TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Your thoughts....
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson ^ "Unnatural act"...ah yes, because shooting people with guns is a natural act. Why the other day I was picking off ripe AK-47s from the AK-47 tree.

Well shooting might not be, but killing is, so...

Then again most any sexual act could be considered natural, seeing that nature gave us the parts.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Well shooting might not be, but killing is, so... Then again most any sexual act could be considered natural, seeing that nature gave us the parts.

the thing the bible bashers forget is that pretty much every type of sex except the most boring, missionary styles are sins according to the bible-

its conservative bullshit: Sexual preference should not define people, and its one of the more annoying facts about society that it does

its no question important on a human/animal level, but to suggest it defines how people are in general is so ridiculous... same as the gender debate though i guess

I feel like this "if it's not natural it's not good" is the most useless cliche, whether it's coming from some Republican defending their bigotry towards gays, or some idiot liberal at Whole Foods. Plus it's really offensive to robots.

The people who push for all organic food piss me off A bunch of privileged hateful self absorbed jerks They want everyone to go completely organic and forget that if there weren't for the advantages of genetically modified food a good portion of earths population would have already died off from starvation. Like i said, bunch of self absorbed privileged idiots, they are in a way exactly like bible pushers as they are basically selling a religion.



I need to get my coffee or ill be cranky all day...

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose The people who push for all organic food piss me off A bunch of privileged hateful self absorbed jerks They want everyone to go completely organic and forget that if there weren't for the advantages of genetically modified food a good portion of earths population would have already died off from starvation. Like i said, bunch of self absorbed privileged idiots, they are in a way exactly like bible pushers as they are basically selling a religion.

Agree with you 100%, except I'd like to add that they're retarded too. Some organic things are better, but that doesn't mean all are. When people tout "natural is better" to me I tell them they should play with Poison Ivy because that's natural.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson I feel like this "if it's not natural it's not good" is the most useless cliche, whether it's coming from some Republican defending their bigotry towards gays, or some idiot liberal at Whole Foods. Plus it's really offensive to robots.

yeah, the problem is 'natural' doesn't mean anything hey..

surely gay sex is natural since people aren't using weird contraptions to do it (in most instances anyway, right? ) , yet just because its not the same type of sex they have (preferring to be aroused by small children, or being whipped or whatever) then its somehow offensive to them, or 'unnatural'...

Nothing unnatural about being whipped.

What is the gay policy of the Canadian military (if they have one)?

Any port in a storm.

Personally, I divide the world between natural and supernatural.

If two people bonk, it's natural.
If two ghosts bang, it's supernatural.
If a ghost fucks the hell of a person, then it's superawesome.

Unless you're that person.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Dude, I understand that. It's natural human nature for strait dudes to have reservations about serving in combat with homosexuals-

I really don't understand the debate on this issue. It's a civil liberties issue and has no bearing on effectiveness, etc. There are already gay servicemen in the military, and you don't see any problems with effectiveness. What hurts effectiveness is drubbing out gay servicemen with great records simply because they told someone a core component of their identity.

The political right is trying to argue that straight guys knowing that their mate is gay is somehow going to change how they operate in the field? The craziest part of this is that you already have straight men in units with straight women... where exactly is the claim to distraction there? Somehow gay men are more forward than straight men are toward women?

To impose a policy whereby gay soldiers - all of whom are willing to die for their country - have to actively hide who they are because some other idiot in their unit is prejudiced? Patently un-American.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Personally, if I were the president of the United States, I'd ban all vegans from the military. Just because.

If I were in the service, I know it would probably bring down my morale if I was out in the field worried about whether the cook back at mess was secretly passing off veggie tofu burgers as red meat. Would really impact my effectiveness. Clearly that's not my problem, and warrants us banning vegans entirely to avoid that kind of scenario. And anyone else I don't like, too.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Any port in a storm.

My response

Well, I am in the service and I am straight, but my opinion is that it does not matter. The DoD DID poll a large number of service members across all four branches of the US military. Really, I don't care about someone's sexual orientation. What matters to me is can the Marine/soldier/sailor/or, ugh, airman do his/her job to the best of his/her ability? I really don't care who someone chooses to sleep with at the end of the day as long as they have my six when we are facing the enemy. I have known several friends who came out once they were done with their active duty and most people were very surprised, which goes to show that sexual orientation doesn't make a difference. If someone volunteers to serve, they should be evaluated on their service, not their sexual preferences.

If you oppose gays serving openly in the army then you're probably a terrible person. I think the only reasoning behind it must be the idea that all gay men are hyper-sexualised and would go all weak-kneed and be rendered incapable of performing their duties if they so much as caught a glimpse of a nice, butch marine in their unit. THIS IS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE:

The system wasn't broken. Why did they fix it? Gays are allowed to serve in the military just as straights are and in neither case are you ever to disclose your sexual preference.

I run across guys with "flaming" tendencies and suspect they might be gay. But I don't ask nor do I care. I may suspect they are gay, but as in current policy I am not allowed to ask. Hell, I could be wrong, so I give them the benefit of the doubt and think nothing of it.

Allowing it to be open is unnecessary. This workplace is not the normal population of people and is nothing like society.

The issues I see come to what Will talked about. The housing, insurance, formal functions etc... The federal gov does not recognize same sex marriages so their partners will not be afforded any of those privileges.

With this new law gays might technically allowed to bring their "partner" to a formal function, but it certainly won't be received well. If they have any sort of "flaming" traits then god help them.

I work in a total male workplace in combat arms. I have deployed to multiple places and lived in the shit and in close quarters with guys. I have seen many a cock-and-ball in my day. One example is for our piss tests... We are required to have a guy be the "cock watcher" to go with the guy to the latrine to watch him piss. This will obviously be a point of contention.

My bottom line is that everybody is allowed to serve now. Let's not bring unnecessary drama to unit cohesion. In more units than not, this won't be an issue(like the AF and Navy), but in combat arms in the Marines and Army it will be.

quote:

Originally posted by Zewad The system wasn't broken. Why did they fix it?

because people asked even when they weren't supposed to, people didn't tell just like they were supposed to but god kicked out of the army anyway. The system was broken. It got fixed. Its how its supposed to work.

out of curiosity, were you one of the folks who got the survey?

I hope for the sake of everyone, both hetero, and homo, that everyone's just respectful and professional about it. Leadership needs to stand tall and tell everyone (both hetero and homo) that they won't tolerate any unecessary drama and/or harassment.

the problems are going to arise when those flaming homosexuals make it ALL about being gay. it won't be received well (as zewad mentioned). because being in the military isn't about YOU, it's about your SERVICE.

example 1:
"OMG THIS IS MY BOYFRIEND" says the homo with glitter spewing out his mouth, accessorizing and flaming everywhere. this will not get you respect and/or "good" attention.

example 2:
"hey so this is my boyfriend" says the homo like any normal human being, like any straight says "this is my girlfriend". no glitter. no flames. just a regular dude. while it may not be 100% open arms for everyone, at least it'll give you more respect than the flaming homosexual.

odds are, very few people will come out (like chris mentioned). but if it gets more folks a relief off of their shoulders that they won't be fired, then I think that's great for them. who knows, now that the stress is off their backs, they'll perform their job better?

You know i simply have to ask...do you guys think that most gay people are the flaming gays like you see in the tacky tv shows? Whats this sudden fear of an influx of flamers into the military?

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose You know i simply have to ask...do you guys think that most gay people are the flaming gays like you see in the tacky tv shows? Whats this sudden fear of an influx of flamers into the military?

No, i don't believe that. and i've never come across anyone who was like that in my career. well, maybe one or two....but i just dismissed it and could have cared less and moved on in life.

so, no, i don't think there will be rainbows everywhere. might run in to it here or there....but no, not everywhere.

along those same lines, i don't see this as de-masculine-izing ( ) the military. think about this: there's what....2-5% of the US population is gay? ....well, we have about 310,000 folks in the AF....so, assuming the same ratio, that's...what....6,200-15,500 folks? that's pretty small numbers relatively speaking. and say 50% of those are the stereotypical tv-flaming homosexuals....that's less than 5,000 (on average)....spread out across the globe? even smaller.

quote:

Originally posted by Zewad The issues I see come to what Will talked about. The housing, insurance, formal functions etc... The federal gov does not recognize same sex marriages so their partners will not be afforded any of those privileges. With this new law gays might technically allowed to bring their "partner" to a formal function, but it certainly won't be received well. If they have any sort of "flaming" traits then god help them.

The bigger issue in the litigation on it was support groups. I don't think anyone is asking to bring their gay partner to a ball, but the fact that straight partners have access to various support services provided by the military while gay couples have to lay in hiding seems a pretty big distinction.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov It's a civil liberties issue and has no bearing on effectiveness, etc.

Civil liberties are for civilians. Don't get me wrong, soldiers should in no way be exempt from basic human rights (which I of course believe all sexual orientation to be one of these, so long as it is consensual), though what's "basic" to some people and what it is to others is where things become muddy. Hopefully, that is what this repeal is to essentially address: people's right to be whoever or whatever they are, and not suffer unbalanced consequences for it. That is also where I think there will be significant blowback, given the military is not a strict populace of civic commerce, but an even stricter chain of command subject to the ideologies of rarely varying individuals.

It's obvious that homosexuals have been in militaries for as long as there have even been militaries, but the sphere of public knowledge has evolved to a very volatile form in this age. You had better believe the US government uses things like facebook to profile its own; after all, when you sign those papers, you belong to them, you're their investment, their property. All the more, after a Private had dealings with wikileaks, is there a call for them to keep tabs on their service members. And what about the undoubted search function within their database to filter out a list of all enlisted, "registered" homosexuals, and dole out latrine duty, and cafeteria duty, and sudden transfers at the whim of one of these "right winger" COs that supposedly shouldn't exist because professionalism is obviously the paramount goal of any government organization... ?

I'm not saying I am against the repeal, because I am far more in support of its equality than I am for its utter opposition, but there's a reality to face being a minority, and people will obviously fabricate whatever discrimination against you that they will. As in the civilian sphere, your "rights" can turn on you, should you decide to be open about them in conflict with the position of others, only now the US military is given access to the openness for profiling its members, and what they decide they can do with this information is anyone's guess. I guess the essence of what I am saying is: the Military should not officially be able to oust people on the basis of their sexual orientation, but were I a homosexual and were I employed by the government, I would hope that nobody asked, and I certainly wouldn't tell.

quote:

Originally posted by Zewad The system wasn't broken.

Not if you're straight.

quote:

Originally posted by tubularbills I could honestly care less. If one of my airmen in my shop came up and said "hey guess what, I'm gay!" I'd say in response, "hey guess what, you still have to do your job". I think there's big differences between the services. but overall it's up to the leadership to squash it. It's obvious the marine Commandandt has said he doesn't like the policy. in fact he thinks that now it's repealed, there are going to be marines, "losing their legs" because of a "distraction". but Admiral Mullen from the Navy said he wants to see it repealed. I've personally never deployed in an environment where I'd be sharing a tent or whatever with multiple dudes. so i don't know what goes on in that environment. if they were all sitting around and talking abotu fucking their girl friends and then one dude was like, "hey, i fuck my boyfriend", would all the straight guys beat him up? If they're professional human beings, they wouldn't. would the gay guy try to get some action? If he's a professional human being, he wouldn't. I'd say about 90% of the folks I've worked with over the years are professional airmen and officers. and what about up the chain? if my boss and his boss both came out, i personally wouldn't think any less of them. but i wouldn't think any more of them either. just do your fucking job and be a respectable professional and you'll still get my salute. Upper leadership has a lot on their hands now, with this repeal being put into action. there's a lot of personnel issues to be dealt with. and not the issue of "every gay man wants to fuck every straight man" but legality issues...insurance money....marriage...visitation rites...on-base housing...lots of things like that. i don't envy them...in fact, i'm kind of glad i'm not in their position because no matter what they decide it's going to make some people unhappy.

Bill you are NOT in the military. That was a game you played as a child. Time to let go. I am still hunting down your tutorial on Fairy Lights using your small penis pick up truck.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.