Dont ask, dont tell......how about dont care

[1069]

You wouldn't put a female soldier in the same barracks with a bunch of men, would you?

What's the difference with putting her with a bunch of lesbians?

I don't see why not.
Male and female firefighters sleep in the same room (they work 24 hours on, 48 hours off). Gay firefighters of both sexes sleep in the same room as hetero ones, also; the fire department does not provide special sleeping accomodations for anyone, at least not in my city, regardless of sex or orientation.
These people are adults, presumably.
I don't know much about the military, but it seems obvious even to me that with or without separate barracks, male and female military personnel still manage to get up to plenty of hanky-panky with one another.
I don't really see why separate barracks are provided, except just as an empty propriety; these people are having sex wherever and whenever they feel like it.

 

[hypgnostic]

Here we go with the name calling........And Liberals call us the intolerant ones...


Clueless..........

Name-calling? You're clearly speaking from a BIGOTED and cluelessly intolerant point of view and have the audacity to suggest that YOU were improperly labled??

HAHAHA!!

Let me know when I can stop laughing!
:rofl

 

[hypgnostic]

I think some leaders would associate having openly gay leaders in the military as a moral reason to not serve... Other leaders and macho types would not be able to identify macho with gay leaders and therefore would leave the service like boyschouts leaving a girlscout troop if it were re-typed.

And THAT, my friend, would do WONDERS for our military. We would finally get the bigots out of the military once and for all and may finally be able to win a war having REAL men in the military. Any leaders, soldiers or 'macho types' that have a problem serving under a gay leader belong back in assembly lines and ditch-digging lines anyway. Those are not the kind of guys that would ever lead us into victory.

 

[hypgnostic]

How can you guys say having gay soldiers doesn't hurt military effectiveness and then say "Look at Europe!" in the same breath?

Our military is way better than anything Europe has,,,, or ever had.

That's a real shoot-yourself-in-the-foot arguement there.


You wouldn't put a female soldier in the same barracks with a bunch of men, would you?

What's the difference with putting her with a bunch of lesbians?

If you can't see the difference, you obviously don't have any business talking about it. And just because the US has more BOMBS than any other country, does not mean it is more skilled. The US would NEVER have been able to conquer Germany if it were not for the British. Aside from that, no other military complex on the PLANET has sunk as low as the US when it targeted hundreds of thousands of civilians with nuclear bombs. Which is why it is so BLATANTLY hypocritical for the US to try to limit who gets nukes and for what purpose. We're the only country who's been irresponsible enough to actually USE them, and we're STILL in possession of thousands of these weapons.

And idiots like you have to WONDER why there's 'terrorists' who want to blow us up? And the SAME idiots in the military discharge one of our best Arab translator who's able to communicate in our intelligence against the terrorists because he's GAY? This is precisely why the terrorists will WIN, as long as we have such idiots running the military.

 

[rathi]

Our military is way better than anything Europe has,,,, or ever had.

That's a real shoot-yourself-in-the-foot arguement there.

We certainly have more troops and equipment and often better equipment than Europe, but our average soldier is little different. Not to mention that Israel has open gay service, and I hope you aren't stupid enough to claim that our soldiers are better. Israel does not do things that hurt their military effectiveness.

 

[jallman]

That's why you would be free to vomit until your face turns blue. But you STILL would be first to be down on your KNEES when your gay commander TOLD you to get on your knees!

hahah!!

All these hetero sissies need is a LEATHER MAN in charge to SHOW them how to 'serve their country'! haha!

sissy-boy? Is that you?

 

[hypgnostic]

sissy-boy? Is that you?

Why do you ask? Do i SOUND like a 'sissy-boy'?

And is there something wrong with being a 'sissy'?? I'm surprised that a gay guy would actually ask such a question.

 

[jallman]

Why do you ask? Do i SOUND like a 'sissy-boy'?

And is there something wrong with being a 'sissy'?? I'm surprised that a gay guy would actually ask such a question.

He was a past poster with a hysterical, senseless, and reversely bigoted style equal to yours. And frankly, yes, you sound like a hysterical sissy.

 

[RightinNYC]

If you can't see the difference, you obviously don't have any business talking about it. And just because the US has more BOMBS than any other country, does not mean it is more skilled. The US would NEVER have been able to conquer Germany if it were not for the British. Aside from that, no other military complex on the PLANET has sunk as low as the US when it targeted hundreds of thousands of civilians with nuclear bombs. Which is why it is so BLATANTLY hypocritical for the US to try to limit who gets nukes and for what purpose. We're the only country who's been irresponsible enough to actually USE them, and we're STILL in possession of thousands of these weapons.

And idiots like you have to WONDER why there's 'terrorists' who want to blow us up?

I very much doubt that the average Islamic terrorist who "wants to blow us up" is doing it because of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

 

[RightinNYC]

He was a past poster with a hysterical, senseless, and reversely bigoted style equal to yours. And frankly, yes, you sound like a hysterical sissy.

It's not sissy-boy, at least not in a physical sense. In a spiritual sense...well, the jury's still out on that one.

 

[Chuck]

If you can't see the difference, you obviously don't have any business talking about it. And just because the US has more BOMBS than any other country, does not mean it is more skilled. The US would NEVER have been able to conquer Germany if it were not for the British. Aside from that, no other military complex on the PLANET has sunk as low as the US when it targeted hundreds of thousands of civilians with nuclear bombs. Which is why it is so BLATANTLY hypocritical for the US to try to limit who gets nukes and for what purpose. We're the only country who's been irresponsible enough to actually USE them, and we're STILL in possession of thousands of these weapons.

And idiots like you have to WONDER why there's 'terrorists' who want to blow us up? And the SAME idiots in the military discharge one of our best Arab translator who's able to communicate in our intelligence against the terrorists because he's GAY? This is precisely why the terrorists will WIN, as long as we have such idiots running the military.

Well, this idiot wonders why you have such empty rhetoric instead of meaningful dialog.

But, since I have "obviously don't have any business talking about it", I'll have to leave you to talk to yourself about it.

Silly me, I actually thought we could have a meaningful conversation about this.
You're right, I am an idiot

 

[rivrrat]

You wouldn't put a female soldier in the same barracks with a bunch of men, would you?

Why not?

What's the difference with putting her with a bunch of lesbians?

None.

 

[WI Crippler]

Originally Posted by Chuck

You wouldn't put a female soldier in the same barracks with a bunch of men, would you??


If you are talking about females residing in the same barracks building as males, it already happens now. I had a female Marine that lived two doors down from me.

But males and females do not share the same room, as it stands. And I wouldn't want to either, simply because I wouldn't want to have cleaned up all the long hairs for a field day inspection. My roomate had his g/f over and it took forever to get all her hairs removed from the shower. In fact once, I got a hit for one, and the GySgt ( not the one here on DP ) asked me what a female hair was doing in my shower. I just told him it was a really long pubic hair. He seemed amused enough, that he didn't pursue it any further.....

 

[hypgnostic]

He was a past poster with a hysterical, senseless, and reversely bigoted style equal to yours. And frankly, yes, you sound like a hysterical sissy.

Sounds like you've got a lot of your OWN baggage surrounding your sexuality you are still trying to work through.

I suggest you keep on working -- you'll get there in time.

Be sure to keep me updated with your 'progress'...

haha!

:mrgreen:

 

[hypgnostic]

Originally Posted by Chuck

You wouldn't put a female soldier in the same barracks with a bunch of men, would you??


If you are talking about females residing in the same barracks building as males, it already happens now. I had a female Marine that lived two doors down from me.

But males and females do not share the same room, as it stands. And I wouldn't want to either, simply because I wouldn't want to have cleaned up all the long hairs for a field day inspection. My roomate had his g/f over and it took forever to get all her hairs removed from the shower. In fact once, I got a hit for one, and the GySgt ( not the one here on DP ) asked me what a female hair was doing in my shower. I just told him it was a really long pubic hair. He seemed amused enough, that he didn't pursue it any further.....

Women don't all have long hair FYI.

Perhaps your future wife will be required to have a CREW CUT?

:mrgreen:

 

[jallman]

Sounds like you've got a lot of your OWN baggage surrounding your sexuality you are still trying to work through.

I suggest you keep on working -- you'll get there in time.

Be sure to keep me updated with your 'progress'...

haha!

:mrgreen:

What makes you say such an absurd thing? I have no need to give up my natural masculinity simply because I am gay. And further, being hysterical and dramatic is not a preclusion to being homosexual.

Sounds like you can't justify your own sexuality unless every other gay person acts as though they came out of the same cookie cutter as you. Why don't you do me the same favor and keep me updated with your progress, twinkletoes? :mrgreen:

 

[Obama08]

Actually, I've noticed that there seems to be a huge number of "sissy-boys" that are straight. Its becoming more common...
Many of them get unfairly labeled as being gay...

 

[hypgnostic]

What makes you say such an absurd thing? I have no need to give up my natural masculinity simply because I am gay. And further, being hysterical and dramatic is not a preclusion to being homosexual.

Sounds like you can't justify your own sexuality unless every other gay person acts as though they came out of the same cookie cutter as you. Why don't you do me the same favor and keep me updated with your progress, twinkletoes? :mrgreen:

"Natural" masculinity? Sounds like you're saying that if someone is not 'masculine' enough that they've got some kind of hang up. Which again sounds like you're judging those gay folks that don't make your 'masculinity' scale, as well as having a huge security problem with your OWN 'masculinity' -- (or lack thereof). If you were a Christian, (which you obviously are NOT), you'd save those judgements for your imaginary friend 'god'.

At least it's good to know that you are just another bigot who expects everyone to meet what YOUR standard of 'gay' is. Which makes you even worse than the religious bigots because you SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

Of course it's also very obvious that if someone has the time to try to 'measure up' everyone else's masculinity level, you've got your OWN insecurities on the issue and likely are the sneakiest little drag queen in your state. Hope your 'husband' can deal with that kind of baggage.

Later 'toots'.

 

[rathi]

hypgnostic, may I suggest you actually try and focus on the debate and not the other posters? This debate was reasonably civil until you decided to glorify sexual abuse. I have no idea if your style in real life "sissy" or not, and I really don't care. However, acting hysterical really fouls up the debate and leads to ad ad hominem attacks. Facts and evidence make a more pressing argument than unrestrained emotion.

 

[hypgnostic]

hypgnostic, may I suggest you actually try and focus on the debate and not the other posters? This debate was reasonably civil until you decided to glorify sexual abuse. I have no idea if your style in real life "sissy" or not, and I really don't care. However, acting hysterical really fouls up the debate and leads to ad ad hominem attacks. Facts and evidence make a more pressing argument than unrestrained emotion.

I suggest you aim your apparent frustration at the poster here who felt the need to resort to personal attacks, which was (and always HAS been), Jallman.

Likewise, I don't know if you act 'straight' or 'hysterical', (whatever that means), 'sissy', 'butch', or not, I don't really care. (I also try not to stoop to using such juvenile adjectives to describe people). I really don't mind straight people, as long as they act gay in public.

I hope my point is VERY CLEAR.

As far as 'glorifying sexual abuse'. You're completely delusional. I made a JOKE. If that is too much for you, I suggest you move to a desert island where you don't have to be around other people or converse with them. I think it's very clear who the 'hysterical' one is.

 

[rathi]

Likewise, I don't know if you act 'straight' or 'hysterical', (whatever that means), 'sissy', 'butch', or not, I don't really care. (I also try not to stoop to using such juvenile adjectives to describe people).

Hysterical means something that is pure emotion poured without logic, reason or structure.

I really don't mind straight people, as long as they act gay in public.

Are you saying you don't like straight people who act straight in public? Please clarify.

I hope my point is VERY CLEAR.

No, not really.

As far as 'glorifying sexual abuse'. You're completely delusional. I made a JOKE. If that is too much for you, I suggest you move to a desert island where you don't have to be around other people or converse with them. I think it's very clear who the 'hysterical' one is.

Your joke was in poor taste, not funny, and is completely consistent with the style of your serious posts. I have no problems with offensive humor, but I tend not to use it in a serious debate and I make it clear that I am joking.

 

[Donkey1499]

Um... riiight. I'll try to get this back on topic.

Well, let's see. My Dad told me a few stories of some gays who served with him on the USS John F. Kennedy during Nam (He served from 1968-74). He said that most of the crew knew these few guys were gay, but they didn't treat them any different. They treated them with respect, like they did to all their fellow sailors (Except for the occasional "ball bustin'"). My Dad got along with them really well, according to him, and my Dad is as bigoted as you can get when it comes to the topic of homosexuality. He says that he "doesn't care what they do, as long as they leave him out of it". Most of the Kennedy crew (that my Dad knew) thought the same way.

Now, the USS JFK is a carrier, which you can probably imagine how many people were on board, plus my Dad said that times there were some Marines on board as well. So if a large ship in the Navy can have "semi-openly gay"people on board, and know about it, and have most get along just fine, then the other branches can do the same. And I don't want to hear flak from people who served/or are serving under other branches, that the Navy is weak or what ever. I've heard what the branches think of each other, and most of it is funny, but let's not go there right now, lol.

Now I don't think there was a policy back then with don't ask - don't tell, but these few guys on the JFK apparently were a little bit open about it, cuz my Dad said that "you could tell they were light in their loafers once they were familiar with their surroundings and fell into old habits after a year at sea". He also said his bunk mate told him he was gay. He said that when you work 12 hours on and 12 hours off, you gotta find something to do, so he got to know some of his fellow sailors better by just chatting and "bullsh***ing".

And about something I read on here about our military being better and that the rest of the world's militaries are crap, or what ever; I think that that is just a slap to the face of all our allies who have helped us in the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. They all operate with the same efficiency as our military, even with openly gay people at the trigger. Ones sexuality shouldn't matter when lives are on the line. And tools don't matter either. Hell, Patton played a huge role in Europe by beating back the Germans with sh***y Sherman tanks! So I hope to not hear anymore crap about the UK's, Israel's or anyone else's militaries being crap compared to ours.

I also once heard a comedian (I don't remember who) say that if in a fire fight with an enemy he'd want a gay man covering his a**, because if he was shot he could always count on the gay man to come save him, even if under heavy fire; like a as if a man were to run across a battlefield to save a woman...

 

[1069]

I really don't mind straight people, as long as they act gay in public.

Are you saying you don't like straight people who act straight in public? Please clarify.

Rathi? Are you for real?
You're usually cool. What gives?
Regardless of what you think about hypgnostic's opinions or tactics, his statement here was an adroit and witty reversal- on several levels- of a homophobic platitude frequently expressed by well-meaning heterosexuals.
In fact, it's so brilliant in its simplicity that I've stolen it for my siggie line.

 

[hypgnostic]

Hysterical means something that is pure emotion poured without logic, reason or structure.



Are you saying you don't like straight people who act straight in public? Please clarify.



No, not really.



Your joke was in poor taste, not funny, and is completely consistent with the style of your serious posts. I have no problems with offensive humor, but I tend not to use it in a serious debate and I make it clear that I am joking.

But if you'll look back and notice, I STRUCTURED the joke in such a way as to bring the 'seriousness' of the discussion down a few notches. That was a purely deliberate attempt to show how INSANE it is for the US gov. to keep the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in effect at all and how ridiculous it is for bigots to try to argue against allowing LGBT person's in the military, because we've been in the military all along serving alongside every other type of sexually orientated persons. I just never could understand why and how a rational hetero would all of a sudden be unable to serve alongside a room-mate once he discovered what his sexual orientation is. I've had lots of guys tell me that they like girls, and not ONCE has it ever been an issue.

If you think my joke was in 'poor taste' or 'not funny', that falls under the category of 'too bad'.

 

[jallman]

"Natural" masculinity? Sounds like you're saying that if someone is not 'masculine' enough that they've got some kind of hang up. Which again sounds like you're judging those gay folks that don't make your 'masculinity' scale, as well as having a huge security problem with your OWN 'masculinity' -- (or lack thereof). If you were a Christian, (which you obviously are NOT), you'd save those judgements for your imaginary friend 'god'.

At least it's good to know that you are just another bigot who expects everyone to meet what YOUR standard of 'gay' is. Which makes you even worse than the religious bigots because you SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

Of course it's also very obvious that if someone has the time to try to 'measure up' everyone else's masculinity level, you've got your OWN insecurities on the issue and likely are the sneakiest little drag queen in your state. Hope your 'husband' can deal with that kind of baggage.

Later 'toots'.

And further proof you are a hysterical sissy...