooner or later, it's inevitable, if you allow homos to be "openly homo," yes, you bet, there's going to be trouble. To think otherwise is off your rocker ignorant.

How about answering the question...Do you actually believe the military is going to permit gays to engage in sexual activity in the showers in boot camp?

My Winter Storm

04-25-2008, 08:58 PM

That's pretty much how things are now. "Don't ask, don't tell." However, having openly homo people in the military would cause all kinds. First of which, basic training, where people are FORCED to be naked in large groups. Having homo men and women in with heteros where the homos would be permitted to be openly homo, just wouldn't work. It would create a very volatile situation. People would get hurt.

Totally naked, or partially naked? And what sort of training means someone has to be nude?

Besides that, I understand what you are saying, really I do (I like the way you put it) but I think you (and others) are concerned that the sight of other nude men will cause a homosexual to get all, shall we say randy, lol?
I don't think they will, the point of being in the military is to learn and train in order to defend your country. It isn't a place to oogle at another person penis.

Why would they have to be openly gay anyway? Surely they could keep it to themselves, who would know, unless they told someone?

Pale Rider

04-25-2008, 10:37 PM

Actually, you spend about 5% of your responses actually arguing a point, and the other 95% is spent berating the people who disagree with those 5%.
Prove it.

How about answering the question...Do you actually believe the military is going to permit gays to engage in sexual activity in the showers in boot camp?
It's a dumb question. So I'll answer it with just as dumb of a question. If faggots were allowed to be openly homo in actions in the military, do you think the military would go through the trouble of posting "guards" in every shower to make SURE the fags didn't act up?

Pale Rider

04-25-2008, 10:42 PM

Totally naked, or partially naked? And what sort of training means someone has to be nude?

Besides that, I understand what you are saying, really I do (I like the way you put it) but I think you (and others) are concerned that the sight of other nude men will cause a homosexual to get all, shall we say randy, lol?
I don't think they will, the point of being in the military is to learn and train in order to defend your country. It isn't a place to oogle at another person penis.

Why would they have to be openly gay anyway? Surely they could keep it to themselves, who would know, unless they told someone?

Yes... if you don't shower in the military, you'll be in deep shit, so yes, you HAVE to be naked, and I don't know anyone who showers with their clothes ON.

Me being a hetero, if you put me in a shower room with fifty naked women, I'm going to be sporting wood ready for the record books, because I'm normal, you know, a man attracted to women. Now a faggot that loves cock would have the same problem in a shower room with fifty naked men. I don't see how they could hide their arousal with all that prime swinging meat, and I guarantee you, the first time somebody is walking around in a shower full of heterosexual men with a hardon, "IT" is going to get it's homo ass beat. There's no getting around it, so to put a homo in a situation like that naked with all those straight men is just asking for it. It's stupid. It's dangerous.

retiredman

04-25-2008, 10:50 PM

Pale Rider

04-25-2008, 11:05 PM

"I don't see how they could hide their arousal with all that prime swinging meat"

they undoubtedly did and do. There are gay men in the military and have been since the very beginning. How many gay men have you heard of who became uncontrollably erect in a military communal shower and were then beaten by the offended hetero soldiers sharing that shower? How do you think those gay men who have served long and well and only came out of the closet after the completion of their service were able to hide that arousal for all those cumulative years?

Maybe they face the back wall... maybe they bite their tongue... maybe they just don't look... maybe they go last when no one else is in there... I don't know. I do know they HAVE to HIDE IT! What we are debating is if they NO LONGER HAD TO moron. Get it?

retiredman

04-25-2008, 11:11 PM

Maybe they face the back wall... maybe they bite their tongue... maybe they just don't look... I don't know. I do know they HAVE to HIDE IT! What we are debating is if they NO LONGER HAD TO moron. Get it?

if they knew they would get their asses kicked by a bunch of insulted heteros, why would they NOT hide it? and, if you were in a shower with a bunch of naked and beautiful women - even ones who you knew would be offended by your display of tumescence, are you suggesting that you would be incapable of hiding it?

Pale Rider

04-25-2008, 11:26 PM

if they knew they would get their asses kicked by a bunch of insulted heteros, why would they NOT hide it? and, if you were in a shower with a bunch of naked and beautiful women - even ones who you knew would be offended by your display of tumescence, are you suggesting that you would be incapable of hiding it?

Damn right. Put me naked in a shower with fifty young naked girls, shit will happen in the stiff department, and I'm not going to be able to stop it, ESPECIALLY if I was TWENTY again. Maybe you can, which would explain a lot about why you so vehemently defend the homos... maybe you are one, and you just don't fully understand the effects naked women have on heterosexual men, or maybe you just have a tepid libido.

retiredman

04-25-2008, 11:40 PM

Damn right. Put me naked in a shower with fifty young naked girls, shit will happen in the stiff department, and I'm not going to be able to stop it, ESPECIALLY if I was TWENTY again. Maybe you can, which would explain a lot about why you so vehemently defend the homos... maybe you are one, and you just don't fully understand the effects naked women have on heterosexual men, or maybe you just have a tepid libido.

your insults are designed to obscure the fact that you cannot explain how gay men have served in the military for decades and have never been accosted by homophobic heteros after uncontrollably becoming erect in communal showers.

weak... you have lost this debate and you know it.

actsnoblemartin

04-25-2008, 11:41 PM

The gay bashing in this thread is outrageous and is not debating but hating.

Its no better then the militant gays you claim to hate.

Missileman

04-25-2008, 11:49 PM

It's a dumb question. So I'll answer it with just as dumb of a question. If faggots were allowed to be openly homo in actions in the military, do you think the military would go through the trouble of posting "guards" in every shower to make SURE the fags didn't act up?

They'll be on patrol right beside all the guards they have running around making sure the straight enlistees behave within the standards of conduct. :rolleyes: Might have to start calling you Rex Reed...never seen someone stretch so far to justify a bullshit position.

actsnoblemartin

04-25-2008, 11:53 PM

I think we can all agree that whether we let gays in or not.

No one can control themselves :laugh2:

retiredman

04-25-2008, 11:57 PM

I think we can all agree that whether we let gays in or not.

No one can control themselves :laugh2:

wrong. we have been "letting gays in" forever. They just have not been open about it. Pole rider's argument that nature would uncontrollably take its course and sexual attraction would result in erections has not been proven out by centuries of actual experience.

only porn addicts are incapable of self control

actsnoblemartin

04-25-2008, 11:59 PM

I was making a joke.

That no one can control themselves, it was complete sarcasm.

I believe gays are as capable or self contol as straights.

I love you maineman, you make me a better person by teaching me how to let things go.

Thanks for the insults, i mean that.

I love you man.

wrong. we have been "letting gays in" forever. They just have not been open about it. Pole rider's argument that nature would uncontrollably take its course and sexual attraction would result in erections has not been proven out by centuries of actual experience.

only porn addicts are incapable of self control

retiredman

04-26-2008, 12:00 AM

I was making a joke.

That no one can control themselves, it was complete sarcasm.

I believe gays are as capable or self contol as straights.

pole rider apparently feels he cannot control himself. that is a fact.

actsnoblemartin

04-26-2008, 12:04 AM

I cant speak for him, I can only speak for me, but I have no personal problem with gays serving with the currect possibly or openly because. Ive had gay co-workers and we were cool with each other.

Im not really qualified to have an opinion, because I dont know whats its like to live with gays, or serve with gays.

I respect both sides of this issue, and its not really my job to judge either side, I think its hashem's and the military.

pole rider apparently feels he cannot control himself. that is a fact.

Missileman

04-26-2008, 12:16 AM

Yes... if you don't shower in the military, you'll be in deep shit, so yes, you HAVE to be naked, and I don't know anyone who showers with their clothes ON.

Me being a hetero, if you put me in a shower room with fifty naked women, I'm going to be sporting wood ready for the record books, because I'm normal, you know, a man attracted to women. Now a faggot that loves cock would have the same problem in a shower room with fifty naked men. I don't see how they could hide their arousal with all that prime swinging meat, and I guarantee you, the first time somebody is walking around in a shower full of heterosexual men with a hardon, "IT" is going to get it's homo ass beat. There's no getting around it, so to put a homo in a situation like that naked with all those straight men is just asking for it. It's stupid. It's dangerous.

If you were to find yourself in a shower with 25 Rosie O'Donnells and 25 Hillary Clintons you'd sport a splinter? Have you considered that it's possible that all homosexuals aren't sexually attracted to EVERY male on the planet?

actsnoblemartin

04-26-2008, 12:19 AM

no, all homosexuals cant control themselves :laugh2:

JOKE

If you were to find yourself in a shower with 25 Rosie O'Donnells and 25 Hillary Clintons you'd sport a splinter? Have you considered that it's possible that all homosexuals aren't sexually attracted to EVERY male on the planet?

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 12:39 AM

your insults are designed to obscure the fact that you cannot explain how gay men have served in the military for decades and have never been accosted by homophobic heteros after uncontrollably becoming erect in communal showers.

weak... you have lost this debate and you know it.

I gave no less than four examples in answer to your inquiry, yet you pretend I didn't. You are an ignoramus mfm... a utter and total ignoramus.

I have purported real world scenarios from the start. You homo lovers and apologist are the ones twisting and contorting the truth, as usual. I started this thread, and I'll say when it's over, not you.

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 12:40 AM

The gay bashing in this thread is outrageous and is not debating but hating.

Its no better then the militant gays you claim to hate.

Show me the homo bashing...

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 12:43 AM

They'll be on patrol right beside all the guards they have running around making sure the straight enlistees behave within the standards of conduct. :rolleyes: Might have to start calling you Rex Reed...never seen someone stretch so far to justify a bullshit position.

Lets see... my position is it would be dangerous and inappropriate to put openly homo individuals in with heteros, and yours is yes do it, and I have the bull shit position? My God Mm... you and the rest of the faggot apologists and excuse makers are simply off your fucking rockers. You tell "normal" people their position is bull shit, while you maintain a position of sick and perverted as if THAT ISN'T? :laugh:

You people are a joke.

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 12:49 AM

wrong. we have been "letting gays in" forever. They just have not been open about it. Pole rider's argument that nature would uncontrollably take its course and sexual attraction would result in erections has not been proven out by centuries of actual experience.

only porn addicts are incapable of self control

pole rider apparently feels he cannot control himself. that is a fact.

Well buttfuckerfrommaine, I can't. If you put me in with fifty naked women, I'm getting wood. Sorry. It's normal. I'm also sorry you can't. Not my fault you have Erectile Dysfunction. Try some Viagra.

And you bet... I'm not going to act all ignorant about the situation. If faggots were allowed to be themselves and trot around in their fairy suits talking in lisps and acting out their perversion, it wouldn't be long before they tried their shit in basic, and yes, one of them would get their ass beat. You are a complete nincompoop to think otherwise.

Missileman

04-26-2008, 12:54 AM

Lets see... my position is it would be dangerous and inappropriate to put openly homo individuals in with heteros, and yours is yes do it, and I have the bull shit position? My God Mm... you and the rest of the faggot apologists and excuse makers are simply off your fucking rockers. You tell "normal" people their position is bull shit, while you maintain a position of sick and perverted as if THAT ISN'T? :laugh:

You people are a joke.

A shining example of the 95%.

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 01:01 AM

A shining example of the 95%.

Well I asked you once to prove it, and you didn't. Trying the old "tell a lie enough times" trick Mm? Wouldn't surprise me... it's one of you liberals favorites.

There's 1618 posts so far... better get to reading every single one... you might finish by Sunday. Then you can state what you've found, instead of just lying.

actsnoblemartin

04-26-2008, 02:20 AM

anybody want numbers on gays?

here ya go :)

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census,_2000

http://ask.yahoo.com/20070130.html

http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31407.html

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/USA.htm

My Winter Storm

04-26-2008, 04:54 AM

Yes... if you don't shower in the military, you'll be in deep shit, so yes, you HAVE to be naked, and I don't know anyone who showers with their clothes ON.

Me being a hetero, if you put me in a shower room with fifty naked women, I'm going to be sporting wood ready for the record books, because I'm normal, you know, a man attracted to women. Now a faggot that loves cock would have the same problem in a shower room with fifty naked men. I don't see how they could hide their arousal with all that prime swinging meat, and I guarantee you, the first time somebody is walking around in a shower full of heterosexual men with a hardon, "IT" is going to get it's homo ass beat. There's no getting around it, so to put a homo in a situation like that naked with all those straight men is just asking for it. It's stupid. It's dangerous.

Aah, but what if all the men happen to be butt ugly? Would a homosexual get a hard on over some ugly dudes, or only the ones he is attracted to?
Perhaps even the straight guys may get an erection when around other men. Doesn't mean they are gay though, men can't control their erections so I wouldn't necessarily be worried about it.

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 06:57 AM

Aah, but what if all the men happen to be butt ugly? Would a homosexual get a hard on over some ugly dudes, or only the ones he is attracted to?
Perhaps even the straight guys may get an erection when around other men. Doesn't mean they are gay though, men can't control their erections so I wouldn't necessarily be worried about it.

Now you're playing the "what if" game. Pretty much tells my you've run out of steam. Not surprising, when you're trying to defend the indefensible.

retiredman

04-26-2008, 07:02 AM

Well buttfuckerfrommaine, I can't. If you put me in with fifty naked women, I'm getting wood. Sorry. It's normal. I'm also sorry you can't. Not my fault you have Erectile Dysfunction. Try some Viagra.

And you bet... I'm not going to act all ignorant about the situation. If faggots were allowed to be themselves and trot around in their fairy suits talking in lisps and acting out their perversion, it wouldn't be long before they tried their shit in basic, and yes, one of them would get their ass beat. You are a complete nincompoop to think otherwise.

you are the one who claimed that gay men whould be unable to control their erections. That is bullshit, because they clearly HAVE done so for a long time. Why would the fact that the hetero men would KNOW who the gay men were make them any more likely to get hard and risk getting their asses kicked?

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 07:28 AM

you are the one who claimed that gay men whould be unable to control their erections. That is bullshit, because they clearly HAVE done so for a long time. Why would the fact that the hetero men would KNOW who the gay men were make them any more likely to get hard and risk getting their asses kicked?

You can NOT say that in all certainty. You do NOT know that ALL HOMOS as long as they've been sneaking into the military have been able to control themselves. And I also gave four good examples of how they could have hidden their arousal, or avoided it. You've chosen, as usual, to pretend I didn't. That's part of what makes arguing with you such a chore. You're an ignorant sum bitch, and only beat the drum of your liking, totally oblivious to what the other person says. Whatever... I still win, you lose. Just as it always is.

glockmail

04-26-2008, 08:46 AM

[QUOTE=Pale Rider;236479]Damn right. Put me naked in a shower with fifty young naked girls, shit will happen in the stiff department, and I'm not going to be able to stop it, ESPECIALLY if I was TWENTY again. ....QUOTE] I don't see how anyone can argue the contrary here. :clap:

glockmail

04-26-2008, 08:48 AM

Aah, but what if all the men happen to be butt ugly? Would a homosexual get a hard on over some ugly dudes, or only the ones he is attracted to?
Perhaps even the straight guys may get an erection when around other men. Doesn't mean they are gay though, men can't control their erections so I wouldn't necessarily be worried about it.

So we can only admit ugly guys into the military? Just so homos can take showers? :lol:

glockmail

04-26-2008, 08:50 AM

A shining example of the 95%.
Still on that 5% queer thing, even though you've been beat down to a bloody puddle with my 1% argument. You are the energizer bunny or Queer Enablers!

Missileman

04-26-2008, 09:06 AM

Well I asked you once to prove it, and you didn't. Trying the old "tell a lie enough times" trick Mm? Wouldn't surprise me... it's one of you liberals favorites.

I would never impose on the master's territory.

There's 1618 posts so far... better get to reading every single one... you might finish by Sunday. Then you can state what you've found, instead of just lying.

Hold your breath! You review YOUR posts and post what YOU'VE found instead of just denying.

retiredman

04-26-2008, 11:35 AM

You can NOT say that in all certainty. You do NOT know that ALL HOMOS as long as they've been sneaking into the military have been able to control themselves. And I also gave four good examples of how they could have hidden their arousal, or avoided it. You've chosen, as usual, to pretend I didn't. That's part of what makes arguing with you such a chore. You're an ignorant sum bitch, and only beat the drum of your liking, totally oblivious to what the other person says. Whatever... I still win, you lose. Just as it always is.

if they hide their arousal or avoid it, what is the problem? If they don't. they will perhaps incite the anger of some of the hetero soldiers and there may be actions taken which would result in violations of the UCMJ. The problem will sort itself out. As it has for centuries.

actsnoblemartin

04-26-2008, 04:05 PM

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 06:01 PM

I would never impose on the master's territory.

Hold your breath! You review YOUR posts and post what YOU'VE found instead of just denying.

I'd have bet my last dollar you'd fall flat on your face.... and you did.

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 06:04 PM

if they hide their arousal or avoid it, what is the problem? If they don't. they will perhaps incite the anger of some of the hetero soldiers and there may be actions taken which would result in violations of the UCMJ. The problem will sort itself out. As it has for centuries.

You really are that thick aren't you? You actually do have a mental block, and you're not half as bright as you'd LOOOVE all the people here to believe. Well... the premise was... that "if" the homos "didn't" have to hide their sexual self. I don't know where out of forty or so posts you've missed that. Simply amazing... I'll just never understand the liberal mind. You people are controlled by and devoted to the devil.

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 06:08 PM

all the unneccesary name calling of gays.

I got it, many of the board dont approve of it

but too use such visceral terms against gays, and those who disagree with you, not just by you, but by others as well.

It doesnt add anything to the debate.

Youre a good guy pale, but i wish you would calm down sometimes :cheers2:

OK... I'm getting just a little bit annoyed here martin... I'm fifty two years old, and in my day, no one had even HEARD the term "gay." OK? That's the new little cutsie, tootsie term dreamt up by the homos to try and soften their image, and it's the term used by all you young pups, not by me. They're homosexuals, or queers, or faggots. That's what I grew up knowing them as, and that's what I will continue to call them. If you don't' like it son, too bad. But get off my back about it.

Missileman

04-26-2008, 06:14 PM

I'd have bet my last dollar you'd fall flat on your face.... and you did.

You'd be better served to spend that last dollar on a real argument. The only one you've posted in this thread has been shredded like coleslaw. I notice you conveniently avoided answering the Rosie/Hillary question.

retiredman

04-26-2008, 06:15 PM

You really are that thick aren't you? You actually do have a mental block, and you're not half as bright as you'd LOOOVE all the people here to believe. Well... the premise was... that "if" the homos "didn't" have to hide their sexual self. I don't know where out of forty or so posts you've missed that. Simply amazing... I'll just never understand the liberal mind. You people are controlled by and devoted to the devil.

if they didn't have to hide their sexual selves, would that mean that the hetero guys would be perfectly OK if the gay guys all had erections in the public showers?

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 06:20 PM

You'd be better served to spend that last dollar on a real argument. The only one you've posted in this thread has been shredded like coleslaw. I notice you conveniently avoided answering the Rosie/Hillary question.

Get back on the horse Mm... or just shut up. You're out of the loop here talking about some fat ass lezbo.

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 06:21 PM

if they didn't have to hide their sexual selves, would that mean that the hetero guys would be perfectly OK if the gay guys all had erections in the public showers?

And there's lays the problem... think about it... maybe it'll sink in.

Better yet... tell me what the solution is.

Missileman

04-26-2008, 06:44 PM

Get back on the horse Mm... or just shut up. You're out of the loop here talking about some fat ass lezbo.

I guess that's an admission that you pop a splinter on any naked female. Well, the majority of people are more discerning than you are. Your argument that a homo couldn't see a naked man without going into a sexual frenzy has been exposed as a transference of your own sexual disorder.

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 07:07 PM

I guess that's an admission that you pop a splinter on any naked female. Well, the majority of people are more discerning than you are. Your argument that a homo couldn't see a naked man without going into a sexual frenzy has been exposed as a transference of your own sexual disorder.

Just to help you out with your ignorance, especially of the military, no one as fat as that sweaty fucking sow O'Donnell can GET in the military twinkle nuts. Don't be an idiot. The only women you're going to find in basic training are going to be in great shape, and yeah, put me in a steaming shower full of young, hot, naked, glistening, women, and I'll have a fucking hard on made out of cobalt steel. But that's a natural reaction. Normal. Do you have ANY fucking comprehension what NORMAL is? Since all you can do is argue tooth and nail PRO HOMO, I seriously doubt it. Now tell me again how it is a homo that worships cock isn't going to be aroused by a room full of what turns HIM on....

And your sexual insults are falling on deft ears son. I've heard all that shit from you people so many times over, it's repetitiveness has made me immune.

Missileman

04-26-2008, 07:15 PM

Just to help you out with your ignorance, especially of the military, no one as fat as that sweaty fucking sow O'Donnell can GET in the military twinkle nuts. Don't be an idiot. The only women you're going to find in basic training are going to be in great shape, and yeah, put me in a steaming shower full of young, hot, naked, glistening, women, and I'll have a fucking hard on made out of cobalt steel. But that's a natural reaction. Normal. Do you have ANY fucking comprehension what NORMAL is? Since all you can do is argue tooth and nail PRO HOMO, I seriously doubt it. Now tell me again how it is a homo that worships cock isn't going to be aroused by a room full of what turns HIM on....

And your sexual insults are falling on deft ears son. I've heard all that shit from you people so many times over, it's repetitiveness has made me immune.

And your opinion that "it's hot if it's got a twat" is likely grounds for some serious counseling.

retiredman

04-26-2008, 09:36 PM

And there's lays the problem... think about it... maybe it'll sink in.

Better yet... tell me what the solution is.

you've asked me that question and I have given you the answer: follow the UCMJ. punish behavior that is in violation of it - whether that is sodomy or assault. It is an all volunteer force. If you are gay, and you want to serve, you need to keep your sexual desires in check during your enlistment. If you are straight, you need to keep your homophobic violent tendencies in check and not assault other servicemembers simply because of their sexual preference but, instead, just work with them to accomplish the mission.

My Winter Storm

04-26-2008, 09:40 PM

Now you're playing the "what if" game. Pretty much tells my you've run out of steam. Not surprising, when you're trying to defend the indefensible.

I have plenty of steam left, than you.:lol:

I'm simply trying to understand your opinion on this.

I stated that men cannot control their erections. If a straight man happened to get an erection around gay men, he can't will it to go away. It doesn't mean he is gay.
Gay men may not get aroused by the straight men. See, you are asuming that a gay man will get a hard on around straight men, and it's not fair to assume things. If a gay man were to get a hard on around straight men, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Said1

04-26-2008, 10:08 PM

My Winter Storm

04-26-2008, 10:13 PM

George Costanza; It moved, Gerry!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

What are you on about?:finger3:

Missileman

04-26-2008, 10:15 PM

George Costanza; It moved, Gerry!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

ROFL!

My Winter Storm

04-26-2008, 10:27 PM

I still don't get the joke...

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 10:33 PM

you've asked me that question and I have given you the answer: follow the UCMJ. punish behavior that is in violation of it - whether that is sodomy or assault. It is an all volunteer force. If you are gay, and you want to serve, you need to keep your sexual desires in check during your enlistment. If you are straight, you need to keep your homophobic violent tendencies in check and not assault other servicemembers simply because of their sexual preference but, instead, just work with them to accomplish the mission.

You think it would work... I don't. I guess that's the end of that discussion.

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 10:33 PM

And your opinion that "it's hot if it's got a twat" is likely grounds for some serious counseling.

Get a life.

Missileman

04-26-2008, 10:33 PM

I still don't get the joke...

Maybe because you've probably never seen the TV show Seinfeld.

retiredman

04-26-2008, 10:35 PM

You think it would work... I don't. I guess that's the end of that discussion.

OH...that we could we really be so lucky...

but could you tell me why the UCMJ would not serve its purpose?

of course you can't.
:laugh2:

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 10:38 PM

I have plenty of steam left, than you.:lol:

I'm simply trying to understand your opinion on this.

I stated that men cannot control their erections. If a straight man happened to get an erection around gay men, he can't will it to go away. It doesn't mean he is gay.
Gay men may not get aroused by the straight men. See, you are asuming that a gay man will get a hard on around straight men, and it's not fair to assume things. If a gay man were to get a hard on around straight men, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

This is how it's "supposed" to work. Man sees naked woman's tits and pussy, gets sexually aroused. But that isn't how it works for faggots. Faggots see man cock and get aroused. Sick and confused yes, but that's the way it works for them.

Tell me.... didn't you know that? I mean... you get excited when you see pussy, don't you? You're sick and confused too.... I'd have thought you'd understand.

Pale Rider

04-26-2008, 10:41 PM

OH...that we could we really be so lucky...

but could you tell me why the UCMJ would not serve its purpose?

of course you can't.
:laugh2:

Aaa aha ha.... is everything so funny to you? My father told me to beware people that laugh at nothing, because the devil is playing with their mind. In your case, I'd have to say my father was right on the money.

No... I don't believe the UCMJ would be enough, for all the reasons I've already given.

retiredman

04-26-2008, 10:45 PM

Aaa aha ha.... is everything so funny to you? My father told me to beware people that laugh at nothing, because the devil is playing with their mind. In your case, I'd have to say my father was right on the money.

No... I don't believe the UCMJ would be enough, for all the reasons I've already given.
so...you are saying that military leaders would be unable to maintain good order and discipline using the uniformed code of military justice? that is silly. they have been able to so so in a wide variety of circumstances since the code's inception. are you suggesting that some homosexuals could derail military justice?

Pale Rider

04-27-2008, 05:56 AM

so...you are saying that military leaders would be unable to maintain good order and discipline using the uniformed code of military justice? that is silly. they have been able to so so in a wide variety of circumstances since the code's inception. are you suggesting that some homosexuals could derail military justice?

Well... here again you've slipped back to arguing as though everything were to remain as it is, and not arguing the premise that homos would be able to enlist and serve openly as homos. I see why you want to jump back and forth to try and blend the two premises to your advantage. Problem is, you're just derailing the debate with that trick.

Let me know what you're talking about and when you're ready to stay on that topic. I'm not going to continue to chase you around through haphazard topic changes.

Missileman

04-27-2008, 09:31 AM

Well... here again you've slipped back to arguing as though everything were to remain as it is, and not arguing the premise that homos would be able to enlist and serve openly as homos. I see why you want to jump back and forth to try and blend the two premises to your advantage. Problem is, you're just derailing the debate with that trick.

Let me know what you're talking about and when you're ready to stay on that topic. I'm not going to continue to chase you around through haphazard topic changes.

Your insistence that "openly homo" means public screwing, hot pants in uniform, double-dongs in place of rifles in formation, etc is ridiculous. They will be in the military, accountable for military standards of conduct, and subject to the UCMJ should those standards be violated. It's as simple and uncomplicated as that.

retiredman

04-27-2008, 10:35 AM

Your insistence that "openly homo" means public screwing, hot pants in uniform, double-dongs in place of rifles in formation, etc is ridiculous. They will be in the military, accountable for military standards of conduct, and subject to the UCMJ should those standards be violated. It's as simple and uncomplicated as that.

precisely. Pale rider cannot explain why the UCMJ will not be able to handles those situations.

Pale Rider

04-27-2008, 03:31 PM

Your insistence that "openly homo" means public screwing, hot pants in uniform, double-dongs in place of rifles in formation, etc is ridiculous. They will be in the military, accountable for military standards of conduct, and subject to the UCMJ should those standards be violated. It's as simple and uncomplicated as that.

No... it's not. We have laws against bank robbery and murder too, but that doesn't stop it.

Pale Rider

04-27-2008, 03:33 PM

precisely. Pale rider cannot explain why the UCMJ will not be able to handles those situations.

The UCMJ is military law. So what? We have civilian laws too, but they don't stop crime, just as the UCMJ wouldn't stop some homo at some point of perverted conduct. Laws are only for doling out punishment, not stopping the crime/action. Big difference.

manu1959

04-27-2008, 03:41 PM

precisely. Pale rider cannot explain why the UCMJ will not be able to handles those situations.

how about we have unisex barracks and showers and toilets......the ucmj will make sure everything works out ok.......

retiredman

04-27-2008, 04:06 PM

how about we have unisex barracks and showers and toilets......the ucmj will make sure everything works out ok.......

is anyone advocating that? would that somehow allow gays to serve in the military at a time when our military is hurting for volunteers and has taken to allowing convicted felons to enlist in order to make quota? your point seems typical of those put forth by...gadflies...designed to produce a great deal of heat and very little light.

Pale Rider

04-27-2008, 04:14 PM

retiredman

04-27-2008, 04:16 PM

At least he offered up a solution for the debate, not an insult... but then, you never insult first... do you?

his solution was to make unisex facilities for the entire military even though that serves no operational need? Where is countering that absurdity an insult?

manu1959

04-27-2008, 04:18 PM

is anyone advocating that? would that somehow allow gays to serve in the military at a time when our military is hurting for volunteers and has taken to allowing convicted felons to enlist in order to make quota? your point seems typical of those put forth by...gadflies...designed to produce a great deal of heat and very little light.

you just can't do it can you......

anyway i will take this as admission that the ucmj can't control men popin wood over naked women so they wouldn't be able to deal with men poppin wood over men.....

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 04:21 PM

Wouldnt unisex bathrooms increase the likelihood of more rapes?

On the other hand, what do you do have a gay bathroom? or a transgendered bathroom?

Whats wrong with the currect bathrooms, anybody?

manu1959

04-27-2008, 04:24 PM

Wouldnt unisex bathrooms increase the likelihood of more rapes?

On the other hand, what do you do have a gay bathroom? or a transgendered bathroom?

Whats wrong with the currect bathrooms, anybody?

oh people can control themselves and the umsjcsmfg will make sure everyone is a ok.....

retiredman

04-27-2008, 04:24 PM

you just can't do it can you......

anyway i will take this as admission that the ucmj can't control men popin wood over naked women so they wouldn't be able to deal with men poppin wood over men.....

the ucmj can control our military personnel. as it is written.

you can "take" whatever the fuck you want to from my words, if it helps you deal with whatever it is your dealing with, but I have admitted nothing of the sort.

and as I said earlier, there have been gay men in showers with straight men in military barracks for centuries. Have there been rashes of erections popping up throughout shower roooms? have there been rashes of angry assaults from outraged heterosexuals? can you tell me why gay soldiers would be any more inclined to get an erection AFTER gays had been allowed in the military than they had before?

Pale Rider

04-27-2008, 04:27 PM

you just can't do it can you......

anyway i will take this as admission that the ucmj can't control men popin wood over naked women so they wouldn't be able to deal with men poppin wood over men.....

Well that's pretty much been my contention from the beginning, but Mm and mfm seem to think just because they're not supposed to, that's going to stop them. Like all the laws we have now have completely halted law breaking... :uhoh:

Even if they had a homo barracks, putting all homo men with men, or women with women, you may as well put all hetero men and women together then. As much as one can contemplate a solution, I see none.

manu1959

04-27-2008, 04:28 PM

the ucmj can control our military personnel. as it is written.

you can "take" whatever the fuck you want to from my words, if it helps you deal with whatever it is your dealing with, but I have admitted nothing of the sort.

and as I said earlier, there have been gay men in showers with straight men in military barracks for centuries. Have there been rashes of erections popping up throughout shower roooms? have there been rashes of angry assaults from outraged heterosexuals? can you tell me why gay soldiers would be any more inclined to get an erection AFTER gays had been allowed in the military than they had before?

like i said.....unisex everything then.......people will control themselves.....you can't prove otherwise....

retiredman

04-27-2008, 04:31 PM

like i said.....unisex everything then.......people will control themselves.....you can't prove otherwise....

for what purpose? what purpose would unisex anything serve?

Pale Rider

04-27-2008, 04:33 PM

for what purpose? what purpose would unisex anything serve?

If you're going to allow, en mass, homosexuals in with people of the sex that arouses them, then why not everyone?

Wouldn't that be unfair segregation of heteros?

retiredman

04-27-2008, 04:34 PM

If you're going to allow, en mass, homosexuals in with people of the sex that arouses them, then why not everyone?

again..for what military purpose?

Pale Rider

04-27-2008, 04:35 PM

again..for what military purpose?

Wouldn't that be unfair segregation of heteros?

Missileman

04-27-2008, 04:55 PM

Well that's pretty much been my contention from the beginning, but Mm and mfm seem to think just because they're not supposed to, that's going to stop them. Like all the laws we have now have completely halted law breaking... :uhoh:

Even if they had a homo barracks, putting all homo men with men, or women with women, you may as well put all hetero men and women together then. As much as one can contemplate a solution, I see none.

You keep insisting that the miltary isn't capable of maintaining order and discipline when they are in fact highly adept at it. Arguments like yours were raised in regards to racial and gender integration...how on earth has the military survived?

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 05:00 PM

I dont think its accurate to compare racial and gender to sexuality.

Race has no bearing on one's ability to serve

Gender has no bearing on one's ability to serve

but a openly gay male, or female can be a distraction.

A black heterosexual male hitting on a white woman is not going to cause the same headache as an openly gay man living with and showering next to straight men.

I dont understand whats wrong with the current dont ask/dont tell.

Why do gays need to flaunt their sexuality in the military?

For that matter, I dont like anyone flaunting.

We're talking about keeping men living together for 15 months at a time

We need a moral, and comfortable situation and to say, well if the hetero's are uncomfortable they're homophobic is ridiculous.

were not talking a situation, like college, where you have your own dorm.

You keep insisting that the miltary isn't capable of maintaining order and discipline when they are in fact highly adept at it. Arguments like yours were raised in regards to racial and gender integration...how on earth has the military survived?

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 05:03 PM

A society is a fabric that is only as strong as its weakest fabric.

I dont believe the government should endorse or condone or for that matter have any opinion on homosexuality, remember church and state.

So therefore, I would have to say I cannot support gay marriage.

Now, if you wanna talk about a comprimise... perhaps civil unions or domestic partnerships that take into account that gay is different, then straight.

not worse, but different.

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 05:06 PM

With the dont ask/dont tell policy. You allow gays to serve while not allowing gays to hit on other men.

The military does not need the distraction of homosexual relationships, and sex when it already has to deal with heterosexual relationships and sex.

Im beginning to think gays and women shouldnt serve merely so there are no distractions.
lol

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 05:07 PM

Poligamy, I dont think 3 or 8, or 30 people need a marriage to show they love each other, and it hurts single people.

I do not support poligamist marriage either.

retiredman

04-27-2008, 05:17 PM

Wouldn't that be unfair segregation of heteros?
silly..I asked what military purpose would be served. do you have any answer other than "none"?

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 05:22 PM

how does the military deal with fraternizing between men and women.

I believe that covers sex and relationships correct?

what would the variables be, in dealing with same sex fraternizing and please tell me who is most qualified to decide if gays should continue to serve at all, and/or openly gay

thank you

silly..I asked what military purpose would be served. do you have any answer other than "none"?

retiredman

04-27-2008, 05:27 PM

how does the military deal with fraternizing between men and women.

I believe that covers sex and relationships correct?

what would the variables be, in dealing with same sex fraternizing and please tell me who is most qualified to decide if gays should continue to serve at all, and/or openly gay

thank you

the most qualified to determine how, if at all, gays should be allowed to serve in the military is the civilian command authority who would pass that decision on to the military who would execute the decision.

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 05:30 PM

If they are alright with it, then it should be done.

We're talking about the defense of our country, so if it can be done. And im sure gays arent that distracting lol

then fine with me

the most qualified to determine how, if at all, gays should be allowed to serve in the military is the civilian command authority who would pass that decision on to the military who would execute the decision.

Pale Rider

04-27-2008, 06:17 PM

You keep insisting that the miltary isn't capable of maintaining order and discipline when they are in fact highly adept at it. Arguments like yours were raised in regards to racial and gender integration...how on earth has the military survived?

Wrong... I keep insisting shit happens. No amount of rules or laws can stop it. You keep acting like just because there's rules, by some wave a magic wand no one would ever break them. If that were true, there wouldn't be any crime in America, and we both know there most certainly is.

You always try to come off like you're some kind of guru with knowledge no one else has... and then your argument is dismantled from the inside only to expose a person with noting more to his argument than hot air.

Pale Rider

04-27-2008, 06:24 PM

silly..I asked what military purpose would be served. do you have any answer other than "none"?

To even the playing field skippy. If you're going to insist on putting people that are sexually attracted to each other together, naked, in a barracks, you may as well do it with everyone. Save money. Stream line. According to you, everything would be just fine because the UCMJ would magically make everyone into robots incapable of sexual arousal. You're such a visionary.

Now please don't pretend I haven't answered your question. We all know you do it because you don't like the answer. Well, you got one, like it or not. Deal with it and move on.

Missileman

04-27-2008, 07:11 PM

Wrong... I keep insisting shit happens. No amount of rules or laws can stop it. You keep acting like just because there's rules, by some wave a magic wand no one would ever break them. If that were true, there wouldn't be any crime in America, and we both know there most certainly is.

Then you handle it on a case by case basis just like it's handled now with straights who violate the standards of conduct.

glockmail

04-27-2008, 07:17 PM

retiredman

04-27-2008, 08:27 PM

To even the playing field skippy. If you're going to insist on putting people that are sexually attracted to each other together, naked, in a barracks, you may as well do it with everyone. Save money. Stream line. According to you, everything would be just fine because the UCMJ would magically make everyone into robots incapable of sexual arousal. You're such a visionary.

Now please don't pretend I haven't answered your question. We all know you do it because you don't like the answer. Well, you got one, like it or not. Deal with it and move on.

there may be a social requirement to level playing fields, but those requirements are usually driven by populist social movements. There is no military requirement to provide unisex anything.

There is, however, an increasing awareness of a military requirement to allow gays to serve in the military. We are keeping people past their enlistments past their retirement dates (that's slavery) because we don't have enough warm bodies in uniform.

There have ALWAYS been gays in the military. There have ALWAYS been gay men showering with heterosexual men in communal showers. Allowing gay men to serve openly would not change that. If a gay man engages in sodomy while on active duty, he violates the UCMJ and gets punished. If a straight man assaults a fellow soldier or sailor or airman or mainre, HE violates the UCMJ and gets punished.

It is a volunteer force. People are not there against their will. They want to do their enlistments for the gamut of reasons that people enlist in the service for. Gay men who want to serve will enlist because they want to serve their country, not so that they can mince around in communal showers with erections trolling for other queers. Straight men who want to serve their country will enlist for that purpose and not for the purpose of kicking queers in the ass. They will not want to throw their enlistments in the trash bins, and the rest of their lives being labelled as a federal felon for such a reason. Both straights and gays will serve their country because that is the reason they signed up in the first place.

Tell me...in your eight years as an enlisted man in the air force, how many gay airmen did you know?

retiredman

04-27-2008, 08:28 PM

Good point. Why not put the women in with the men?

why? is there a military need to do so?

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 08:34 PM

retiredman

04-27-2008, 08:39 PM

i was just curious, wasnt their a major sex scandal called tailhook?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DB1631F936A25753C1A9609582 60

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=The+Tailhook+scandal&btnG=Search

Should men be seperated from the women.

Just wondering your opinion

tailhook happened at a non-government sanctioned convention in Vegas.... not really applicable to this discussion...

and since tailhook, women have now been allowed to be stationed on navy warships without major incident... men and women in extremely close quarters and the world did not come crashing down. The UCMJ has maintained good order and discipline. Pale rider's fears are not legitimate and are only bigoted homophobia in disguise.

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 08:42 PM

Well, thank you for correcting me, because I was only 10 or 11 at the time.

Secondly, do you like gays serving now, or do you think they should be able to serve openly

Just want your thoughts

if you dont mind :salute:

tailhook happened at a non-government sanctioned convention in Vegas.... not really applicable to this discussion...

and since tailhook, women have now been allowed to be stationed on navy warships without major incident... men and women in extremely close quarters and the world did not come crashing down. The UCMJ has maintained good order and discipline. Pale rider's fears are not legitimate and are only bigoted homophobia in disguise.

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 08:43 PM

is there a line in the sand on what defines actual dissent of homosexuality and what is truly homophobia

Ive heard the word homophobia thrown out along lately especially against those who simply dont approve of it.

Personally, I have had gay co workers.

One was really nice, and we were cool with each other, the other was just a prick, regardless

tailhook happened at a non-government sanctioned convention in Vegas.... not really applicable to this discussion...

and since tailhook, women have now been allowed to be stationed on navy warships without major incident... men and women in extremely close quarters and the world did not come crashing down. The UCMJ has maintained good order and discipline. Pale rider's fears are not legitimate and are only bigoted homophobia in disguise.

retiredman

04-27-2008, 08:46 PM

Well, thank you for correcting me, because I was only 10 or 11 at the time.

Secondly, do you like gays serving now, or do you think they should be able to serve openly

Just want your thoughts

if you dont mind :salute:

I certainly was well aware of gay sailors serving with me over the years. It never once got in the way of our mission. Were I still on active duty today, I would have ZERO problems with gays serving openly. Our nation is in peril. We have patriotic gay Americans who WANT to serve their country. I say, let them serve. absolutely. Nobody joins the all volunteer force for the sex. They join to serve their nation.

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 08:48 PM

I have no problem with gays serving period because youre right, we're gonna let our nation die off, because we cant stand queers being around us.

Sounds :lame2: to me.

I certainly was well aware of gay sailors serving with me over the years. It never once got in the way of our mission. Were I still on active duty today, I would have ZERO problems with gays serving openly. Our nation is in peril. We have patriotic gay Americans who WANT to serve their country. I say, let them serve. absolutely. Nobody joins the all volunteer force for the sex. They join to serve their nation.

manu1959

04-27-2008, 08:56 PM

I certainly was well aware of gay sailors serving with me over the years. It never once got in the way of our mission. Were I still on active duty today, I would have ZERO problems with gays serving openly. Our nation is in peril. We have patriotic gay Americans who WANT to serve their country. I say, let them serve. absolutely. Nobody joins the all volunteer force for the sex. They join to serve their nation.

that is your story and you are sticking to it.......

retiredman

04-27-2008, 09:11 PM

that is your story and you are sticking to it.......

did this thread move to the LAME COMEDY forum and I didn't notice it? ;)

And, for the record, I joined when it was NOT an all volunteer force. And I stayed to serve my country because I loved ships and I loved driving them and I loved serving my country. Any sex came on liberty or shore leave.
But feel free to denigrate my service. All you righties feel perfectly justified in pissing on veterans if they don't happen to share your political views. I am sure you have your "support the troops" made in china bumper magnet so that makes that OK.

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 09:54 PM

how is he denigrating your service?

sorry maineman im not buying it.

Him challenging your assertion about no gays join for sex, has nothing to do with denigrating your service.

Im still trying to fathom how you come to that conclusion??

did this thread move to the LAME COMEDY forum and I didn't notice it? ;)

And, for the record, I joined when it was NOT an all volunteer force. And I stayed to serve my country because I loved ships and I loved driving them and I loved serving my country. Any sex came on liberty or shore leave.
But feel free to denigrate my service. All you righties feel perfectly justified in pissing on veterans if they don't happen to share your political views. I am sure you have your "support the troops" made in china bumper magnet so that makes that OK.

manu1959

04-27-2008, 10:18 PM

how is he denigrating your service?

sorry maineman im not buying it.

Him challenging your assertion about no gays join for sex, has nothing to do with denigrating your service.

Im still trying to fathom how you come to that conclusion??

sop....when he can't get you to see things his way he insults you and claims victim......

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 10:21 PM

It seems that way.

I found no one questioning his service, and I find it sad to play the victim card.

It reminds of, if you dont agree youre a racist.

sop....when he can't get you to see things his way he insults you and claims victim......

manu1959

04-27-2008, 10:25 PM

It seems that way.

I found no one questioning his service, and I find it sad to play the victim card.

It reminds of, if you dont agree youre a racist.

exactly.....unless you are black and voting for a black man....

actsnoblemartin

04-27-2008, 10:27 PM

I never said i condone his temper, nor do i believe he is the only one with one.

exactly.....unless you are black and voting for a black man....

Pale Rider

04-28-2008, 01:15 AM

there may be a social requirement to level playing fields, but those requirements are usually driven by populist social movements. There is no military requirement to provide unisex anything.

There is, however, an increasing awareness of a military requirement to allow gays to serve in the military. We are keeping people past their enlistments past their retirement dates (that's slavery) because we don't have enough warm bodies in uniform.

There have ALWAYS been gays in the military. There have ALWAYS been gay men showering with heterosexual men in communal showers. Allowing gay men to serve openly would not change that. If a gay man engages in sodomy while on active duty, he violates the UCMJ and gets punished. If a straight man assaults a fellow soldier or sailor or airman or mainre, HE violates the UCMJ and gets punished.

It is a volunteer force. People are not there against their will. They want to do their enlistments for the gamut of reasons that people enlist in the service for. Gay men who want to serve will enlist because they want to serve their country, not so that they can mince around in communal showers with erections trolling for other queers. Straight men who want to serve their country will enlist for that purpose and not for the purpose of kicking queers in the ass. They will not want to throw their enlistments in the trash bins, and the rest of their lives being labelled as a federal felon for such a reason. Both straights and gays will serve their country because that is the reason they signed up in the first place.

Tell me...in your eight years as an enlisted man in the air force, how many gay airmen did you know?
I disagree with your whole premise. It's against morality and sensibility to FORCE a heterosexual to shower up with known, open, queers. No matter how you innocent you want to paint the situation, having a mentally unstable person of perverted sexual attraction in with normal people that they are sexually attracted to is wrong, on a moral level, and on a logistic level. You fail to see that putting hetero men and women in together would be EXACTLY THE SAME THING, and do you think for one second the military will do that? No. Not in this lifetime, because they see and understand the problems with it. So do I. Evidently it is you who doesn't possess enough insight to comprehend how bad things could get.

Pale rider's fears are not legitimate and are only bigoted homophobia in disguise.
Now what was that you were saying about you being a "counter puncher?" You insult me without provocation. You are a fucking liar and puss bag mfm. You need your ass kicked up around your sassy fucking shoulders, and I hope someday you lip off to the wrong person and that's just what happens. Fuck off and die you filthy mother fucking, rat bastard, pussy, smegma stain.

Pale Rider

04-28-2008, 01:24 AM

I never said i condone his temper, nor do i believe he is the only one with one.

You've been in his corner for the last five pages... that's pretty much condoning his behavior, even when he insults me without provocation.

The sons a bitch is maggot on a moldy tampon anm. Do yourself a favor and get some space between you and him. You're better than he is.

My Winter Storm

04-28-2008, 01:43 AM

This is how it's "supposed" to work. Man sees naked woman's tits and pussy, gets sexually aroused. But that isn't how it works for faggots. Faggots see man cock and get aroused. Sick and confused yes, but that's the way it works for them.

Tell me.... didn't you know that? I mean... you get excited when you see pussy, don't you? You're sick and confused too.... I'd have thought you'd understand.

You are confused, it doesn't work like that. Not every man will get an erection when he sees a naked woman, and not all women will get excited when they see a penis. Same with gay men/women. You might think that's how it's 'supposed' to be, but it isn't like that at all.

I'm sure the gay men in the military would be fine around the hetero men. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they will get a hard on at the first sight of a penis - I mean, whenever you see a woman, do you get a hard on? I'd say no, or else you'd have a hard on 24 hours a day.

Pale Rider

04-28-2008, 01:54 AM

You are confused, it doesn't work like that. Not every man will get an erection when he sees a naked woman, and not all women will get excited when they see a penis. Same with gay men/women. You might think that's how it's 'supposed' to be, but it isn't like that at all.

I'm sure the gay men in the military would be fine around the hetero men. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they will get a hard on at the first sight of a penis - I mean, whenever you see a woman, do you get a hard on? I'd say no, or else you'd have a hard on 24 hours a day.

How in the hell would you know "how it works" for heterosexuals? You being a flaming lezbo, you have no room to even speculate about what is normal for normal people.

"Naked," being the operative word you're conveniently leaving out. You better fucking believe it. If an attractive, young, NAKED woman is standing in front of me, the mast is going to be at full staff. If it doesn't, then I'm in dire need of some fucking VIAGRA!

"I'm confused," .... coming from a woman that doesn't know what her pussy is for... :laugh:

glockmail

04-28-2008, 07:44 AM

You are confused, it doesn't work like that. Not every man will get an erection when he sees a naked woman, and not all women will get excited when they see a penis. Same with gay men/women. You might think that's how it's 'supposed' to be, but it isn't like that at all.

I'm sure the gay men in the military would be fine around the hetero men. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they will get a hard on at the first sight of a penis - I mean, whenever you see a woman, do you get a hard on? I'd say no, or else you'd have a hard on 24 hours a day.

Apparently you don't know much about young men in their late teens or early twenties. At that age we think about sex ten or twelve times in an hour. All it takes is the sight of a shapely thigh in some tight jeans, or a nipple poking out through a sweater, and little Johnnie’s coming up to see what’s happening. For that matter the smell of perfume or the sound of a soft voice nearby would do it. There is simply no way the average normal male could shower next to a woman, even blindfolded, and not get an erection.

Pale Rider

04-28-2008, 07:51 AM

Apparently you don't know much about young men in their late teens or early twenties. At that age we think about sex ten or twelve times in an hour. All it takes is the sight of a shapely thigh in some tight jeans, or a nipple poking out through a sweater, and little Johnnie’s coming up to see what’s happening. For that matter the smell of perfume or the sound of a soft voice nearby would do it. There is simply no way the average normal male could shower next to a woman, even blindfolded, and not get an erection.

Oooohh but glock, you MUST be CONFUSED, being normal and all... a heterosexual... :laugh:

Evidently only those who have a sexual identity crisis are able to understand how "NORMAL" people think... ppphht... :talk2hand:

glockmail

04-28-2008, 08:23 AM

I can see where’s she’s coming from though, most females don’t have the active libidos that the average male has. That goes for lesbians as well. The gay males that I have known have all been just as excitable as I described. In fact there is a theory that some guys turn gay because they can't find girls who are as nymphomaniac as they are. Another theory is that girls turn gay to avoid the incessant sexual appetite of males.

What I’m saying is that Sharon may honestly think that 18-20 something gay men won’t be distracted by 18-20 year old normal men doing mundane tasks such as calisthenics, weapons training, running, team-building exercising, sitting in classrooms in close proximity, sweating, or showering. That’s because she’s never been an 18-20 something guy distracted by 18-20 year old women doing mundane tasks such as calisthenics, weapons training, running, team-building exercising, sitting in classrooms in close proximity, sweating, or showering.

You and I both know different. When I was in high school and college, I could not possibly count, even for one day, the number of times my body reacted to the females around me. I’m sure your experience was no different.

retiredman

04-28-2008, 08:34 AM

I disagree with your whole premise. It's against morality and sensibility to FORCE a heterosexual to shower up with known, open, queers. No matter how you innocent you want to paint the situation, having a mentally unstable person of perverted sexual attraction in with normal people that they are sexually attracted to is wrong, on a moral level, and on a logistic level. You fail to see that putting hetero men and women in together would be EXACTLY THE SAME THING, and do you think for one second the military will do that? No. Not in this lifetime, because they see and understand the problems with it. So do I. Evidently it is you who doesn't possess enough insight to comprehend how bad things could get.

as I have said over and over again:

1. there is a military requirement to allow gay men to serve. We have recruiting shortfalls, we are lowering admissions standards, we are keeping people in service after the terms of their enlistments (stop-loss).

2. there always HAVE been gays showering with straight men in the military. Your premise would suggest that, for all those years, closeted gay men have been successfully repressing their sexual attraction to all those straight guys who aren't attracted to them...but somehow, if their sexual preference would be KNOWN, that they would no longer be able to repress those desires, even though they knew they were unwanted and that the display of such attraction was inappropirate and could lead to situations punishable by the UCMJ.

3. There are no logistical difficulties with gays in the military. They are already IN the military.

4. As I already said, a movement to make the military unisex would not be one driven by any current MILITARY need.

Pale Rider

04-28-2008, 09:58 AM

as I have said over and over again:

1. there is a military requirement to allow gay men to serve. We have recruiting shortfalls, we are lowering admissions standards, we are keeping people in service after the terms of their enlistments (stop-loss).

2. there always HAVE been gays showering with straight men in the military. Your premise would suggest that, for all those years, closeted gay men have been successfully repressing their sexual attraction to all those straight guys who aren't attracted to them...but somehow, if their sexual preference would be KNOWN, that they would no longer be able to repress those desires, even though they knew they were unwanted and that the display of such attraction was inappropirate and could lead to situations punishable by the UCMJ.

3. There are no logistical difficulties with gays in the military. They are already IN the military.

4. As I already said, a movement to make the military unisex would not be one driven by any current MILITARY need.

1.) The ONLY way homos can serve in present day military is if they HIDE their sexual perversions.

2.) Remove all don't ask don't tell limitations and simply swing the doors to the military open to openly homosexual people, and there is NO WAY that the way it HAS been will continue. It will be an entirely new game, and for you to think that everything would just continue without incident is ignorant. Take off the rose colored glasses.

3.) It would make perfect sense to remove all separation between the sexes if you're going to allow openly sexually attracted sexes in the same building, naked. Save the money. Save the paper work. Save the time and effort it takes to do all those logistic chores. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's discriminatory allow homos in with straights, if you didn't allow straights in with each other. If you're going to remove one barrier, in fairness, you'd have to remove them all.

4.) End of story. Discussion over. You lose.

retiredman

04-28-2008, 10:03 AM

1.) The ONLY way homos can serve in present day military is if they HIDE their sexual perversions.

2.) Remove all don't ask don't tell limitations and simply swing the doors to the military open to openly homosexual people, and there is NO WAY that the way it HAS been will continue. It will be an entirely new game, and for you to think that everything would just continue without incident is ignorant. Take off the rose colored glasses.

3.) It would make perfect sense to remove all separation between the sexes if you're going to allow openly sexually attracted sexes in the same building, naked. Save the money. Save the paper work. Save the time and effort it takes to do all those logistic chores. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's discriminatory allow homos in with straights, if you didn't allow straights in with each other. If you're going to remove one barrier, in fairness, you'd have to remove them all.

1. so.... in the showers, they were able to HIDE their erections for all those previous years when they were in the closet? Or, were they merely capable of showering with other men and not becoming overwhelmed with passion?
2. YOur opinion. YOU say there would be NO WAY and that is all you have to offer. It was weak the first time you used it and it is profoundly weak after numerous repetitions.
3. this isn't about "fairness", it isn't about social policy, it is about military readiness. There is no logistical requirements for any changes if gays are allowed into the military.

Pale Rider

04-28-2008, 10:12 AM

1. so.... in the showers, they were able to HIDE their erections for all those previous years when they were in the closet? Or, were they merely capable of showering with other men and not becoming overwhelmed with passion?
Yes they hid it. Remove the reasons why they HAD to hide it, and it's a whole new ball game. You pretending it won't be is ignorant.

2. YOur opinion. YOU say there would be NO WAY and that is all you have to offer. It was weak the first time you used it and it is profoundly weak after numerous repetitions.
It's not my problem you have a liberal mental block against reason.

3. this isn't about "fairness", it isn't about social policy, it is about military readiness. There is no logistical requirements for any changes if gays are allowed into the military.
Now that's sounds about as typical as everything else you say... "fuck fairness."

Yup... you're a real winner.

retiredman

04-28-2008, 10:20 AM

Yes they hid it. Remove the reasons why they HAD to hide it, and it's a whole new ball game. You pretending it won't be is ignorant.

It's not my problem you have a liberal mental block against reason.

Now that's sounds about as typical as everything else you say... "fuck fairness."

Yup... you're a real winner.

1. don't you think that gay men are aware of the fact that showing sexual arousal in a communal shower would lead to problems? Your asserting as fact that it would be a "whole new ballgame" is an opinion unsupported by facts. In FACT, there are high schools around the country where gay young men take communal showers with straight young men and there are not any problems that develop that cannot be handled by the high school's disciplinary systems. My son was the captain of his high school soccer and hockey teams. There were gay young men on both of those teams. No reports of any erections.

2. unsupported opinion is not "reason"

3. Again... there is a military need to incorporate gays into the military: we are short of cannon fodder and need more. There is no military need to create a unisex military when society is not unisex overall. Your insertion of "fairness" into the discussion is nothing but a red herring. We are talking about HOW to manage the inclusion of gays into the military. I have said, all along, that the UCMJ can handle it, just like it has handled the administration of military justice in support of good order and discipline since the day it was enacted.

Pale Rider

04-28-2008, 06:04 PM

1. don't you think that gay men are aware of the fact that showing sexual arousal in a communal shower would lead to problems? Your asserting as fact that it would be a "whole new ballgame" is an opinion unsupported by facts. In FACT, there are high schools around the country where gay young men take communal showers with straight young men and there are not any problems that develop that cannot be handled by the high school's disciplinary systems. My son was the captain of his high school soccer and hockey teams. There were gay young men on both of those teams. No reports of any erections.

2. unsupported opinion is not "reason"

3. Again... there is a military need to incorporate gays into the military: we are short of cannon fodder and need more. There is no military need to create a unisex military when society is not unisex overall. Your insertion of "fairness" into the discussion is nothing but a red herring. We are talking about HOW to manage the inclusion of gays into the military. I have said, all along, that the UCMJ can handle it, just like it has handled the administration of military justice in support of good order and discipline since the day it was enacted.

Whatever... you'll repeat the same old, stale, homo apologist line from now 'till kingdom come. Still won't make you right, but I realize that's what you liberals do. Pretend that if you tell the same lie long enough it'll somehow become true. Well... it won't... son.

I'm right, you're wrong. Goodbye.

retiredman

04-28-2008, 07:48 PM

Whatever... you'll repeat the same old, stale, homo apologist line from now 'till kingdom come. Still won't make you right, but I realize that's what you liberals do. Pretend that if you tell the same lie long enough it'll somehow become true. Well... it won't... son.

I'm right, you're wrong. Goodbye.

run away....with your tail between your legs.... like having a mangina!

you cannot explain why a gay man in a communal shower would get an erection looking at other naked men in a situation where they all knew he was gay, but somehow his predecessors have been able to suppress those supposedly uncontrollable urges for centuries. What about being "in the closet" has made other men less attractive to gay men?

actsnoblemartin

04-28-2008, 08:08 PM

im sorry why you talking about me ?

scroll down to Sanjaya Malakar - You Really Got Me (The Kinks)

and see the pictures :laugh2:

run away....with your tail between your legs.... like having a mangina!

you cannot explain why a gay man in a communal shower would get an erection looking at other naked men in a situation where they all knew he was gay, but somehow his predecessors have been able to suppress those supposedly uncontrollable urges for centuries. What about being "in the closet" has made other men less attractive to gay men?

actsnoblemartin

04-28-2008, 08:09 PM

wouldnt a homosexual get his ass beat for get a woody in the shower or hitting on a straight guy in the military?

Just wondering.

run away....with your tail between your legs.... like having a mangina!

you cannot explain why a gay man in a communal shower would get an erection looking at other naked men in a situation where they all knew he was gay, but somehow his predecessors have been able to suppress those supposedly uncontrollable urges for centuries. What about being "in the closet" has made other men less attractive to gay men?

retiredman

04-28-2008, 08:19 PM

wouldnt a homosexual get his ass beat for get a woody in the shower or hitting on a straight guy in the military?

Just wondering.

absolutely. and that would happen whether he was an announced homosexual or a closeted one.

that is the point martin.... pole rider seems to feel that, once gay men are allowed to join the military that they would be strutting around showers getting raging hardons looking at men. It is a silly, irrational position based upon ignorance and fear.

manu1959

04-28-2008, 08:27 PM

absolutely. and that would happen whether he was an announced homosexual or a closeted one.

that is the point martin.... pole rider seems to feel that, once gay men are allowed to join the military that they would be strutting around showers getting raging hardons looking at men. It is a silly, irrational position based upon ignorance and fear.

and the solider that beat the gay guy would be charged with a hate crime and go to prison.....or the military brass would look the other way.....either way you have a bad sitution....not the least of which is straight guys beating up gay guys.....nice solution....

actsnoblemartin

04-28-2008, 08:31 PM

well, if gays were allowed to serve, wouldnt they be told not to hit on other men?

Im no genius, but doesnt the military says no fraternizing with women.

Personally, I think beating up a gay man or woman, simply for hitting on you is disgusting.

I also find that their are respectful ways to ask someone if they are gay, straight, without being a dick.

Personally, I had a gay co-worker who was very cool, he knew i was straight, i knew he was gay. There were no problems after that.

it comes down to respecting one's bounderies gay or straight.

I do wonder if gays are such a problem why does israel allow them to serve, and do they serve openly or un-openly :laugh2:

actsnoblemartin

04-28-2008, 08:34 PM

isnt there a law or statute that says, intent to injure or cause great bodily harm, why not apply that instead of hate crime laws, because i dont see hate crime laws applied when 6 black kids beat up a white kids or blacks and mexicans fight.

its so absurd, that one day youll have to ask the guy or girl you wanna fight, are you white, you look white, but i dont wanna get charged with a hate crime for fighting you or chill man chill, i cant fight you, youre not white.

retiredman

04-28-2008, 09:53 PM

and the solider that beat the gay guy would be charged with a hate crime and go to prison.....or the military brass would look the other way.....either way you have a bad sitution....not the least of which is straight guys beating up gay guys.....nice solution....

bullshit. what makes you think that the military leadership would ignore violations of the UCMJ? That is absurd.

actsnoblemartin

04-28-2008, 10:29 PM

why do they keep charging our boys with absurd things, like firing to many bullets, and other trivial issues.

im losing faith that are military is not becoming p.c.

bullshit. what makes you think that the military leadership would ignore violations of the UCMJ? That is absurd.

Pale Rider

04-29-2008, 01:02 AM

like having a mangina!

mfm: Look mommy... I just learned a new word to insult people with... doesn't it make me look big?

I just realized one of the best ways to piss you off is to ignore you. It relegates you to the not worth talking to pile of trash where you belong.

We're good to go... :fu:

Pale Rider

04-29-2008, 01:14 AM

why do they keep charging our boys with absurd things, like firing to many bullets, and other trivial issues.

im losing faith that are military is not becoming p.c.

You finally starting to see what kind of a rancid, maggot infested, butt crack this bastard is anm?

Why do think he hides out up there in the back woods of Maine? Because he's fully aware of that he'll get ass kicked to a bloody pulp if he's around too many people, that's why. He can't help himself, he has no self control. He's a bad seed infected with the devil in his brain, and he'll turn on you too whenever he sees fit. Just give it time.

My advice, just ignore the buffoon. He has no idea how to debate in civil tones. As soon as he sees the debate shifting to the other side and he's losing, the insults start and the debate is over. He's pure trash. The sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.

actsnoblemartin

04-29-2008, 01:41 AM

im considering putting him on ignore too

mfm: Look mommy... I just learned a new word to insult people with... doesn't it make me look big?

I just realized one of the best ways to piss you off is to ignore you. It relegates you to the not worth talking to pile of trash where you belong.

We're good to go... :fu:

actsnoblemartin

04-29-2008, 01:43 AM

oh i realize it, as soon as he said lets drop it, then took a really nasty cheap shot at yurt. I now know, not to debate him.

He cant be nice, he is incapable, no matter how nice or civil i am, the meaness he has comes out. im done

iggy time :laugh2:

You finally starting to see what kind of a rancid, maggot infested, butt crack this bastard is anm?

Why do think he hides out up there in the back woods of Maine? Because he's fully aware of that he'll get ass kicked to a bloody pulp if he's around too many people, that's why. He can't help himself, he has no self control. He's a bad seed infected with the devil in his brain, and he'll turn on you too whenever he sees fit. Just give it time.

My advice, just ignore the buffoon. He has no idea how to debate in civil tones. As soon as he sees the debate shifting to the other side and he's losing, the insults start and the debate is over. He's pure trash. The sooner you learn that, the better off you'll be.

Pale Rider

04-29-2008, 02:20 AM

glockmail

04-29-2008, 05:53 AM

bullshit. what makes you think that the military leadership would ignore violations of the UCMJ? That is absurd.
When queers infest the command structure.

retiredman

04-29-2008, 07:41 AM

When queers infest the command structure.

what makes you so sure then don't already?

glockmail

04-29-2008, 08:06 AM

what makes you so sure then don't already? Because they are not letting openly queer gays in.

retiredman

04-29-2008, 08:09 AM

Because they are not letting openly queer gays in.

so the command structure cannot be infested with closeted gays?

glockmail

04-29-2008, 08:11 AM

so the command structure cannot be infested with closeted gays?
That may be something that you're hoping for, as it would be familiar to you.

Pale Rider

04-29-2008, 08:31 AM

That may be something that you're hoping for, as it would be familiar to you.

Yeah it would be... he was in the Navy... :gay:

glockmail

04-29-2008, 08:33 AM

Yeah it would be... he was in the Navy... :gay: He was also a little boy....

Pale Rider

04-29-2008, 08:42 AM

He was also a little boy....

You mean like somebodies butt buddy... boy? :laugh:

I would have guessed as much, as vehemently as he defends and makes excuses for the homos.

actsnoblemartin

04-29-2008, 08:45 AM

After talking to a close friend of mine on the phone (a former service person)
I am going to have to conclude, ok, i have come to the conclusion that gays should not serve.

Why?

Because it simply would be too much of a distaction and its not fair to make straights uncomfortable, even one of them.

we're talking about living close side by side, and things are bound to happen...

we have enough distactions with men and women living too close.

glockmail

04-29-2008, 08:51 AM

You mean like somebodies butt buddy... boy? :laugh:

I would have guessed as much, as vehemently as he defends and makes excuses for the homos.
It's become painfully obvious that he's got problems stemming from sexual abuse as a child.

Pale Rider

04-29-2008, 09:06 AM

It's become painfully obvious that he's got problems stemming from sexual abuse as a child.

That would explain a lot about his attitude and lying, and his unwavering support for homos.

actsnoblemartin

04-29-2008, 09:10 AM

was does gay acceptance mean ?

you must let a homo :puke3:

glockmail

04-29-2008, 09:21 AM

That would explain a lot about his attitude and lying, and his unwavering support for homos.
I think it does. It must be a painfull way to go through life. No wonder he's so rabid, and quick to insinuate others would do the same with their sons. To him, that type of behavior is normal.

Pale Rider

04-29-2008, 09:23 AM

I think it does. It must be a painfull way to go through life. No wonder he's so rabid, and quick to insinuate others would do the same with their sons. To him, that type of behavior is normal.

Why else do you think the little maggot hides out up there in the back woods of Maine? Because he's a social outcast due to his wild ideas, lying, and foul uncontrollable mouth.

glockmail

04-29-2008, 09:29 AM

Why else do you think the little maggot hides out up there in the back woods of Maine? Because he's a social outcast due to his wild ideas, lying, and foul uncontrollable mouth.
Well again, I think that his experiences as a youth have fouled up his life beyond repair. I'd rather see him hiding out in Maine then doing a Ted Bundy somewhere. I think he's smart to be where he is, or off to some island in Mexico where no kids are around.

Pale Rider

04-29-2008, 09:44 AM

Well again, I think that his experiences as a youth have fouled up his life beyond repair. I'd rather see him hiding out in Maine then doing a Ted Bundy somewhere. I think he's smart to be where he is, or off to some island in Mexico where no kids are around.

Probably true. His wild lies and psychotic visions about being an officer in the Navy and giving sermons in a church are definite indicators of a mental imbalance, and it's all been on display here for a couple months now. I don't think we've ever had a more universally hated board member than he.

glockmail

04-29-2008, 10:02 AM

Probably true. His wild lies and psychotic visions about being an officer in the Navy and giving sermons in a church are definite indicators of a mental imbalance, and it's all been on display here for a couple months now. I don't think we've ever had a more universally hated board member than he.
Well this is a good outlet for his frustrations then. I'm hoping that he doesn't have any long term physical affects from being repeatedly violated as a child.

Pale Rider

04-29-2008, 10:18 AM

Well this is a good outlet for his frustrations then.
Could be... unfortunately the people of the board are his whipping post.

I'm hoping that he doesn't have any long term physical affects from being repeatedly violated as a child.
Maybe he does have physical problems along with his mental problems. He wouldn't admit to it if he did. His world is built on lies.

glockmail

04-29-2008, 10:22 AM

Could be... unfortunately the people of the board are his whipping post.

Maybe he does have physical problems along with his mental problems. He wouldn't admit to it if he did. His world is built on lies.

No I never expect him to admit tio anything. If that shit happened to me I'd be in the denial tank as well. I'm glad my Dad was a Korean Vet, a good Christian man, slow to anger, faithful to his wife, protective of his children, and still around when I need a stiff drink of scotch!

Pale Rider

04-29-2008, 11:02 AM

No I never expect him to admit tio anything. If that shit happened to me I'd be in the denial tank as well. I'm glad my Dad was a Korean Vet, a good Christian man, slow to anger, faithful to his wife, protective of his children, and still around when I need a stiff drink of scotch!

Shit... you're old man sounds like mine. My paw was at sea in the Navy as a Quarter Master when Pearl Harbor was hit. They steamed in afterwards and he helped clean up... hundreds of dead people. Bad scene. My father and mother were strict people. Christian. Had all us kids baptised and circumcised as Methodists. They never hung out in the bar, always worked hard, taught all us kids good morals and right from wrong, and always put their family ahead of themselves. I owe them more than I could ever repay.

glockmail

04-29-2008, 11:13 AM

Shit... you're old man sounds like mine. My paw was at sea in the Navy as a Quarter Master when Pearl Harbor was hit. They steamed in afterwards and he helped clean up... hundreds of dead people. Bad scene. My father and mother were strict people. Christian. Had all us kids baptised and circumcised as Methodists. They never hung out in the bar, always worked hard, taught all us kids good morals and right from wrong, and always put their family ahead of themselves. I owe them more than I could ever repay.
My Dad never went overseas. He was a brainy kid and they signed him up for the missile corps, and he witnessed an open-air nuclear test back in the 50's.

He converted from Lutheran to Catholic so he could marry my Mom. As good Catholics they liked a drink but bar-hanging wasn't their thing either.

He only got pissed at me once enough to hit me and that was just a bat around in the kitchen. Not at all like poor old MFM.

Pale Rider

04-29-2008, 11:51 AM

My Dad never went overseas. He was a brainy kid and they signed him up for the missile corps, and he witnessed an open-air nuclear test back in the 50's.
Hope he doesn't suffer from any radiation effects.

He converted from Lutheran to Catholic so he could marry my Mom. As good Catholics they liked a drink but bar-hanging wasn't their thing either.
I used to bar tend quite a bit. A couple times full time and then other times part time. One of the better, more fun bartender jobs I had was at the Blackhawk back in Muscoda, Wisconsin. Very nice restaurant and bar. On Sundays the catholics would come in after church or mass or whatever and have a drink. Yes they drank, but I don't recall any one of them ever having over two. They never got "drunk." They loved the Brandy Old Fashioned Sweets. The thing that pissed me off was all the old bastards paying me right to the penny out of their coin purses and NEVER leaving a tip.

He only got pissed at me once enough to hit me and that was just a bat around in the kitchen. Not at all like poor old MFM.
My dad never hit me with a fist. Got my ass taned a couple of times with a stick, but I had it coming. I fucked up and knew it.

Who knows where mfm's psychiatric problems come from, but he's a boiling pit of emotions. I'm sure he doesn't have many friends. He doesn't know how to treat people, and they can no doubt sense his airs of superiority and condenscension.

glockmail

04-29-2008, 12:03 PM

Hope he doesn't suffer from any radiation effects...... He's 78 now, had 5 healthy kids, and the only physical ailments he's had in his life had been common things.
He was about 3 miles from the epicenter as I recall the story. In a trench with welding glasses. They told everyone to duck after the flash, which he did, but some guy next to him thought he was man-enough to take the wind blast, so kept standing and almost got his back broke. The weapon was launched from a canon. :laugh2:

Pale Rider

04-29-2008, 12:49 PM

He's 78 now, had 5 healthy kids, and the only physical ailments he's had in his life had been common things.
He was about 3 miles from the epicenter as I recall the story. In a trench with welding glasses. They told everyone to duck after the flash, which he did, but some guy next to him thought he was man-enough to take the wind blast, so kept standing and almost got his back broke. The weapon was launched from a canon. :laugh2:

Must have also been one of the little guys, because if you're three miles from a modern nuclear weapon, you're going to be nothing more than a shadow on the ground, even if you are in a hole.

But just to make a final comment on mfm's absurd contention that if you allowed multitudes of openly homo men and women to suddenly invade the military, and that somehow, magically, the UCMJ would hold them all to stellar behavior... it's just the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. If that argument had ANY merit, society would be free of all crime then too. How utterly preposterous. The notion is one straight from the mind of an unstable person.