Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

1. It's possible for a man to be raped by a woman (well, at least I can say there are exceptions - like faggots)
2. Women should still be able to vote

At 6/26/12 06:02 PM, JudenSindKaputt wrote: 1. It's possible for a man to be raped by a woman (well, at least I can say there are exceptions - like faggots)
2. Women should still be able to vote

I have a friend who claims to have been "violated" by a girl half his weight and three years younger than him just because she forcibly made out with him when they were drunk.

"from this one guy a little bit ago"

the axis being victims to allied aggression.

Japan invading china to save it's population from the republican-communist civil war.

the allies fighting to bring all of europe under the heel of bankers and zionists.

"surprisingly" victors law in ww2. "it was the start of the argument on why the western allies didn't punish any soviets for war crimes".

At 6/26/12 06:02 PM, JudenSindKaputt wrote: 1. It's possible for a man to be raped by a woman (well, at least I can say there are exceptions - like faggots)
2. Women should still be able to vote

actually it's probably really easy to rape a guy. you think you are gonna stop yourself from popping little timmy downstairs when some girl ties you up and is butt naked.

At 6/27/12 10:53 PM, lilfozzy wrote:

At 6/26/12 06:02 PM, JudenSindKaputt wrote: 1. It's possible for a man to be raped by a woman (well, at least I can say there are exceptions - like faggots)
2. Women should still be able to vote

actually it's probably really easy to rape a guy. you think you are gonna stop yourself from popping little timmy downstairs when some girl ties you up and is butt naked.

A woman can rape a guy, but it normally involves the guy being tied up and objects being put up his ass.

At 6/26/12 06:02 PM, JudenSindKaputt wrote: 1. It's possible for a man to be raped by a woman (well, at least I can say there are exceptions - like faggots)

Heterosexual men have been raped by women before. You're a moron if you think this is impossible.

2. Women should still be able to vote

Oh, you're trolling. I see.

At 6/26/12 06:02 PM, JudenSindKaputt wrote: 1. It's possible for a man to be raped by a woman (well, at least I can say there are exceptions - like faggots)

pegging, brah.

At 6/30/12 06:08 PM, Light wrote:

At 6/26/12 06:02 PM, JudenSindKaputt wrote: 2. Women should still be able to vote

Oh, you're trolling. I see.

You should check out his post history, there's some funny obvious troll is obvious material in there. Judging from his sudden absence, I'm guessing that he's enjoying a temporary ban at the moment.

At 6/30/12 09:51 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 6/30/12 06:08 PM, Light wrote:

At 6/26/12 06:02 PM, JudenSindKaputt wrote: 2. Women should still be able to vote

Oh, you're trolling. I see.

You should check out his post history, there's some funny obvious troll is obvious material in there. Judging from his sudden absence, I'm guessing that he's enjoying a temporary ban at the moment.

Don't be silly. This is the internet. A troll does not need to be subtle or clever. The majority of people who reply think they're dead serious even if they fucking spell it out for you that they're a troll.

Several Things Actually:

1)That it is a right to openly declare your sexual orientation while actively serving in the military.

That has always seemed stupid too me cause you go into the military to protect your country, not to go on a political crusade. So minor things like one's sexual preference should be a non issue compared to your job in a combat situation.

2) Women shouldn't serve in combat roles because they can get hurt and raped and stuff if captured.

I find that funny because, even if you aren't serving in a active combat role one could get killed/raped/captured all the same. Sure front line stuff have traditionally been a male thing, but if a gal is willing and can do it effectively I say sign her up. Male or Female you have to be prepared though for what challenges and hardships come along with taking part in combat operations.

At 7/4/12 12:09 AM, CaptainCornhole wrote: Several Things Actually:

1)That it is a right to openly declare your sexual orientation while actively serving in the military.

That has always seemed stupid too me cause you go into the military to protect your country, not to go on a political crusade. So minor things like one's sexual preference should be a non issue compared to your job in a combat situation.

2) Women shouldn't serve in combat roles because they can get hurt and raped and stuff if captured.

I find that funny because, even if you aren't serving in a active combat role one could get killed/raped/captured all the same. Sure front line stuff have traditionally been a male thing, but if a gal is willing and can do it effectively I say sign her up. Male or Female you have to be prepared though for what challenges and hardships come along with taking part in combat operations.

Exactly. Your sexual orientation should be of no concern to the military. So why should we refuse to accept soldiers who are openly gay? The problem isn't simply that homosexuals serving in the military are being infringed upon because they aren't allowed to come out of the closet. The main problem is that people who have already declared their sexual orientation may be denied. You say it doesn't matter... Then why not remain indifferent about a soldier's sexual orientation instead of mandating that they remain in the closet?

But for the women thing, I agree. As long as they are willing and able. Certain roles might be better suited for men but each person should be evaluated individually on their qualifications.

At 7/4/12 02:18 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Exactly. Your sexual orientation should be of no concern to the military. So why should we refuse to accept soldiers who are openly gay? The problem isn't simply that homosexuals serving in the military are being infringed upon because they aren't allowed to come out of the closet. The main problem is that people who have already declared their sexual orientation may be denied. You say it doesn't matter... Then why not remain indifferent about a soldier's sexual orientation instead of mandating that they remain in the closet?

I would disagree with you a little bit there, because the military has to create a stable and fluid environment for it's service members. That's why they do not allow sex offenders into the service, that's also why there are regs against fraternization between the ranks. So it should be a concern to the military in that sense. See what I'm getting at?

But then again if your truly going into the military to protect your country or what have you, declaring your sexual preferences shouldn't be an issue for the individual who is there to defend his/her country. To be quite frank, one of the last things I would think about while in a war is declaring myself openly gay or straight. This is probably a poor analogy, but for example a serious athlete focuses and is occupied with excelling in whatever his/her sport is, not so much their sex life (with the obvious exception being Tiger Woods).

It's just my opinion that in a type of situation/environment/setting like what you would come across while in the service it is probably best to keep certain things to yourself.

At 7/4/12 02:18 PM, MrFlopz wrote:

Exactly. Your sexual orientation should be of no concern to the military. So why should we refuse to accept soldiers who are openly gay? The problem isn't simply that homosexuals serving in the military are being infringed upon because they aren't allowed to come out of the closet. The main problem is that people who have already declared their sexual orientation may be denied. You say it doesn't matter... Then why not remain indifferent about a soldier's sexual orientation instead of mandating that they remain in the closet?

I would disagree with you a little bit there, because the military has to create a stable and fluid environment for it's service members. That's why there are regs against fraternization between the ranks. So it should be a concern to the military in that sense. I think a discharge is kinda on extreme side of things though.

But as I said if your truly going to serve in the military and take up the duty of protecting your country, I would think declaring your sexual preferences would be one of the last things on your mind given your roll in the service. This is probably a poor analogy, but for example a serious athlete focuses and is occupied with excelling in whatever his/her sport is, not so much their sex life (with the obvious exception being Tiger Woods).

It's just my opinion that in a type of situation/environment/setting like what you would come across while in the service it is probably best to keep certain things to yourself.

At 7/4/12 11:18 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: But as I said if your truly going to serve in the military and take up the duty of protecting your country, I would think declaring your sexual preferences would be one of the last things on your mind given your roll in the service. This is probably a poor analogy, but for example a serious athlete focuses and is occupied with excelling in whatever his/her sport is, not so much their sex life (with the obvious exception being Tiger Woods).

It's just my opinion that in a type of situation/environment/setting like what you would come across while in the service it is probably best to keep certain things to yourself.

when you are not actually in combat it is a little bit different. Guys talk about sex all the time, its just the way things are. Doesn't matter where you go, if they are off the job, they talk about sex at some point. I imagine it is a little bit more so for a bunch of sex starved jocks in the army. Being all business 100% even on their off time wouldn't be very healthy for the soldiers either, the human mind doesn't work that way. So now that it is established that their off time is their off time and they can do what they want with it, coming out of the closet becomes a free speech and personal choice issue.

At 7/5/12 12:56 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: when you are not actually in combat it is a little bit different. Guys talk about sex all the time, its just the way things are. Doesn't matter where you go, if they are off the job, they talk about sex at some point. I imagine it is a little bit more so for a bunch of sex starved jocks in the army. Being all business 100% even on their off time wouldn't be very healthy for the soldiers either, the human mind doesn't work that way. So now that it is established that their off time is their off time and they can do what they want with it, coming out of the closet becomes a free speech and personal choice issue.

Agreed, of course servicemen need some downtime, i'm not saying they should be 100% bizznizz. But again, you signed your rights over to the military when you joined up. That's part of the job, you have to do as they say. Even on their down time they still have regs.

That said, I see your point though. If I were gay, and my squad mates were talking about banging the gal across the table from us, I would imagine the whole thing would be awkward/uncomfortable from my perspective.

At 7/5/12 11:44 AM, CaptainCornhole wrote:

At 7/5/12 12:56 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: when you are not actually in combat it is a little bit different. Guys talk about sex all the time, its just the way things are. Doesn't matter where you go, if they are off the job, they talk about sex at some point. I imagine it is a little bit more so for a bunch of sex starved jocks in the army. Being all business 100% even on their off time wouldn't be very healthy for the soldiers either, the human mind doesn't work that way. So now that it is established that their off time is their off time and they can do what they want with it, coming out of the closet becomes a free speech and personal choice issue.

Agreed, of course servicemen need some downtime, i'm not saying they should be 100% bizznizz. But again, you signed your rights over to the military when you joined up. That's part of the job, you have to do as they say. Even on their down time they still have regs.

That said, I see your point though. If I were gay, and my squad mates were talking about banging the gal across the table from us, I would imagine the whole thing would be awkward/uncomfortable from my perspective.

The point is, during downtime the topic of women and sex is going to come up. The gays aren't asking to go into war waving rainbow flags. They'd like to be able to tell their fellow soldiers that they are not interested in women. If a homosexual is serving, and someone asks him a question about women, why should this soldier have to omit information in his response and feign heterosexuality? Why force a soldier to lie and withhold personal information? You're speaking from a "it doesn't matter" perspective. So why add such a pointless restriction? Homosexuality is not a sex offense. Are gays any less able to serve? Why allow women but not homosexual men?

At 7/5/12 03:21 PM, MrFlopz wrote: The point is, during downtime the topic of women and sex is going to come up. The gays aren't asking to go into war waving rainbow flags. They'd like to be able to tell their fellow soldiers that they are not interested in women. If a homosexual is serving, and someone asks him a question about women, why should this soldier have to omit information in his response and feign heterosexuality? Why force a soldier to lie and withhold personal information? You're speaking from a "it doesn't matter" perspective. So why add such a pointless restriction? Homosexuality is not a sex offense. Are gays any less able to serve? Why allow women but not homosexual men?

First of I never compared sex offenders to homosexuals, please reread what I said. And 2nd homosexuals are allowed to serve, just not openly. 3rd soldiers are required to lie and withhold information under certain citations. Thing is there are some who do go in waving the "rainbow flag" and try to make it an issue, just like there are those who file unnecessary sexual harassment complaints.

Look, I just think the regs help prevent certain things from becoming an issue while on active duty. But perhaps, i'm completely wrong and they don't work as people still try to make it an issue out of it.

One of the people in my friend's boot camp when he was training for the Marines was flamboyantly gay. There were no problems.

At 7/6/12 12:35 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: And 2nd homosexuals are allowed to serve, just not openly.

Did you mean "they just shouldn't be allowed to serve openly"?

At 7/6/12 12:35 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote:
First of I never compared sex offenders to homosexuals, please reread what I said. And 2nd homosexuals are allowed to serve, just not openly. 3rd soldiers are required to lie and withhold information under certain citations. Thing is there are some who do go in waving the "rainbow flag" and try to make it an issue, just like there are those who file unnecessary sexual harassment complaints.

Look, I just think the regs help prevent certain things from becoming an issue while on active duty. But perhaps, i'm completely wrong and they don't work as people still try to make it an issue out of it.

Think of it this way. If gays are openly serving without any restrictions based on sexual preference, there would be no reason to be a political activist for homosexuality in the military. That would be like women marching around campaigning for the right to vote. Sure, there might be gays who join the military to prove a point initially but that would slow down as it became acceptable and commonplace. It just seems like you want to keep it simple but you're promoting a needless restriction that does not strengthen our military in any way. All it does is give added stress to willing and able homosexuals who serve this country overseas.

At 7/6/12 04:07 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Think of it this way. If gays are openly serving without any restrictions based on sexual preference, there would be no reason to be a political activist for homosexuality in the military. That would be like women marching around campaigning for the right to vote. Sure, there might be gays who join the military to prove a point initially but that would slow down as it became acceptable and commonplace. It just seems like you want to keep it simple but you're promoting a needless restriction that does not strengthen our military in any way. All it does is give added stress to willing and able homosexuals who serve this country overseas.

Fair enough, I didn't see it that way. It just seemed like one way to make it an non-issue was to avoid creating unnecessary stress and all that would to just have people avoid bringing it up. But you make a compelling argument, now I see how it can backfire.

At 7/6/12 01:51 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Did you mean "they just shouldn't be allowed to serve openly"?

Nope.

At 7/6/12 06:55 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote:

Did you mean "they just shouldn't be allowed to serve openly"?

I'm guessing you don't live in the states, then. DADT was repealed a while ago.

At 7/6/12 08:43 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 7/6/12 06:55 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote:

Did you mean "they just shouldn't be allowed to serve openly"?

I'm guessing you don't live in the states, then. DADT was repealed a while ago.

I was responding to what I thought was in the context of when DADT was still around. Thus my phrasing.

I tell ya, any "argument" from anyone totally convinced of their own "superiority" whereas the very contrary is that they obviously have no just cause to credit themselves thusly considering they've got a room temperature I.Q. in metric and somehow qualify as "superior" It's just pathetic. And the only thing more pathetic is rallying to support said moloderus ignoramus. It's hardly "enthralling" I believe it's hilarious to watch such idiocy! And that's the bottom line! : P

@CaptainCornhole

I appreciate your open mindedness in debate. It's a rare thing to come by especially on forums like these. I can understand where you're coming from. Why should a soldier have to declare his sexual orientation when he much more important duties and can simply keep his mouth shut? But there are social implications that you might not have considered and when these issues were pointed out to you, you reassessed your position. I respect that. Most people I've debated are unwilling to consider the other guy's position. It was nice talking to you man.

At 7/6/12 10:45 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: I was responding to what I thought was in the context of when DADT was still around. Thus my phrasing.

aaaah, okay. That makes more sense. The present tense "are" threw me off.

At 7/7/12 06:06 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: they've got a room temperature I.Q. in metric

hah. This reminds me of Family Ties. "Sorry, I don't date anyone with an I.Q of room temperature."

an argument on weather the federal reserve was privately owned or part of the government..... and it was one of those nu-uh/yu-hu deals too. the guy didn't know that the Federal Reserve was privately owned.

Anything from Homeland Security. Seriously, what kind of fucking moron would openly believe/credit/stand behind/enforce the following:

"We can no longer allow toenail clippers on an airplane because someone might try to hijack an airplane with toenail clippers."

"We can no longer allow lighters but matches are ok on an airplane."

"We can no longer allow hair gel on an airplane because someone might use that as a makeshift incendiary device."

"We can no longer allow shampoo or conditioner on an airplane because someone might use that as a makeshift incendiary device."

"We can no longer allow a standard issue fire ax or standard issue fire extinguisher in all commercial airplanes because someone might use them to hijack an airplane"

Homeland Security is more like Homeland IDIOCY!

At 7/8/12 05:45 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: Homeland Security is more like Homeland IDIOCY!

You've gotta be one huge badass if you can take down a plane with a bottle of listerine.

At 7/7/12 02:03 PM, MrFlopz wrote: @CaptainCornhole

I appreciate your open mindedness in debate... t was nice talking to you man.

Likewise.

Not really an argument, but people who repeatedly watch a tv show/movie just so they can go online and call it offensive to their race/gender/religion etc.

Never, ever go on IMDB boards.