- This topic has 27 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So obama wants to at some point end the ban on *edited*s serving in the military; allowing them to serve ‘openly’. On one side, (mostly coming from the right) you have people saying it isn’t a good idea, that it will some how make the military less effective. On the other side it is targeting bigotry. Why does it matter if a person wants to serve openly *edited*. Is he not serving the country? Or is it the fact that some people are so fearful of someones sexuality that they need to assume they are straight? Women are allowed to serve in the military, but a *edited* or lesbian can’t (openly at least)?
What do you think?
The military isn’t about sexuality, it’s about creating cookie-cutter soldiers. The second you allow sexuality or sexual preference to enter into the equation you instantly create differences between soldiers that no amount of training can compensate for.
If you REALLY care about serving, and that’s the sole reason you’re there, why does it matter that you can’t be openly *edited*. All they want to do is prove a point or show the world they’re *edited*, those making a big deal over this have no interest in serving this country. Being a soldier is a secondary concern to forcing their sexual choices and ideals on the rest of us.
MasterP said:
The military isn’t about sexuality, it’s about creating cookie-cutter soldiers. The second you allow sexuality or sexual preference to enter into the equation you instantly create differences between soldiers that no amount of training can compensate for.
If you REALLY care about serving, and that’s the sole reason you’re there, why does it matter that you can’t be openly *edited*. All they want to do is prove a point or show the world they’re *edited*, those making a big deal over this have no interest in serving this country. Being a soldier is a secondary concern to forcing their sexual choices and ideals on the rest of us.
they aren’t forcing anything on us. If anything we are forcing them to be silent. If they say anything, they get the boot. How is that fair? I have a cousin who is openly *edited*, and serves in the Spanish Military. He holds an officer position. He could probably kick the majority of straight tards against this. And he is married (Spain, one of the most catholic countries, allows *edited* marriage lol). Now if he were in the US military, he couldn’t have pictures of his loved one (much less get legally married). He is risking his life and would have to write, view, and communicate back to his family in total seclusion. Any suspicion of someone being *edited* in the army mind you can still lead to an investigation. So how is that fair agian?
oh and the whole cookie cutter soldiers thing is all fine and nice, except…WE LET WOMEN JOIN THE MILITARY. Unlike a *edited* guy, a woman is genetically different than a man. Now I’m no sexist, but by the whole cookie cutter theory, we shouldn’t allow women to fight because they are “inferior to men” in strength and stamina and blah blah.
and contrary to what most republitards think, most military dudes could give a rats *edited* if someone serves openly *edited*. Like you said they are there to fight.
Ephraim said:
I think this is a decision that should only be made by top military officials.
Last time i checked, Commander-in-Chief, was about as top and official as the military gets.
NuRayZ said:
Unlike a *edited* guy, a woman is genetically different than a man.
Last I checked the running liberal excuse for being *edited* was that they were genetically predisposed to be that way. This would make them genetically different from straight men, just like women.
You can’t use both sides of the argument here.
The military is made of primarily heterosexual males and until we have true equality of carrying the burden (IE women and *edited*s NOT being exempt from the draft) I have no problem bashing others or pushing them to secondary roles. Keep in mind that removing homosexuality as a draft dodger will put millions of you liberals back in the draft pool if/when we ever do have another draft. IMO you’d be better off not having “equality”.
I have nothing against *edited*s, it’s a choice they make, but straights don’t flaunt their heterosexuality in the military so why should they tolerate *edited*s flaunting their homosexuality. I mean really, the military is a choice, you don’t HAVE to be there.
Btw, the whole “can’t have a picture” thing is nonsense. Give me one source that backs that up with proof a soldier was actually punished for having a picture of a male.
MasterP said:
NuRayZ said:
Unlike a *edited* guy, a woman is genetically different than a man.
Last I checked the running liberal excuse for being *edited* was that they were genetically predisposed to be that way. This would make them genetically different from straight men, just like women.
well i don’t buy that from my fellow libs. Wouldn’t it be all over the news if they found a ‘*edited* gene’? I know of some research done to try and find one, but i’m pretty sure they couldn’t find it.
i think some choose to be *edited*, and others are *edited* from the get go. My cousin was *edited* since forever(btw i’ll get back at you with the picture thing). I also knew a girl in middle school who had a crush on me and after years of rejection (totally not my fault, she was just really ugly =/) she decided she was *edited*.
but hell if they want to flaunt their *edited*ness and take a bullet for the country go right ahead. Whatever happens it will be interesting to see the reaction of either side. Too bad their isn’t a solution to make everyone happy. =/
NuRayZ said:
Ephraim said:
I think this is a decision that should only be made by top military officials.
Last time i checked, Commander-in-Chief, was about as top and official as the military gets.
Yes, but I think the general concensus of numerous career soldiers is more valuable than one guy who has been president for under a year and who keeps *edited*ing off the military brass.
MasterP said:
NuRayZ said:
The military is made of primarily heterosexual males and until we have true equality of carrying the burden (IE women and *edited*s NOT being exempt from the draft) I have no problem bashing others or pushing them to secondary roles. Keep in mind that removing homosexuality as a draft dodger will put millions of you liberals back in the draft pool if/when we ever do have another draft. IMO you’d be better off not having “equality”.
I have nothing against *edited*s, it’s a choice they make, but straights don’t flaunt their heterosexuality in the military so why should they tolerate *edited*s flaunting their homosexuality. I mean really, the military is a choice, you don’t HAVE to be there.
I am liberal to a point but I’m not *edited*. I think *edited*s should be open in the military because it isn’t a choice. It isn’t deciding whether or not you go to class today, it isn’t whether or not you are going to eat chocolate right now, its not a *edited*ing choice at all. This is where the uber conservatives don’t understand. What makes it a choice for you to enjoy women? Did you say “Wow I think I am going to eat *edited* today.” No, you didn’t.
Most *edited*s don’t flaunt their homosexuality because they are oppressed. And how do heterosexuals not flaunt their sexuality. Most men and women for that matter run around talking their asses off about who they *edited*ed at parties the night before. This may not be your cup of tea talking about who you got with but most do.
And P.S. *edited* EQUALITY. If women and men were truly equal in the army everything would be standard. A woman would have to run a mile in 6minutes (don’t know exact number) just like the guy does. I don’t want someone backing me up if they can’t run as quick or jump as far…etc. If there really was a cookie cutter model it would have been shown already.
YouWinGameOver said:
This is where the uber conservatives don’t understand. What makes it a choice for you to enjoy women? Did you say “Wow I think I am going to eat *edited* today.” No, you didn’t.
Well let’s put this in Darwin liberal terms then. How does a species reproduce? It’s not male-male, it’s male-female. If *edited*s don’t reproduce eventually that “genetic abnormality” will extinct itself and we’ll be back to status-quo as nature intended. IF however it’s not genetic and truely is a choice, as us “ultra-conservatives” believe, then regardless of how much homosexuals don’t reproduce they’ll always be more of them. According to genetics and nature, this is not possible. Unless homosexuality is a disease and I’m not going that route.
YouWinGameOver said:
Most *edited*s don’t flaunt their homosexuality because they are oppressed.
Why then? Why is that when you walk down the street you can always tell who’s *edited* and who isn’t. I know my *edited*dar is tuned to “stay the hell away” mode but it’s not like they aren’t making it easy to tell.
YouWinGameOver said:
Most men and women for that matter run around talking their asses off about who they *edited*ed at parties the night before. This may not be your cup of tea talking about who you got with but most do.
When you get out of the frat house and quit going to keggers you’ll find most of the world doesn’t care who you banged last night.
MasterP said:
Well let’s put this in Darwin liberal terms then. How does a species reproduce? It’s not male-male, it’s male-female. If *edited*s don’t reproduce eventually that “genetic abnormality” will extinct itself and we’ll be back to status-quo as nature intended. IF however it’s not genetic and truely is a choice, as us “ultra-conservatives” believe, then regardless of how much homosexuals don’t reproduce they’ll always be more of them. According to genetics and nature, this is not possible. Unless homosexuality is a disease and I’m not going that route.
nowadays we have test tube babies, so technically they could reproduce
a choice would be whether i want chocolate or vanilla ice cream. I don’t choose to have relations with women, I am attracted to them. Tell me, if it’s a choice, what could possibly be causing them to choose that? The devil? lol
but wait, lets back up a little. There is evidence of homosexual behavior in animals. Sure they can’t reproduce, and therefore should die off, and do. But then the following generation those blasted homos are back! but how? Now, are you telling me then that they are choosing to do that? So now ‘ultra-conservatives’ would be conceding to the fact that animals have consciousness?!?! That totally goes against the conservative way rofl
just thought it kinda funny, of course animal behavior is not rational but instinctive. Could it be that is where it comes from, that some people’s instincts tell them their *edited*? hmm..maybe. I guess the question arises is whether or not you believe we are born with instincts or a clean slate. Oh how fun that lecture was in philosophy class!
MasterP said:
YouWinGameOver said:
This is where the uber conservatives don’t understand. What makes it a choice for you to enjoy women? Did you say “Wow I think I am going to eat *edited* today.” No, you didn’t.
Well let’s put this in Darwin liberal terms then. How does a species reproduce? It’s not male-male, it’s male-female. If *edited*s don’t reproduce eventually that “genetic abnormality” will extinct itself and we’ll be back to status-quo as nature intended. IF however it’s not genetic and truely is a choice, as us “ultra-conservatives” believe, then regardless of how much homosexuals don’t reproduce they’ll always be more of them. According to genetics and nature, this is not possible. Unless homosexuality is a disease and I’m not going that route.
It is not a disease first off.
YouWinGameOver said:
Most *edited*s don’t flaunt their homosexuality because they are oppressed.
Why then? Why is that when you walk down the street you can always tell who’s *edited* and who isn’t. I know my *edited*dar is tuned to “stay the hell away” mode but it’s not like they aren’t making it easy to tell.
It’s easy to tell because you are so *edited*ing afraid of them. You segregated them to the point where you can tell.
YouWinGameOver said:
Most men and women for that matter run around talking their asses off about who they *edited*ed at parties the night before. This may not be your cup of tea talking about who you got with but most do.
When you get out of the frat house and quit going to keggers you’ll find most of the world doesn’t care who you banged last night.
I am not in a frat and I don’t go to keggars. So get off your hi horse and your computer take you nose out of the bible and really look at the world. You are being a pretentious *edited*.
quote post fail
This should be looked at purely as a militarial issue. If Obama were to talk to a series of high-ranking military officials, and they each said that allowing homosexuals to openly serve would not cause any major morale problems, then let them in. Otherwise, the current system works.
As for women in the military: I think it’s fine for them to serve, as long as they are trained using the same standards as men. None of this “take it easy on them in the name of equality” nonsense. The opposing army is trying to KILL YOU.
Dude, if you’re going to bash me at least learn how to use the quote button. If you can get it right (not hard btw it just takes a brain) I’ll reply, otherwise I’ll ignore and move on.
NuRayZ said:
a choice would be whether i want chocolate or vanilla ice cream. I don’t choose to have relations with women, I am attracted to them. Tell me, if it’s a choice, what could possibly be causing them to choose that? The devil? lol
but wait, lets back up a little. There is evidence of homosexual behavior in animals. Sure they can’t reproduce, and therefore should die off, and do. But then the following generation those blasted homos are back! but how? Now, are you telling me then that they are choosing to do that? So now ‘ultra-conservatives’ would be conceding to the fact that animals have consciousness?!?! That totally goes against the conservative way rofl
just thought it kinda funny, of course animal behavior is not rational but instinctive. Could it be that is where it comes from, that some people’s instincts tell them their *edited*? hmm..maybe. I guess the question arises is whether or not you believe we are born with instincts or a clean slate. Oh how fun that lecture was in philosophy class!
The fact that it happens in nature does raise questions but the *edited* population in nature isn’t nearly as high as that of humans.
Regardless, I think it’s simply the lifestyle and upbringing that causes it. I mean it’s easy to say it’s genetic but now they’re saying that people can be genetically predisposed to be alcoholics, drug addicts, and criminals. Comeon, I can be born to be a car thief that does crystal meth? Let’s put the blame where it really belongs.
Poor or unbalanced upbringing can cause a myriad of mental and psychological disorders and although it would take longer to find the link, I think it would be better to use something that makes sense as a reason for it instead of “hey they were born *edited* and even though I can’t prove it your argument is invalid.” Like you said, they haven’t found the “*edited* gene” yet but everyone is so *edited* sure it exists. If it was truely genetic and deterimental to a species’ long-term survival, and not reproducing is a pretty big detriment, then the population should extinct itself. If not, then it’s not genetic. I don’t know what it is but if it’s not genetic you can’t be predisposed to be it.
*edited* you.
Why won’t you respond? Because I am *edited*ing right?
Here’s my response again so that it is easy for you to read.
It is not a disease first off.
It’s easy to tell because you are so *edited*ing afraid of them. You segregated them to the point where you can tell.
I am not in a frat and I don’t go to keggars. So get off your hi horse and your computer take you nose out of the bible and really look at the world. You are being a pretentious *edited*.
Once again *edited* you. I have lost a lot of respect for you with in this thread alone. The fact that you feel the need to not respond to someone because they screwed up on something simple shows how hi you have put your *edited* on a pillar.
And another thing how is this upbringing and lifestyle when conservatives have *edited* kids. Did those kids not read the bible? Did their dad’s rape them? What was it that “changed” them to be *edited*…gave them that “choice” to be *edited*?
Wiki or not
Mary Cheney.
Ephraim said:
NuRayZ said:
Ephraim said:
I think this is a decision that should only be made by top military officials.
Last time i checked, Commander-in-Chief, was about as top and official as the military gets.
Yes, but I think the general concensus of numerous career soldiers is more valuable than one guy who has been president for under a year and who keeps *edited*ing off the military brass.
Thank you, Ephraim. I was about to go there myself.
YouWinGameOver said:
*edited* you.
Why won’t you respond? Because I am *edited*ing right?
I don’t respond because if you can’t even figure out how to use the quote button why the hell should I assume you’ve figured out how to form complete sentences and logic patterns.
YouWinGameOver said:
It is not a disease first off.
Notice I said I wasn’t touching that. I’ve proven before that it’s a moral disease, even had some libs agree that the argument made sense, but doing so here would take way too long and you’d fall off the bus halfway there so I’m not going to bother.
YouWinGameOver said:
It’s easy to tell because you are so *edited*ing afraid of them. You segregated them to the point where you can tell.
I don’t remember saying I was afraid of them. I avoid them if I can but I’m not afraid to talk to them. Since I’m not insecure I don’t really mind talking to them.
There’s a big difference between being afraid and avoiding. I would be afraid of going near opposing gang members arguing in the street but would avoid gang members regardless if at all possible. Doesn’t mean I won’t talk to gang members, and I had to a few times while working for Duke Energy, but that doesn’t mean I was afraid while doing so.
YouWinGameOver said:
I am not in a frat and I don’t go to keggars. So get off your hi horse and your computer take you nose out of the bible and really look at the world. You are being a pretentious *edited*.
Sorry. Every place I’ve ever worked at has frowned HEAVILY upon talking about “banging achievements” and other similar conversations. The real world simply does not tolerate that, especially not in an office environment, it’s simply too big of a sexual harasement case waiting to happen. I’ve worked in retail, public utility, and university. The only people I’ve ever heard talk about that were those in frats and those who frequented keggers, none of which worked or lived in the real world.
Where exactly do you work or discuss sexual achievements? I’m kinda curious at this point.
YouWinGameOver said:
Once again *edited* you. I have lost a lot of respect for you with in this thread alone. The fact that you feel the need to not respond to someone because they screwed up on something simple shows how hi you have put your *edited* on a pillar.
To be perfectly honest, I’m not in this for your respect. If you can’t take 30 seconds to fix a post how can you honestly expect me to spend 15 minutes responding? Is it fair that when you don’t spend the time to properly bash me that I don’t spend the time to properly reply?
Btw, anyone who takes a political-oriented thread personally needs a serious reality check. Take a giant step back and remember this is the internet. Continuously saying “*edited* you” just makes you look like the *edited* here.
YouWinGameOver said:
And another thing how is this upbringing and lifestyle when conservatives have *edited* kids. Did those kids not read the bible? Did their dad’s rape them? What was it that “changed” them to be *edited*…gave them that “choice” to be *edited*?
When did conservative mean good parenting? You can be a conservating and still never spend time with your kids. In fact you can even be conservative and NOT be a Christian. As comical as your stereotyping is, it’s really getting old.
Being “conservative” means you have a set of values. Not all those values have to fit into the “stereotypical conservative” set of values, simply that you’re close. You can be atheist and vote conservative. You can rape your kids and vote conservative. Again, you need to take a giant step back and look at the larger picture. No one has mentioned political parties or ideals up until now and it’d be a real shame if, instead of arguing the points, you dragged this back to the same-old republican vs democrat argument. That’s not what this thread is about.
Pink Monkey #13 said:
Ephraim said:
that reply is slightly comical in the context of this thread.
Oddly enough I had already thought the exact same thing.
Gameover as much as I agree with what you say, masterp is right, no need to cuss him out. lol it’s the politics and although things get heated at times (as they should), opposing parties need to rise above personal attacks and condescending statements. we are all on the same team here. MasterP just likes to be blunt with things, which comes off as a bit shrewd but hey it’s the internet, not sesame street haha.
All in all i do agree with you though.
MasterP said:
Pink Monkey #13 said:
Ephraim said:
<3 you too. No homo.
that reply is slightly comical in the context of this thread.
Oddly enough I had already thought the exact same thing.
lol.
This is just one thing I feel strongly about. I don’t believe people should be bashed for their sexual orientation. I don’t think *edited*s flaunt their sexuality because if we had been open about it we wouldn’t care as much and although we would still know who was and who was not there would still be a huge gray area.
Saying *edited* you 30x wasn’t the right thing to do however, not responding to someone was equally as *edited*-ish.
I’ve worked in numerous places, construction, Program managing, radio station, manager of a place right now that bring in comedians, bands, open mics, I have worked in numerous areas.
Conservative never means good parenting. In fact 90% of the conservative people that I’ve met I have thoroughly disliked.
It’s not stereotyping that will ever get old. Because bible pushers make it that way. BTWs I am not an Atheist.
I have taken a giant step back and looked at the larger picture. There is no cookie cutter soldier. If *edited*s could be open in the army and women could fight at the same level as men, then yes anonymity would be thrown out the window but there would be a better resemblance of this cookie-cutter we commonly mention.
So I have given this thread some serious thought before posting.
I am really on the border about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. On the one hand, I think it is wrong to flat out deny someone solely based on their sexuality. On the other hand, I like the idea of don’t ask, don’t tell. Why do *edited*s (and not ALL *edited*s mind you) feel they must be so open and detailed about their sexuality that this is even an issue? I think sexual orientation should be a non-issue in the army in the sense that which ever way you swing, the topic really shouldn’t be discussed anyways. People that feel they are defined solely by their sexual orientation are, in my opinion, pathetic. One of my best friends is a homosexual (and no, it’s not MasterP… that I know of) but it’s a non-issue because the topic is literally NEVER brought up. We have based our friendship on the fact that we have similar interests and enjoy each other’s company. Any relationship like that should be healthy regardless or if they are *edited* or straight. It should be the same in the army, but too many *edited*s feel that they have to be flamboyant about their sexuality and rub it in everyone’s face. Those are the people I think the army can do without because honestly it can cause conflict and hostility among the ranks. If you cannot just let your sexuality be a non-issue, you shouldn’t be in the army.
In conclusion, I have nothing against *edited*s (again, one of my best friends is *edited*) but I still think that Don’t ask, don’t tell is the way things should stay.
Regardless of how you feel about this issue, there’s one thing on which we can all agree:
Lady Gaga is really *edited*ing annoying.
- The forum ‘Political Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.