the universal cunt litmus test: don't ask don't tell

[rossmum]

let's see who's a cunt and who's not!

for those not aware, the us military does not allow openly gay people to serve. they could be the best soldier in the entire us army, but should they happen to mention 'i'm gay', they're discharged. as a result, they either stay quiet, or don't enlist. this policy is beginning to be challenged but there's a lot of opposition (predictably from religious bigots or hick senators).

let me put it to all you american members that this piece of policy is the single best way of deciding who is actually capable of basing their views on logic and reason (i.e. normal) and who bases their views on baseless religious/'but they're different' bullshit (i.e. cunts). i happen to be in the australian army, and we, like many militaries, frankly give no fuck. everyone still has the same barracks, the same toilets, the same showers, the same rooms. there might be a little harmless and unserious piss-taking like with anyone even vaguely different in the military, but there's no fear of being sodomised or catching the gay or whatever the fuck. there are zero problems (except the navy, but those can be discounted because 'it's the navy').

essentially the only non-religious/openly homophobic justification i've seen is that it would be a 'logistical nightmare' because there would need to be three sets of everything instead of two. according to this retard hick specialist who wrote the article this was mentioned in, gays and straights are incapable of cohabiting. sure thing genius, i guess american gays are different to everyone else's if that holds true.

not to mention that especially in the infantry, we do so much ridiculously gay shit in the name of pranks it's not funny, so it's kind of ironic that people actually think this is a problem.

discuss! i want to see who i can confirm as an ignorant cunt and who will surprise me as actually not being one.

[Timo]

Someone's sexuality shouldn't come into question when all they want to do is stand beside their fellow man and fight.


I love the word cunt. I wish it was socially accepted outside of Australasia.

[rossmum]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34114846/2010-DoD-Comprehensive-Review-Survey-of-Uniformed-Active-Duty-and-Reserve-Service-Members

welp

obama should do a truman and use his position to force the military to unfuck itself like in 1947 when it was desegregated. trying to stay in line with public opinion is retarded because the public is retarded.

[Bodzilla]

D2yTmSS3iW0
:v:

[ICEE]

I've never understood the purpose of 'don't ask don't tell' anyways. Seems like another stronghold of the us and them mindset that so many people treat the gays with.

[Siliconmaster]

At the time it was put into being, it was actually viewed as a pro-gay measure. Gays in the military were being forced to divulge their sexual orientation in the 90s, and this measure allowed them to stay in the military and keep their information to themselves. However, it has now far outlived its usefulness and is outdated since many military members now don't give a shit about their fellow soldiers' orientations. Hence the need for it to go.

[Crackers]

On the bright side if you're tired of being fucked over by the US military you can always scream out "I am gay" and go back to America.

edit- seriously. If they tried to send me to the "middle east" that would be the first words out of my mouth.

[Rob Oplawar]

I know a few openly gay people in the US military. Of course, they're not openly gay when any of their superiors are around...
I do have to say, though, it is true that it can make things rather complicated when a person falls in love with somebody they work closely with. One would argue that with an entirely male, straight military that's just one less thing to worry about. But if there are both men and women in the military anyway, then it's stupid to use that as a reason to keep gay men and women out of the military.

And just so we're clear, I vehemently support having both men and women in the military, gay or straight doesn't make the slightest difference.

[Dwood]

I don't care if you're gay/straight or a man or a woman. If you can do the job then go for it, I support you.

First, the military is not a place for anyone to start making out with- it's unprofessional and stupid. Being able to say "I'm Gay" really isn't that big of a deal- i'm fine if someone told me "I'm gay"- I'm not fine if Gay guys make out or whatever when they are supposed to be serving their country(ies). If you can't keep it in your pants or your tongue in your own mouth (ie out of another's) while on duty (key words!) then honestly I believe you should be dismissed/not allowed to join.

[Siliconmaster]

Agreed. However, I think that applies to any sexual orientation, gay or straight. Right now, you can act perfectly professional and be kicked out because you say you're gay. Which is absurd.

[Rentafence]

I think don't ask don't tell is a great way for me to puss out of the army should I ever get drafted for some reason.

[Dwood]

No need to ditch the army and go to canada during a draft! just be as stupid and offensive as possible to get yourself dismissed!

[n00b1n8R]

Don't you get in shit if you do that though? As in legal shit?
Why wouldn't everyone do that if it were so simple :v:

[Warsaw]

Policy is retarded. It'll unfuck itself as soon as all of the brass/old guard within the military die or retire, provided they don't have any protegés running around. I don't have faith that Obama will force them to go change, though if he does it'll be a pleasant surprise.

[sleepy1212]

Everything in the military should be 'coed' just like Starship Troopers. If they can pull that off then there's no excuses. until then complaining about DADT is a little dumb.

[Kornman00]

It's actually not as easy as saying "I'm gay" then getting discharged. There has to be undeniable proof of same sex relations (ie, attempting to marry someone of the same sex). A third party claiming that someone is gay isn't enough either.

The DADT policy actually was suppose to protect gay service members and make it harder for them to get prosecuted for their views or way of life (as long as it didn't happen while on duty). However, in the end it's a political pile of crock as it just says "ok, we'll just look the other way as long as you don't marry or be entirely open about it". Another big issue is if same sex marriages are allowed in the military, how would benefits play out (military is FILLED with monetary benefits)? Having an open gay and allowing same sex unions in the military is a political mine field that can only be taken one slow step at a time.

I've known quite a few gay service members, both enlisted and officer, some even within units I served with. DADT makes it a bureaucratical nightmare to initiate a discharge based on someone being gay that I doubt any commander would do it unless they're like what rossmum said: ignorant cunt hicks.

IIRC, a theater level commander (1 or 2 star general or above) has to sign the paper work to make the discharge official. You don't bother the theater commander with unsupported claims of someone being gay. They have bigger fish to fry. Oh and golf games to play :downs:.

[paladin]

I think don't ask don't tell is a great way for me to puss out of the army should I ever get drafted for some reason.

Im sure any form of this would be put aside during a draft.

[Rentafence]

Im sure any form of this would be put aside during a draft.

But I'm gay. We can't have any of me in the army. Think of the straight men.

[paladin]

If there was a draft, theyd probably take someone with an IQ of 71

[Dwood]

But I'm gay. We can't have any of me in the army. Think of the straight men.

Stop. do not trole.

[rossmum]

what, it's basically what all the proponents of dadt are saying

[Dwood]

what, it's basically what all the proponents of dadt are saying

Uh... No?

[rossmum]

uh, yes?

the people who oppose a repeal of dadt are citing all kinds of fucking retarded and totally bogus reasons, like destroying morality, sexual harassment, logistical problems of having to now have 3 sets of everything (because gays and straights can't coexist in one barracks!!!!!!!!!!), and a plethora of other thinly-veiled homophobic retardery. meanwhile in the australian army we never had anything like dadt, there has never been any push for it from anyone that has any sort of credibility, and we wouldn't want one pushed through. we do not give a fuck if the guy in the bunk above us is gay, straight, bi, or whatever the fuck because it's not a fucking big deal

any person who opposes a repeal of dadt, at this point in time, is unquestionably a homophobe and therefore utterly fucking retarded.

[sleepy1212]

I heard this from two gay former soldiers on On Point: Voices of Honor (http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/07/voices-of-honor) yesterday but they never seem to give an explanation into the reasoning.

why are straight females and straight males segregated if gay males and straight males are not? Is gender now an arbitrary segregation in the military or is there some merit in the logic of segregation of all orientations based on the known conflicts of mixing straight males with straight females? If you could make an argument against segregation based solely on orientation wouldn't the same argument be in favor of no segregation at all, whether gender based or orientation based?

I expect some hardcore hypocrisy in the answers but maybe questions like these are precisely why DoD hasn't unveiled its plan to revoke DADT.

[sevlag]

seriously does it really matter in the end? they bleed all the same, people are people regardless of sexual preference, race, etc

i think its BS that the military does this because people being saved dont care who their saviors are, they are just grateful that someone came along to save them in their time of need

[rossmum]

I heard this from two gay former soldiers on On Point: Voices of Honor (http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/07/voices-of-honor) yesterday but they never seem to give an explanation into the reasoning.

why are straight females and straight males segregated if gay males and straight males are not? Is gender now an arbitrary segregation in the military or is there some merit in the logic of segregation of all orientations based on the known conflicts of mixing straight males with straight females? If you could make an argument against segregation based solely on orientation wouldn't the same argument be in favor of no segregation at all, whether gender based or orientation based?

I expect some hardcore hypocrisy in the answers but maybe questions like these are precisely why DoD hasn't unveiled its plan to revoke DADT.
they probably don't trust us not to do dumb things (i don't blame them after some of the shit i've seen) so they keep us apart, obviously with gays/lesbians even if you separate them from straights you can't exactly render that impossible without giving each person their own room and ensuite which is just fucking ridiculous from a logistics standpoint and an equality one. that and obviously they're in a minority (except in the navy! hahahaha), so i guess problems of relationships within the same unit are a lot less prevalent.

[sleepy1212]

Not many people realize just how strict the UCMJ is on sexual hi-jinks. For example adultery (service member cheating on spouse back home) is prosecutable, can result in a discharge, stripping of rank, or court marshall. They take that shit very seriously for a good reason - to maintain a professional and well functioning fighting force by avoiding all the problems that can arise from sexual misconduct. On that reason alone it makes sense to segregate male and female soldiers. however, if sexual orientation is not included as a factor in the segregation, aren't they susceptible to the very same misconduct?

To me, this turns out to be a real mindfuck because we're not talking about gays and straights we're talking about gays and gays. Effectively you would have to segregate every individual of same-sex orientation to prevent the same misconduct characterized by segregation of male-female soldiers. This is logistically retarded but it seems to be the logical conclusion if the original male-female segregation is justified. It's either that or it is not justified and no segregation whatsoever is necessary. In practice I imagine it's more like: 'better to prevent part of the problem than none of it' simply because of the impracticality of it.

[rossmum]

believe me, just because something can put you in a whole world of shit that will not for an instant discourage some of the finer fuckups in any given armed force

[Dwood]

Here let me make it easier for you to find:


It's actually not as easy as saying "I'm gay" then getting discharged. There has to be undeniable proof of same sex relations (ie, attempting to marry someone of the same sex). A third party claiming that someone is gay isn't enough either.

The DADT policy actually was suppose to protect gay service members and make it harder for them to get prosecuted for their views or way of life (as long as it didn't happen while on duty). However, in the end it's a political pile of crock as it just says "ok, we'll just look the other way as long as you don't marry or be entirely open about it". Another big issue is if same sex marriages are allowed in the military, how would benefits play out (military is FILLED with monetary benefits)? Having an open gay and allowing same sex unions in the military is a political mine field that can only be taken one slow step at a time.

I've known quite a few gay service members, both enlisted and officer, some even within units I served with. DADT makes it a bureaucratical nightmare to initiate a discharge based on someone being gay that I doubt any commander would do it unless they're like what rossmum said: ignorant cunt hicks.

IIRC, a theater level commander (1 or 2 star general or above) has to sign the paper work to make the discharge official. You don't bother the theater commander with unsupported claims of someone being gay. They have bigger fish to fry. Oh and golf games to play :downs:.

[rossmum]

just because it is a clusterfuck to make it actually happen that does not excuse it still being a regulation

if we made it a regulation that if someone announces they're a vegetarian you have to shoot them but only after many hours of tedious paperwork and sending it to some high up government dude and back does that make it perfectly fine that people are still saying we should shoot vegetarians?

you were really starting to look promising for a while but between this and your gem of a post about auschwitz you had really better hope we never meet in real life, because i would be very likely to hit you with the nearest heavy object. i don't say that lightly because i'm usually not prone to violence, you are the absolute epitome of ignorance and the aforementioned post was also extremely insulting not just to jewish people but also to me, since i actually had relatives there, you fuckwit.

long story short: you better figure out where you went wrong and unfuck yourself

[t3h m00kz]

bah I'm honestly not one for these huge debates

anybody should be able to have any career they want as long as they meet the requirements. I don't see how someone's sexual preference plays a part in being a requirement. ... or in anything.

[Bodzilla]

just because it is a clusterfuck to make it actually happen that does not excuse it still being a regulation

if we made it a regulation that if someone announces they're a vegetarian you have to shoot them but only after many hours of tedious paperwork and sending it to some high up government dude and back does that make it perfectly fine that people are still saying we should shoot vegetarians?

you were really starting to look promising for a while but between this and your gem of a post about auschwitz you had really better hope we never meet in real life, because i would be very likely to hit you with the nearest heavy object. i don't say that lightly because i'm usually not prone to violence, you are the absolute epitome of ignorance and the aforementioned post was also extremely insulting not just to jewish people but also to me, since i actually had relatives there, you fuckwit.

long story short: you better figure out where you went wrong and unfuck yourself
This guy.

you see he posts.
good.

<3

(also the army is super strict about that shit, doesn't mean it doesnt happen. Got a friend of mine in the navy, so saying splitting up female and male soldiers works and that splitting up gays and lesbians is unfeasible therefore we shouldn't have them in the army is not just retarded, but dreadfully ignorant)

[sleepy1212]

(also the army is super strict about that shit, doesn't mean it doesnt happen. Got a friend of mine in the navy, so saying splitting up female and male soldiers works and that splitting up gays and lesbians is unfeasible therefore we shouldn't have them in the army is not just retarded, but dreadfully ignorant)

nobody is saying that, as far as i can tell.

[rossmum]

everyone who supports dadt (in general, not talking about itt) says that

[sleepy1212]

everyone who supports dadt (in general, not talking about itt) says that

I meant ITT. Supporting DADT isn't the same as "therefore we shouldn't have them in the army" (just for clarity).

I posed the segregation question in the first place just to get an answer or maybe understand better what the reasoning and potential solutions are, and to point out one possible reason why DoD hasn't repealed DADT yet. So far I haven't gotten an answer. What is left is my first post in this thread: that if segregation of gays based on the direction of attraction is fallacious then it's plausible that segregation of m-f is also fallacious and all segregation needs to be abolished, i.e., "coed".

[rossmum]

you have got an answer, from someone who knows. it would be a total fuckfight and the military would function even less than it already does. while gays/lesbians are still in a minority it doesn't matter so much for them, particularly as any partners they have will often either be from outside or a different unit (there is a difference between attraction and following it through, and as long as most of their mates are straight it'll remain the former), but as soon as you open up the floodgates for the straights, ho-lee fuck.

we have enough trouble with retards fraternising as it is, the last thing you need is a starship troopers-type scenario where everyone is having their dumb little relationships and one of them gets killed/wounded and pow there goes an entire unit right there. we all dream of just chillin' in the showers checking the ladies out, but i cannot think of a single more detrimental thing to do to any military arm, much less the army.

now, what would my position be if that gay minority turned into a majority (unlikely but let's roll with it)? i'm really not sure, because then you'd have the sst problem manifesting itself regardless of what you segregate by. you'd need to really think to solve that one short of individual rooms and ensuites (logistically impossible and just not practical out in the field).

[sleepy1212]

so as long as there aren't too many gays in the same unit? ...hmm i dunno about that one. at least you didn't claim gays have more self control than straights.

[rossmum]

nobody in the military has self control :downs:

[ChemicalFizz]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121801729.html

Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed? In MY Senate?

It's more likely than you think!!

In other news, the DREAM Act fell short by 5 votes. Baw.

[Limited]

Bout time America!

[Bodzilla]

~

[Kornman00]

Heh, once the President signs it, it's no longer a viable method of getting out of service. DADT just made it practically difficult (if you were already in service), but people still tried.

[paladin]

The lame-duck senate has been more productive in the last month than the last 2 years...



In other news, the DREAM Act fell short by 5 votes. Baw.

Its good it didnt pass. Why should I have to pay for my education and an illegal immigrants too.

[Limited]

Its good it didnt pass. Why should I have to pay for my education and an illegal immigrants too.Don't see how you'd be paying for the 'aliens' if the DREAM act past. They are trying to help the awful immigration situation.

[paladin]

Don't see how you'd be paying for the 'aliens' if the DREAM act past. They are trying to help the awful immigration situation.

its helps its by hurting it. The dream is act is not how immigration needs to be reformed.

[sleepy1212]

If your not a citizen and you sign up for classes, we'll just throw money at you.
I you are a citizen... enjoy your debt.

[Aerowyn]

Its good it didnt pass. Why should I have to pay for my education and an illegal immigrants too.

YEAH. Fuck 'em, I got mine!!!!


... :\

[Limited]

its helps its by hurting it. The dream is act is not how immigration needs to be reformed.
Immigrant will always be a problem. Instead of thinking about it totally negatively they are trying to think of a way that can benefit the current situation. Helping to educate and then hopefully as they will become a US citizen they will stay, and use their skills they have obtained in your country.

I understand its a tricky having a border from Mexico, by my word you don't have it bad.

[paladin]

If your not a citizen and you sign up for classes, we'll just throw money at you.
I you are a citizen... enjoy your debt.

inorite? Im already 10k in debt in loans.


YEAH. Fuck 'em, I got mine!!!!
... :\

Why should I have to pay for their education buy working to pay for mine? Please, tell me why.


Immigrant will always be a problem. Instead of thinking about it totally negatively they are trying to think of a way that can benefit the current situation. Helping to educate and then hopefully as they will become a US citizen they will stay, and use their skills they have obtained in your country.
I understand its a tricky having a border from Mexico, by my word you don't have it bad.

Im all for naturalization, but it doesnt take an associated degree from a public university to become a US citizen. I dont care if they go to school here, they should have to pay for it like everyone else. Its another reward system from people to game the system.

Also, you think an open boarder with a country over-run by drug cartels, where 2/3 of the government is corrupt and where ever year over 20,000 people, including americans are killed in boarder towns is not BAD. You sir, took one too many insane pills this morning.

[Kornman00]

Hey uhhh, last I checked, this thread was about repealing DADT, not the DREAM act or w/e. Go make another thread; it's bad enough when there's one "debate" already going on in a thread.

[ChemicalFizz]

Signing takes place today. It are official!

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/22/dadt.repeal/index.html

[TVTyrant]

Its interesting how this didn't get tke care of until the end of this congress's term. Pathetic, tbh. This is an issue I really don't care about, but its still pathetic that Obama couldn't have put in a policy earlier.

[n00b1n8R]

Yeah, it really is pathetic of Obama, and all the presidents before him that didn't do anything about it either!

[Dwood]

It's only pathetic if it's an issue at all. The people should be more focused about serving the country than whether or not a person's gay.

[TVTyrant]

Its been an issue for years. It took Obama 2 YEARS to even mention it. Sorry, but for someone who made that a big campaign point, thats a really sad track record for time tables.

[Warsaw]

It's only pathetic if it's an issue at all. The people should be more focused about serving the country than whether or not a person's gay.

Most troopers don't care. Certain higher ups do...you know, old guard and all.

[CN3089]

Its been an issue for years. It took Obama 2 YEARS to even mention it. Sorry, but for someone who made that a big campaign point, thats a really sad track record for time tables.

Apparently you don't pay much attention to news since he's been trying to get congress to do this since he took office

[n00b1n8R]

Apparently you don't pay much attention to news since he's been trying to get congress to do this since he took office
gtfo with you're liberal media hippie :toughguy:

[Kornman00]

So it's pathetic that he actually kept one of his campaign promises/points? You know, he campaigned to be president for at least four years...not everything can happen at once and over night. Gee golly gosh, ain't he pathetic for having to wade through bureaucratic and legislative bullshit!


gtfo with you're liberal media hippie :toughguy:
grammar nazi is not amused
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_X6bfacAhmsU/TJJOCteovuI/AAAAAAAABbs/qW68mbk4Y5M/s1600/Grammar-Nazi-2.jpg

[TVTyrant]

Yeah your right its not his fault. Its easy to blame presidents, but alot of the frustration over the Obama administration comes from the lack of party support from the Democrats over the course of the last two years. I'd imagine it's even worse for you as a member of the military in these tough times.

[Kornman00]

Vet status now :iamafag:

Only thing that matters to me is that the VA makes their monthly payments on time heh. But yeah, I'm glad I'm not still in while this is having to be worked into the regs...not because I don't support appealing DADT, but just how big of a change this will be. Headaches abound. They'll start from the top and work their way down. If the brass can't be happy, the people face down in the grass can't be happy.

[Luzaphant]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34114846/2010-DoD-Comprehensive-Review-Survey-of-Uniformed-Active-Duty-and-Reserve-Service-Members

welp

obama should do a truman and use his position to force the military to unfuck itself like in 1947 when it was desegregated. trying to stay in line with public opinion is retarded because the public is retarded.

totally right. we've been very static

[Cortexian]

I really don't see how this is a problem. It should be approached the same was as other relationships in the military, meaning separating couples from similar duty/units and such.

[Luzaphant]

let's see who's a cunt and who's not!

for those not aware, the us military does not allow openly gay people to serve. they could be the best soldier in the entire us army, but should they happen to mention 'i'm gay', they're discharged. as a result, they either stay quiet, or don't enlist. this policy is beginning to be challenged but there's a lot of opposition (predictably from religious bigots or hick senators).

let me put it to all you american members that this piece of policy is the single best way of deciding who is actually capable of basing their views on logic and reason (i.e. normal) and who bases their views on baseless religious/'but they're different' bullshit (i.e. cunts). i happen to be in the australian army, and we, like many militaries, frankly give no fuck. everyone still has the same barracks, the same toilets, the same showers, the same rooms. there might be a little harmless and unserious piss-taking like with anyone even vaguely different in the military, but there's no fear of being sodomised or catching the gay or whatever the fuck. there are zero problems (except the navy, but those can be discounted because 'it's the navy').

essentially the only non-religious/openly homophobic justification i've seen is that it would be a 'logistical nightmare' because there would need to be three sets of everything instead of two. according to this retard hick specialist who wrote the article this was mentioned in, gays and straights are incapable of cohabiting. sure thing genius, i guess american gays are different to everyone else's if that holds true.

not to mention that especially in the infantry, we do so much ridiculously gay shit in the name of pranks it's not funny, so it's kind of ironic that people actually think this is a problem.

discuss! i want to see who i can confirm as an ignorant cunt and who will surprise me as actually not being one.


The idea of not allowing gay men, to openly display their sexuality is really just popular education, Being gay is popular taboo, your next door neighbor 'if asked' would probably respond with at the least some sort of mild or high negativity. So with all this popularity of course it would be questioned of the men among a developed masculine military (defined by popular culture) Gay men would obviously be targeted, the history of gay and or homosexuals is and has been wildly regarded as taboo in America and with that its military would, and has fallen in to this bowling ball of popular culture.

There you have it, why homosexuality is a taboo in the military. Heck I could even make a time line from when it all started, if necessary!
Thankfully I can say that that bowling ball is now slowing down to its target, and once that target is hit and those pins fall, I can only assume culture will be different :)

[sleepy1212]

Bkt1vAX0MRM

[Cortexian]

That has nothing to do with being gay, it comes down to simple personality. I know a bunch of straight people that are scared of shooting guns, guns are loud and scary if you're not familiar with them.

Obviously, someone with that personality type shouldn't be in the military unless they can overcome whatever irrational fear they have of guns. I knew this chick 8 years ago that was completely petrified of guns, she jumped and cried every time someone shot around her. Interestingly enough, she was an Army Cadet and her fear stemmed from the fact that a friend of hers shot himself in front of her. Now she's in the Infantry and taken control of that emotional attachment to firearms.

That video is a really biased and bad example of anything. It sends the wrong message if you're not educated in the matter.

[TeeKup]

Not every gay man is a prissy-skip-through-the-daisies faggot. Clearly the idea of whatever that show was is to give off a bad message. I wouldn't exactly call it offensive more so than STUPID.

[Dwood]

Not every gay man is a prissy-skip-through-the-daisies faggot. Clearly the idea of whatever that show was is to give off a bad message. I wouldn't exactly call it offensive more so than STUPID.

I know Teek, but the VAST majority of the ones I've met, and seen, are.

[TeeKup]

Then you need to get around more. I live around a lot of gay guys and not many are like that.

[Cortexian]

Then you need to get around more. I live around a lot of gay guys and not many are like that.
Although I don't know many personally, all the gay guys I've met don't seem prissy like that. They just seem normal, until you go camping with them and wake up with a condom in your butt.

[Warsaw]

Personal experience, eh?

I know they aren't all like that, but unfortunately all the ones I've known personally have been. Actually, one of them is the laziest person I have ever met (in a "pamper me" sort of way), bar none.

[Bodzilla]

ever thought maybe your not just not noticing the ones that dont fit the stereotype.

[TVTyrant]

Because they seem like "normal" everyday people and there is nothing wrong with them. Honestly, I have met tons of dudes who turned out to be gay and I thought were typical guys.

[Dwood]

Then you need to get around more. I livei around a lot of gay guys and not many are like that.

I've lived in Florida and Hawaii, (2 of the highest concentrations of gay people) and have a gay uncle who brings his friends home some times. Which is kind of weird since our whole family is deep Christian (o/t). The majority of the gay people i've seen in public and met in person were like that. The only reason I didn't say all as a broad generalization is because my uncle isn't like that, or, at least, up front.

Edit: And having gone to Key West last Saturday during the 'drag races' was not helping any impressions either.

[Warsaw]

ever thought maybe your not just not noticing the ones that dont fit the stereotype.

No no. I have seen non-pansy ones, but I don't know them. The ones I actually KNOW are all pansies.

[ChemicalFizz]

Pansies or not, the repeal has received overwhelming positive reaction... Just a few days after its repeal, Harvard reinstates its ROTC program, and a few weeks after that and much debate among the student body, Columbia (very surprising how anti-military a portion of the student body is)... The irony is that service members probably didn't care this whole time.

[TVTyrant]

Pansies or not, the repeal has received overwhelming positive reaction... Just a few days after its repeal, Harvard reinstates its ROTC program, and a few weeks after that and much debate among the student body, Columbia (very surprising how anti-military a portion of the student body is)... The irony is that service members probably didn't care this whole time.

Yeah but its the ethics of the thing that bothered people so much.

[Cortexian]

Service members probably haven't cared for the longest time. Only the brass care.

[sleepy1212]

Only the brass care

about the way it makes them look to the public.

[Dwood]

about the way it makes them look to the public.

basically this.

[Kornman00]

Service members probably haven't cared for the longest time. Only the brass care.
Just like in everyday life, we have some people (men) who get all hot 'n heavy about letting openly gay military (men, they never say anything about women, idiots) serve with them. In my experience, they've always been right-winged honkies, so what do you except? Also, there have been some higher ranking officers who have gotten the boot from their higher ranking buddies for being fingered as gay.

I blame the military's (by-product of our gov't's) inability to change at the same pace as the global society, due to their employment of old fucking farts, getting paid outrageous paychecks to fart about. They're basically politicians in uniform. Same goes for the old SMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_O._Preston). After being part of a "detail" which had to see him give a speech/talk and then some Q&A, I know realize how big of a joke that guy and the position itself is.

[Phopojijo]

Because they seem like "normal" everyday people and there is nothing wrong with them. Honestly, I have met tons of dudes who turned out to be gay and I thought were typical guys.They are typical guys so it makes sense how it seems that way.

[TVTyrant]

They are typical guys so it makes sense how it seems that way.

Essentially this. I was just having a hard time wording it without sounding, idk, rude? Kind of hard to do sometimes, since some are very touchy about it and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

[Warsaw]

Political correctness is for idiots. Just tell it like it is. You don't have to be crass, but you don't have to sugar coat it. I don't, and I also don't expect people to sugar coat things for me, either.

[=sw=warlord]

Meanwhile in Uganda. (http://www.allout.org/en/petition/uganda)

[TVTyrant]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/purpose-development/petitions/images/000/000/006/uganda_original.jpg

Guy on far right looks tough. Lift ban on gay sex... Or else.

[sleepy1212]

nobody knows i'm a lesbian too :smith:

because penis