Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/14/10 12:28 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: that's a pretty stupid comparison.

the law was meant to stop (potentially) harmful behavioral differences. in other words, which of these actions sounds most harmful to the uniform:

a. a silent prayer to vishnu?

Those who aren't Hindu might find it uncomfortable

b. celebrating channukah (or however it's spelled)

Those who aren't Hebrew might find it uncomfortable

c. having dark skin (ZOMG!!!!)

Those who don't have dark skin may find them uncomfortable

or d. a flaming homosexual

Not all homosexuals are "flaming". why don't you take the time to look at the real world instead of what the media feeds you

who puts his soldiers in uncomfortable situations (especially since bathrooms are gender-separate),

it would only be uncomfortable if they say "want to have sex" which I highly doubt any would say

and leaves the door open to being the laughingstock of the base because he's, well, gay.

and you said this wasn't about discrimination.

At 9/14/10 12:38 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: on the battlefield, no. in the showers, yes.

At 9/14/10 12:36 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: considering the enemy we're fighting, i'll admit i'd be a bit uncomfortable, but so long as he's every bit as committed to the cause as the rest of us, i will have no objection. the same goes with homosexuals: man up and you'll be fine.

So you're telling me that you're more afraid of a gay man than a Muslim?

Seriously?

BTW, in your words, man up. If you have a homosexual in your troop, do you really care THAT much about how open they are? Seriously, if anybody needs to man up, it's you.

At 9/14/10 01:01 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

bottom line, would YOU want a gay guy staring at you in the shower?

I like how you seem to think that your ass is so perfect it will drive a trained soldier into a uncontrolable frenzy.

At 9/14/10 01:02 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: actually, since a world without DADT would mean that every soldier knows every other soldier's orientation, wouldn't you be a bit uncomfortable if the gay guy saw you naked?

Let's be more explicit....

Would you be a bit uncomfortable if the non-flaming gay guy saw you naked?
Would you be a bit uncomfortable if the flaming gay guy saw you naked?

Okay, RWG, since you're so afraid of flamboyant gays in the military, let me ask you this: how many do you think flamboyant gays are there in the military?

At 9/14/10 01:14 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: that aside, there are almost no flamboyant gays in the military. mainly due to the fact that there's a rule telling them to keep it to themselves.

Then what are you afraid of? The chance there MIGHT be one?

Besides, do you honestly believe that flamboyant gays are likely to serve in the military? If you do, I have bridge to sell you.

At 9/14/10 01:02 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 9/14/10 12:41 AM, LordJaric wrote:

At 9/14/10 12:28 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

a. a silent prayer to vishnu?

Those who aren't Hindu might find it uncomfortable

i'm not hindu, and i won't find it uncomfortable.

Doesn't mean others wont find it uncomfortable.

b. celebrating channukah (or however it's spelled)

Those who aren't Hebrew might find it uncomfortable

i'm not jewish, and hell, i just might celebrate with him.

Doesn't mean others wont find it uncomfortable.

c. having dark skin (ZOMG!!!!)

Those who don't have dark skin may find them uncomfortable

and you don't see how that statement might be racist in any way?

That was the point.

or d. a flaming homosexual

Not all homosexuals are "flaming". why don't you take the time to look at the real world instead of what the media feeds you

i was hoping for just that response. since we all know that flaming homosexuals are a small minority in the gay population, why is it a big deal to ask them to keep their sexuality to themselves?

Because even if you don't tell anyone and it is found out you are gay you can still get kicked out.

who puts his soldiers in uncomfortable situations (especially since bathrooms are gender-separate),

it would only be uncomfortable if they say "want to have sex" which I highly doubt any would say

actually, since a world without DADT would mean that every soldier knows every other soldier's orientation, wouldn't you be a bit uncomfortable if the gay guy saw you naked?

And what makes you think they will be looking at you ass. just because they are gay, what being gay adomadicly means they are pervertes? you do realize that those in the military are highly disciplined right. and even if they follow DADT whats stoping them from looking at your ass.

and leaves the door open to being the laughingstock of the base because he's, well, gay.

and you said this wasn't about discrimination.

i meant that open gays would be more subject to homophobia than DADT gays.

And all the things I pointed out earlier fall under the same catagory

Ok. I'll try again...

At 9/14/10 01:02 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: i was hoping for just that response. since we all know that flaming homosexuals are a small minority in the gay population, why is it a big deal to ask them to keep their sexuality to themselves?
[...]
actually, since a world without DADT would mean that every soldier knows every other soldier's orientation, wouldn't you be a bit uncomfortable if the gay guy saw you naked?

If DADT is a safeguard against flamboyant gays, then what are you doing supporting DADT with an argument that doesn't seem to make a distinction between flamboyantly gay and just gay?

At 9/14/10 01:27 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: once again... IF THEY'RE HIGHLY DISCIPLINED THEN WHAT'S THE BIG FUCKING DEAL?
if flamboyant gays are unlikely to serve in the military, THEN WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL WITH DADT?

If they're highly disciplined and flamboyant gays are unlikely to serve in the military, why do we even need DADT?

Seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it?

At 9/14/10 01:35 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: i mean, yeah, it's not that necessary when you think about it, but you treat it like a huge civil rights issue. i mean, seriously, what's the big deal?

My beef is why are you heavily defending then when you've said it's not a big deal and it's counter-intuitive?

My point here is that it's a stupid policy that's not needed.

At 9/14/10 01:27 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 9/14/10 01:18 AM, LordJaric wrote:

Doesn't mean others wont find it uncomfortable.

i can't see why any RATIONAL person would have a problem with peaceful religious expression. (keyword: peaceful)

Did it occur to you that not all people are rational, you have clearly mentioned homophobia.

Doesn't mean others wont find it uncomfortable.

then "others" are anti-semites.

and that's different from homophobes

That was the point.

wait, I'm confused, are you calling YOURSELF a racist?

*facepalm* no I'm implying that there are racist in the military

Because even if you don't tell anyone and it is found out you are gay you can still get kicked out.

i believe i responded to that in a previous post.

Why don't you clarify a little more

And what makes you think they will be looking at you ass. just because they are gay, what being gay adomadicly means they are pervertes? you do realize that those in the military are highly disciplined right. and even if they follow DADT whats stoping them from looking at your ass.

once again... IF THEY'RE HIGHLY DISCIPLINED THEN WHAT'S THE BIG FUCKING DEAL?

then why do we need the DADT

At 9/14/10 01:44 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: it's very low-cost and it doesn't hurt anyone. why NOT have it?

The whole point of this argument is that it DOES hurt people. It's basically the military telling homosexuals that "if we find out about your personal life we're going to discharge you" and for what? Because 2 homophobic guys felt uncomfortably by the gay guy's mere presence?

Plus, isn't the military about being efficient? With the amount of crap they've been getting about their budgets, why have a policy that clearly costs them money and manpower?

It's counter-intuitive, something very much unlike the army.

At 9/14/10 01:44 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 9/14/10 01:38 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: My beef is why are you heavily defending then when you've said it's not a big deal and it's counter-intuitive?

My point here is that it's a stupid policy that's not needed.

it's very low-cost and it doesn't hurt anyone. why NOT have it?

Lets see, discriminating against homosexuals, giving them dishonorable discharges which will effect there future attempts at employment, yep doest hurt anyone at all.

At 9/14/10 12:28 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: that's a pretty stupid comparison.

Really now?

the law was meant to stop (potentially) harmful behavioral differences. in other words, which of these actions sounds most harmful to the uniform:

Ok, I'll play along.

a. a silent prayer to vishnu?

That's fine, freedom of religion. It's in the Constitution and one of those great freedoms we fight for do we not? Can't see anyone arguing that one.

b. celebrating channukah (or however it's spelled)

Close enough that I got what you meant, again, same thing as a.

c. having dark skin (ZOMG!!!!)

Fine by me.

or d. a flaming homosexual who puts his soldiers in uncomfortable situations (especially since bathrooms are gender-separate), and leaves the door open to being the laughingstock of the base because he's, well, gay.

And you don't see ANYTHING wrong or discriminatory in what you just said? Like all gays are somehow flameing and going to make their fellows uncomfortable...jesus christ. Somebody who's obviously unfit for duty isn't getting on the base and I'd think most "flamers" as it were probably have no interest in military service to begin with. I love how you try to pretty up your obviously prejudiced mindset as something else and then drop this idiotic bomb. The kinds of problems you can have with gays in the uniform are EXACTLY the same kind of issues of discomfort for soldiers that you can have with hetero's since the military went co-ed. Same bag of potential issues of harrassment, rape, and infidelity. Same. Exact. Problems. Oh, well, except one. I've never heard of "heterophobia", so I guess that is one thing the gays can do to people that the heteros can't.

Hey gay people, HOW DARE YOU MAKE THE PREJUDICE FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE?!

This is what I'm not understanding. Couldn't someone be the most flaming, out there, Freddie Mercury without the singing gay guy in the world and still show up in his soldier suit to do his job?

At 9/14/10 01:36 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 9/14/10 01:21 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Ok. I'll try again...

If DADT is a safeguard against flamboyant gays, then what are you doing supporting DADT with an argument that doesn't seem to make a distinction between flamboyantly gay and just gay?

actually, i DID make that distinction, you just weren't paying attention.

Yes. I know you made that distinction. Part of my argument is that you made that distinction.

Note the premise... "If DADT is a safeguard against flamboyant gays" based upon the following bit that you wrote, that I quoted at 9/14/10 01:21 AM: "i was hoping for just that response. since we all know that flaming homosexuals are a small minority in the gay population, why is it a big deal to ask them to keep their sexuality to themselves?"

So I'll try asking yet again, in yet a different way... when you asked, "wouldn't you be a bit uncomfortable if the gay guy saw you naked?" { which was, for context, a response rather clearly to refute the idea that one should only be uncomfortable under the circumstance that one is essentially a victim of sexual harassment: "it would only be uncomfortable if they say "want to have sex" which I highly doubt any would say" } how the hell are you making a distinction between flamboyantly gay and just gay compatriots? It would seem to me your question is doing the exact opposite of making that distinction. Essentially: 'never-mind whether they harass you or not (i.e. exhibit inappropriate or 'flamboyant' behavior), they're going to see you naked. Doesn't that make you uncomfortable?'

At 9/13/10 06:57 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 9/13/10 06:36 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: And the dems won't do it because they've been badly burned and they don't want the election to be about gay marriage.

To the contrary, this would be a good point for the Dems to make because it is definitely a win for left and for freedom of expression. While I agree this should not be the major issue in the election, it's certainly a point worth making.

It might be good for the base. I don't know how good it would be for moderates, which is what they always "care" about. It would get gay rights supporters out to the polls, which might give them a boost, but how large of one?

I hate being a cynic, but I don't think it motivates enough people. I've met too many people that are uncomfortable with the idea. It shouldn't be uncomfortable, but for them it is.

At 9/14/10 06:49 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: It might be good for the base. I don't know how good it would be for moderates, which is what they always "care" about. It would get gay rights supporters out to the polls, which might give them a boost, but how large of one?

It always is bad. This is a free country. Forcing those to fight to do so without freedom in the name of country that supports it, it just hypocritical and wrong. We have values, and the DADT law goes directly against those values.

At 9/14/10 02:14 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: once again, you're missing the point. do you REALLY think that simply calling someone gay is enough to get them discharged?

It's enough to start an investigation, and someone can be discharged based on "reliable" testimonies. Gay military personal are often reported by a bigot when caught in their personal life, or extorted by those who will abuse the system

Also if it's really only about improper conduct then why does it single out homosexuals.

it costs them very little of either.

the GAO reported $95.4 million in recruiting costs and $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops discharged from 1994 through 2003.

So yeah, there goes that argument.

At 9/14/10 06:49 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: It might be good for the base. I don't know how good it would be for moderates, which is what they always "care" about. It would get gay rights supporters out to the polls, which might give them a boost, but how large of one?

Hard to say, however, like you said, it's good for the base, which is fine, as long as people are getting the idea, it should be in good shape.

I hate being a cynic, but I don't think it motivates enough people. I've met too many people that are uncomfortable with the idea. It shouldn't be uncomfortable, but for them it is.

I agree while it probably won't make that much of a difference, it is worth mentioning as a talking point.

I tend to see it the way gum sees it, the dems will stay away from it because it's so controversial. I mean, they're willing to play the republican game on the whole ground zero community center by trying to be like "see? We can talk tough and be ignorant about a minority too!". Also, let's not forget who it was that signed DADT into law in the first place...

If you're looking for the Democrats to bring this up and turn it into an election issue, then I just don't think you've been paying attention.