Obama to call for repeal of DADT in State of the Union

[MobBoss]

MobBoss, if an extremely camp gay man saved you and your son from being mauled to death by stampeding reindeer, would you support the repeal of DADT?

What would that have to do with DADT?

 

[useless]

Not really since my father is/was a soldier.

 

[RedRalph]

What would that have to do with DADT?

Just answer the gosh-darned question

 

[MobBoss]

Not really since my father is/was a soldier.

Willing to bet he hasnt told you everything, and you dont know what to ask about. A lot of that kind of stuff you have to experience for yourself to actually appreciate it anyway.

RRW: No.

 

[useless]

Strange really, since the British army can accept Gay, transsexual and trans-gendered soldiers, yet one of the countries that constantly boasts of it's freedoms and liberties, still find gays icky and wish to deny them the ability to openly serve, serve the country they love despite it's hatred of them.

 

[useless]

I might not be privy to the secrets of the military and how it works, social and domestically, but that does not mean you can brush people off because of this fact. From an outsiders point of view, the way that the military is being presented is rather negative and backwards. Other countries military's don't have this issue with homosexuals.

 

[MobBoss]

Strange really, since the British army can accept Gay, transsexual and trans-gendered soldiers, yet one of the countries that constantly boasts of it's freedoms and liberties, still find gays icky and wish to deny them the ability to openly serve, serve the country they love despite it's hatred of them.

Easy Answer: USA =/= UK.

Both have good points and bad points concerning such things. /shrug.

Why should we care what outsiders think?

 

[RedRalph]

Easy Answer: USA =/= UK.

Both have good points and bad points concerning such things. /shrug.

So would you agree that Brit soldiers are just a little bit tougher than Yank ones on this? Less inclined to get upset over it? thicker-skinned? More manly and less childish?

 

[useless]

Because it appears that your country likes to criticise others, whilst ignoring it's own problems and hypocrisy.

 

[MobBoss]

So would you agree that Brit soldiers are just a little bit tougher than Yank ones on this? Less inclined to get upset over it? thicker-skinned? More manly and less childish?

More gay maybe?

Because it appears that your country likes to criticise others, whilst ignoring it's own problems and hypocrisy.

Who is criticizing the UK about this?

Wow.

 

[warpus]

Why should we care what outsiders think?

Cause that's usually a good way to learn stuff? By seeing the world through the eyes of others?

 

[useless]

More gay maybe?



Who is criticizing the UK about this?

Wow.

Stay classy Mobboss, as obviously people who tolerate homosexuals are more gay, then those who abhor them.

No one is, but i am merely putting accross my view on this matter.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

You folks just dont get it do you?

This is a policy that is going to have huge and wide sweeping effect upon our military during a time of already high tension and stress.

Why dont the two of you walk a few miles in those peoples shoes before you judge them so. Maybe it would give you both some appreciation for the situation.

so walk a few miles in their shoes and i'll understand why they're bigots?

how bout you walk a few miles in a homosexuals shoe's in the military. (it's ok, sharing clothes doesn't make you teh ghey)

i frankly don't care what excuse the military has for discrimination. there is none. point blank, end of story. any soldiers have a problem with this? they can go back home without their precious school money and live the rest of their lives in a shack for all i care.

this country will get over it's blind bigotry, and anyone who stands in the way stands in the way of history. so let it take care of them.

 

[BasketCase]

I already responded to this, but I'll try again from a different direction. You're right, we don't (or shouldn't) do those things, however saying "I'm gay" isn't in that list.

It is now.

It's impolite to discuss sex in any public venue. I figured that was obvious. Obviously I was wrong. Next time I'll make an extra effort to explain the obvious.

 

[Lord Gay]

I don't think it's impolite to discuss sex in ALL public areas, but rather, based on those with whom you're speaking. However, that's a side point to your claim that somehow saying "I'm gay" is a discussion of sex.

Indicating that one is gay, straight or bi is simply indicating what gender(s) one is attracted to. That's it. There isn't the slightest hint as to what sorts of sexual activities a person likes, engages in, is most aroused by, what they have done, what they want to do, or anything else of similar nature. There's nothing the slightest bit inappropriate about it.

Now, it could be that some people don't like hearing it because they don't like homosexuality in general, but then their issue is with homosexuality itself, not that saying "I'm gay" is somehow too graphic or too much for delicate ears.

Heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality all the time, all over the place, constantly. Do you think that is inappropriate?

 

[Nares]

how bout you walk a few miles in a homosexuals shoe's in the military. (it's ok, sharing clothes doesn't make you teh ghey)

So are <removed> allowed to fraternize in the military now?

Or will they be disciplined in the same manner their heterosexual counterparts are?

At what point do homosexual rights conflict with heterosexual rights? At what point are heterosexuals allowed to say they've been inundated with enough pro-gay garbage that now they are the victim?

Because that's what's coming. More<removed> lawsuits, this time from straights who've been bashed by gays.

 

[Camikaze]

I would think that given the obvious problems the military has with discipline and with accepting any change that MB so rightly points out, the best solution would be to discharge everyone from the military. That way you'd have no problems with the type of rampant depravity MB predicts, and in fact eliminate all disciplinary problems already occurring.

And before you say that that's a stupid idea, just think about it. Where is the line in the sand? I would say it's safely on the side of allowing homosexuals to serve.

 

[Lone Wolf]

"When I was a girl," miss Marple said with a sigh, "no one even mentioned the world "stomach".

 

[kosiosko 1]

So are <removed> allowed to fraternize in the military now?

Or will they be disciplined in the same manner their heterosexual counterparts are?

At what point do homosexual rights conflict with heterosexual rights? At what point are heterosexuals allowed to say they've been inundated with enough pro-gay garbage that now they are the victim?

Because that's what's coming. More<removed> lawsuits, this time from straights who've been bashed by gays.

yes they should be disciplined in the same manner, there should be no discrimination.
if as you put it straights are bashed by gays, theire should be a law suit, if you removed any discriminations,gay and straight rights become a non issue.

then you can all sit down and watch 'top gun' together

 

[PiMan]

It is now.

It's impolite to discuss sex in any public venue. I figured that was obvious. Obviously I was wrong. Next time I'll make an extra effort to explain the obvious.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a guy serving in the military to say "I miss my girlfriend", it is considered acceptable to kick that same guy out of the army if he says "I miss my boyfriend".
It doesn't take talking about sex for a person to be openly gay.