What's new
By:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is officially history!!

Revolution 9 said:
You recieved infractions for being graphic, and going overboard. Can you carry a conversation like an adult? Is that possible, and if so prove it.
I think it's in you.
Click to expand...

maybe maybe not. i was not the only one being graphic in this thread. i dont know if the other(s) received warnings infractions?

i would like to answer but I just don't think it's worth risking another infraction and subsequent suspension.
 
GVC said:
I received an infraction.
Click to expand...

That was a given. My question regarding the post I'm sure you received it for is hot chick or beer goggles chick? 'Cause if it's beer goggles chick then yes, absolutely. The world would end very very soon. No drunk dude should have to wake up realizing he done it.

On a side note, this reminds me of a *deep* question I've been thinking over for a while. Is blacking out and forgetting what you've done an evolutionary advantage? I'm leaning toward yes, knowing it's more common in men and all.
 
franklin said:
I read your response. You've missed the humor twice now. I have no doubt the inhabitants would choose to reproduce, but that's not the point.
Click to expand...

Brow is so caught up in refuting out of context partial sentences he forgets to think about the posts. His straw man arguments are epic. And the M.O. doesn't change, it is always the same thing. Make an argument, get called on it, backpedal to qualify, then claim it was the original argument all along. Rinse, repeat. Nothing meaningful there.

Time to add the first person to my jazzfanz ignore list.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Again, all of the choice and consent or not or god and religion or not or blah blah ****ing blah is secondary; WHY ARE PEOPLE SO HUNG UP ABOUT SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THEM?

For the record, I don't really understand the drive that transgendered people have to do or feel what they do, but I don't think that matters. They're human beings and even if I don't understand, that doesn't give me the green light to be an ******* about it. Something to think about, Christians.
Click to expand...

If you aren't in the military this doesn't effect you. I think the branches of military and not congress should make the decisions on their policies.
 
I think our military commanders ought to be selected for in favor of candidates who understand the Constitution they are supposedly defending. No Constitutional basis for excluding anyone who wants to help defend it, and the freedom it supposedly stands for.

Someone told me once that the Romans, and some other early historical military commanders, actually required their mercenary soldiers or conscripts to be homosexuals, and paired them up as strategy to inspire them to fight for their "lovers", for each other, in battle.

But our Constitution would properly constrain such a plan as well, as no such power is given to our government or our military. No standing army was intended, no conscription power, no idea of mercenaries. . . . but a voluntary "militia" of citizens who want to defend their freedom.
 
Why are you always running away from what you did? If you talk about graphic sexual acts you will probably get a warning or kicked off most
sports forums that are moderated. Your response is that other posters were being graphic. How about just focusing on what you can control, and that is your posts.

Can you answer a simple question? if a gay man or women does pass the physical requirements then are you ok with them being soliders?
If they are passing all needed qualifications, and are still gay are you against them being in the military?
 
It's just surprising, really. I mean here is a group of people (at least some members of that group) who actively want to join the military and (yes, yes cliched, but here it is) defend the country. What I don't get is why we should deny them that opportunity.

This thread quickly deviated from the original point that Katie raised and segued into - once again - the homosexual "question" and whether it's right or not, etc., etc.

Getting back on topic here is key. Personally, I have nothing but pure admiration for those who want to serve in our armed forces. They constantly put their lives on the line in the hope that they can effect some positive change somewhere. Really we should be honored that they feel so strongly about our country's convictions that they are (literally) willing to die to uphold those principles. Being gay or straight or trans-whatever should not be a limitation on being in the military.

Regarding the "weak-minded" argument raised in the thread. That's...that's...that's just incorrect. Purely, simply, and completely.

The genetics/evolution argument. Even though I engaged vociferously in that portion of this thread, I want to reiterate that it is irrelevant to the question of DADT. Whether homosexuals are products of genetics, evolution, environment, or choice cannot possibly be a determining factor as to whether the individuals in question want to pick up a gun, put on a helmet, and go to war with other like-minded people.
 
I understand dutch's point of view about serving with homosexuals and why it can be a problem:

Military combat is a very specialized field comparable to nothing in civilian life. There has to be a special bond among warriors -- and only one kind of bond. The soldierly bond gets confused if some guys think their comrades are hot or if they suspect their superior is having a relationship with a fellow soldier.

It's the same confusion that results from putting girls in the military. When an officer makes a decision, nothing should enter into it except his views on the best military strategy.

The military part of the military has valid reasons for wanting to separate the idea of martial ardor and sexual attraction. Combat units can't have anything that interferes with unit cohesion, such as, for example, platoon members who are dating one another. Racial prejudice is not the same thing as sexual attraction, so please stop telling us this is just like integrating blacks in the military.
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL, DON'T CALL OUR TROOPS HOMOPHOBES
Click to expand...
 
Millsapa, that's a good point you raised, however as I stated earlier in the thread, many businesses have a no interoffice dating policy. The armed forces would also likely adopt this.

The way I worded it was a bit sensationalistic, however I want to say it again: millions of people go to work every day and yet, not surprisingly at all, cubicles are not perpetual orgy get-togethers. Businesses across the country experience vast amounts of success despite having an environment ripe for sexual attraction.
 
He was the guy who got Julian Assange (wikileaks guy) the files that are becoming so famous.

I assume Millsapa brought his name up because he is suspected of being gay (his facebook page has a photo of him attending a gay pride rally). It's also been conjectured that Manning did what he did because he was unhappy at the USA's stance on DADT.
 
chemdude1232 said:
Millsapa, that's a good point you raised, however as I stated earlier in the thread, many businesses have a no interoffice dating policy. The armed forces would also likely adopt this.

The way I worded it was a bit sensationalistic, however I want to say it again: millions of people go to work every day and yet, not surprisingly at all, cubicles are not perpetual orgy get-togethers. Businesses across the country experience vast amounts of success despite having an environment ripe for sexual attraction.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the first sentence:

Military combat is a very specialized field comparable to nothing in civilian life.

Those in the office don't have to depend on each other for their very lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top