Jump to content
LL Medico Diapers and More Bambino Diapers - ABDL Diaper Store

So Gays Can Join The Military Now


D_danny777

Recommended Posts

Pansexuality is the belief that you can find a compatible sexual partner without bringing the gender variable into the decision making process ♥ It does differ from bisexuality, as a bisexual person has a desirable set of qualities they find appealing for girl partners, and a separate set of qualities for boy partners. A pansexual maintains a single list.

Link to comment

I've preferred "find a hole" for my part. And the thing about being openly queer is this: I'm only motivated to be openly queer when some dipshit starts bitching about "the gays." Fine if you wanna complain, sir. But while you're worrying, thinking "is he looking at my butt?" we're getting murdered and beaten and thrown out of our jobs because someone decided to tell the powers-that be (be they some thugs with a tire iron or a high-school principal or our commanding officers) what we do in the privacy of our own homes. If you don't see fit to give us the peace and privacy that every other human being expects, then why the hell should we bother shushing it up? If you feel like kissing your wife on the street then there's no reason I shouldn't be able to do the same with my husband.

At least that Artemis guy's in the South where he can't do too much damage.

Link to comment

hahah LOVE the new uniforms.....

and for everynoe saying sexuality in hte workplace does not belong.. i agree whole heartedly... heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, pan sexual, bisexual etc...etc... DOES NOT belong in hte workplace.... i don't care who you sleep with at night, i don't wanna hear about it at work...

That's what I was trying to say with my earlier posts... No one NEEDS to flaunt it, but some do and it's just wrong when they do it.

Link to comment

I've preferred "find a hole" for my part. And the thing about being openly queer is this: I'm only motivated to be openly queer when some dipshit starts bitching about "the gays." Fine if you wanna complain, sir. But while you're worrying, thinking "is he looking at my butt?" we're getting murdered and beaten and thrown out of our jobs because someone decided to tell the powers-that be (be they some thugs with a tire iron or a high-school principal or our commanding officers) what we do in the privacy of our own homes. If you don't see fit to give us the peace and privacy that every other human being expects, then why the hell should we bother shushing it up? If you feel like kissing your wife on the street then there's no reason I shouldn't be able to do the same with my husband.

At least that Artemis guy's in the South where he can't do too much damage.

Ha ha... I migrated to the south, I previously lived in PA. And I am not a redneck, nor am I a homophobe. I simply just don't want to SEE it. If you wanna act like that in the privacy of your home, go right ahead, I don't give a damn. But when you're in public, please have the decency to BEHAVE in a SENSIBLE manner.

As far as "damage", what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Link to comment

That's what I was trying to say with my earlier posts... No one NEEDS to flaunt it, but some do and it's just wrong when they do it.

Actually, it isn't what you said!

This is what you said:

There IS a difference. There are TWO sexes for a reason, they are two separate parts of a whole needed for the future of the species. Two members of the same sex being involved together is not the natural process.

I am a Christian, and the Bible itself states that God created the sexes. And God punished the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because the cities were involved in homosexuality. Hate me if you want (certain members of this site already do and give me negatives out of spite even on generic topics), but there are MORE of US (heterosexuals who believe homosexuality is wrong) than there are of THEM (anyone who doesn't see a problem with it).

... in response to this:

If you gave your wife a kiss in public, wouldn't that also be shoving your sexuality on innocent bystanders? I'm sure you wouldn't care if your daughter witnessed that. Don't be a freaken hypocrite. Sexuality is not only about sex acts between two adults.

You basically said, in other words, that it's okay for straight people to make out in public, but not gay people.

Ha ha... I migrated to the south, I previously lived in PA.

You should have left the misconception. You now have one less excuse for your bigotry.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

And I am not a redneck, nor am I a homophobe.

You are a homophobe. Your posts have proven that.

I simply just don't want to SEE it.

And you're okay with it when it's straight people, according to your own posts, which makes you a bigoted homophobe. Care to revise your earlier statements?

  • Like 2
Link to comment

If you wanna act like that in the privacy of your home, go right ahead, I don't give a damn. But when you're in public, please have the decency to BEHAVE in a SENSIBLE manner.

Of course, that has nothing to do with DADT. Only in your bigoted little mind does "Gay" equal "guys kissing in public" any more than straight equals "guys kissing girls in public," any more than ABDL equals "people showing off diapers in public."

As far as "damage", what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Simple: Bigoted homophobes are hurtful. The less you are around sensible, reasonable people, the better. The fact that you intently posted your utter tripe in the "Rainbow Diapers" forum (You know? That forum that is for GLBTQA etc.) makes you a Bigoted Homophobic troll as opposed to the normal, garden variety Bigoted Homophobe.

Sorry for the triple post, everybody. There was just so much silly tripe that it had to be addressed in several quotes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

By damage I just meant that he's in a red/blue dog state anyway. I mean, is it really all that likely that a decent human being would have been elected from a birthplace of treason like North Carolina? Remember, those are the same savages who fought for the right to own other human beings. Artemis is just keeping up the traditions of his adopted home. :)

Without him in PA, that's one less vote for the cause of bigotry where it might actually count. I mean, the whole southeast is basically a giant festering, inbred, malarial bog so it's not like they can wreck it any further, and the swine they send to Congress were gonna be semiliterate nutjobs anyway.

PS Artie: You are a bad person :wub:

Link to comment

Actually, it isn't what you said!

This is what you said:

... in response to this:

You basically said, in other words, that it's okay for straight people to make out in public, but not gay people.

You should have left the misconception. You now have one less excuse for your bigotry.

That was not my FIRST post on this thread. My very first post said:

As far as DADT, I am offended by the "open" gays who are "in your face" about their sexuality. I don't want my 8-year-old daughter (or my 7-year-old twin nephews) seeing that when they are out. Sexuality belongs in the BEDROOM, NOT in public (like malls, parks, grocery stores, etc). I don't go around publicly announcing my orientation, I don't understand why they feel the need to. Why can't they keep it to themselves? I'm not saying they have to lie about who they are, I just wish they'd keep it where it belongs, out of the public view.

Which was a longer way of me saying "No one NEEDS to flaunt it, but some do and it's just wrong when they do it."

And what the hell does it matter what state I'm from? I've actually lived in FOUR states, and 15 cities. They had nothing to do with what I believe.

You are a homophobe. Your posts have proven that.

And you're okay with it when it's straight people, according to your own posts, which makes you a bigoted homophobe. Care to revise your earlier statements?

The suffix of "phobe" means FEAR OF. I am not afraid of anyone who is homosexual. I just don't want to know if they are.

Gee, for how many DECADES did the gays stay out of public view? During that time, when there was almost never a PDA by a gay couple (males or females), the ONLY thing you would see was men kissing women. That does NOT make me a bigot. Over the years, I have been in a few parks and malls and SAW different gay couples (some of whom better fit the "flaming" category) and saw how MANY straight people acted like it was wrong...

Of course, that has nothing to do with DADT. Only in your bigoted little mind does "Gay" equal "guys kissing in public" any more than straight equals "guys kissing girls in public," any more than ABDL equals "people showing off diapers in public."

Simple: Bigoted homophobes are hurtful. The less you are around sensible, reasonable people, the better. The fact that you intently posted your utter tripe in the "Rainbow Diapers" forum (You know? That forum that is for GLBTQA etc.) makes you a Bigoted Homophobic troll as opposed to the normal, garden variety Bigoted Homophobe.

Sorry for the triple post, everybody. There was just so much silly tripe that it had to be addressed in several quotes.

Gee, just like people who think they have to rip someone to shreds just because they disagree with him or her are hurtful. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't give you the right to treat me like I am less of a person or have no rights to have an opinion or to express that opinion.

By damage I just meant that he's in a red/blue dog state anyway. I mean, is it really all that likely that a decent human being would have been elected from a birthplace of treason like North Carolina? Remember, those are the same savages who fought for the right to own other human beings. Artemis is just keeping up the traditions of his adopted home. :)

Without him in PA, that's one less vote for the cause of bigotry where it might actually count. I mean, the whole southeast is basically a giant festering, inbred, malarial bog so it's not like they can wreck it any further, and the swine they send to Congress were gonna be semiliterate nutjobs anyway.

PS Artie: You are a bad person :wub:

Really Frink? Just because I have a difference of opinion about this subject, I am not a "decent" person? I am not a murderer, I am not a rapist, I do not commit criminal acts (other than occasional downloads of tv show episodes). To the people I live my daily life with, I AM a decent person.

And as I mentioned in a previous post, just as the racism situation has become reversed (it's okay for a Black to hurt/kill a White, but if a White hurts/kills a Black, it's automatically treated as a racism/hate crime - during the slavery years it was the opposite...), so has the concept of bigotry been reversed: there has been more anger and hate aimed at ME than I have aimed at anyone else. I did not ONCE use any name calling, I did not use the F (not the swear, but the rude adjective some use to describe gays) word, I have simply stated what I believe.

Link to comment

Gee, just like people who think they have to rip someone to shreds just because they disagree with him or her are hurtful. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't give you the right to treat me like I am less of a person or have no rights to have an opinion or to express that opinion.

I was waiting for this! The eternal defense of the bigot: You're being intolerant because you're not tolerating my bigotry! Waaaaaaah! I'm guessing you don't realize how ridiculous you sound.

As to the meaning of "homophobe" you need to realize that there are popularized meanings of words in society today and your statements, whether they are in your "first post" or not, reflect a picture-perfect example of those meanings. You are responsible for EVERYTHING you say, be it in the first post or not, and every single post you've made in this thread has seeped with disgusting bigotry and hatred, so there's really no reason why we should tolerate any of them.

The rest of your post can be summed up in one psuedoword, homophobe: Whargarbl.

You are not a decent person. Decent people treat others equally. Decent people don't judge a person based on whether they are gay or not, male or female. Decent people judge others by their actions and words, as you have been judged on yours in this thread.

You aren't "just expressing your opinion." You are expressing a vehement anti-gay sentiment in the middle of a forum area specifically created for LGBTQA people!

So you're either fairly dumb, or a troll.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I was waiting for this! The eternal defense of the bigot: You're being intolerant because you're not tolerating my bigotry! Waaaaaaah! I'm guessing you don't realize how ridiculous you sound.

As to the meaning of "homophobe" you need to realize that there are popularized meanings of words in society today and your statements, whether they are in your "first post" or not, reflect a picture-perfect example of those meanings. You are responsible for EVERYTHING you say, be it in the first post or not, and every single post you've made in this thread has seeped with disgusting bigotry and hatred, so there's really no reason why we should tolerate any of them.

The rest of your post can be summed up in one psuedoword, homophobe: Whargarbl.

You are not a decent person. Decent people treat others equally. Decent people don't judge a person based on whether they are gay or not, male or female. You have shown that you very much do.

You aren't "just expressing your opinion." You are expressing a vehement anti-gay sentiment in the middle of a forum area specifically created for LGBTQA people!

So you're either fairly dumb, or a troll.

What the hell??? I NEVER said that gay people were any less worthy of existing than straight people. You however continually treat me as if I am nothing more than dirt under your feet, you would prefer that I didn't even exist.

I did NOT at any time in this thread make any form of abusive remark: name calling, put-downs, etc. Yet that is what I have received in response to my posts.

It doesn't matter what forum area the post is in, that doesn't mean that I am not allowed to use my freedom of speech to comment on a discussion. If you want to restrict who can read/reply to threads, go open your own forum. Unless DailyDi says that only LGBTQA people can post in the Rainbow area, there is no law or rule preventing posts by others.

The topic itself is something that the public in general have opinions on, it isn't just limited to the LGBT community.

Link to comment

What the hell??? I NEVER said that gay people were any less worthy of existing than straight people. You however continually treat me as if I am nothing more than dirt under your feet, you would prefer that I didn't even exist.

I did NOT at any time in this thread make any form of abusive remark: name calling, put-downs, etc. Yet that is what I have received in response to my posts.

It doesn't matter what forum area the post is in, that doesn't mean that I am not allowed to use my freedom of speech to comment on a discussion. If you want to restrict who can read/reply to threads, go open your own forum. Unless DailyDi says that only LGBTQA people can post in the Rainbow area, there is no law or rule preventing posts by others.

First of all, the First Amendment doesn't exempt you from being called out when you act like a jerk. I don't understand why so many Americans can't seem to grasp this concept.

The suffix of "phobe" means FEAR OF. I am not afraid of anyone who is homosexual. I just don't want to know if they are.

Gee, for how many DECADES did the gays stay out of public view? During that time, when there was almost never a PDA by a gay couple (males or females), the ONLY thing you would see was men kissing women. That does NOT make me a bigot. Over the years, I have been in a few parks and malls and SAW different gay couples (some of whom better fit the "flaming" category) and saw how MANY straight people acted like it was wrong...

You're so averse to the possibility of having to see a man holding hands with a man or a woman kissing a woman that you think any casual display of affection of gay couples or mentioning their same-sex relationships (even to doctors or therapists) should be grounds for discharge. You think gays are going to hell? Fine, that's your prerogative. Plenty of people think Jews, Muslims, adulterers, metalheads, and dancers are hellbound. Yet I never hear anyone advocating any of these groups should be barred from marrying, adopting children, or serving openly in the military. As much as I try to avoid conflating the LGBT Movement and the Civil Rights Movement, I'm reminded of Chris Rock's reply when asked if this tirade by Michael Richards could be called racist (WARNING: it is):

"What do you have to do, shoot Medgar Evers?"

The topic itself is something that the public in general have opinions on, it isn't just limited to the LGBT community.

As other posters have already expressed, your statement that most people support DADT is flat-out wrong. Remember that Pentagon study John McCain was insisting on completing before he would support repeal? It showed the vast majority in the military had no problem with it. Since this law only affects the military (and really only gays serving in the military), it's really irrelevant to consider the opinion of the public as a whole, but you've been shown wrong on that front as well. More importantly, the same protections meant to ensure the majority doesn't curtail the rights of minorities protect both my right (if I weren't trans) to serve in the military and your right to spout your hateful bullshit without running afoul of hate speech laws.

As an aside, there are some legitimate complaints against DADT; though not so much about the bill itself as with the fixation of LGBT lobbying organizations on this issue. First off is the obvious issues with the effectiveness of national vs. local activism. The mainstream LGB(T) movement has focused almost exclusively on national legislative goals, with only mixed success. Grassroots movements, on the other hand, have gotten relatively little support, but have succeeded in diffusing queer rights as a polarizing issue. There's also the issue of whether gays should support an organization that frequently works contrary to queer interests (see: the massive increase in anti-gay and ant-woman violence in post-invasion Iraq), and whether support of such an organization should be the only option for a (relatively) secure future for many Americans.

Link to comment

The suffix of "phobe" means FEAR OF.

In the medical sense, you'd be correct. However Homophobia is not a medically recognized phobia and carries a slightly different base definition.

Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and in some cases transgender and intersex people. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear.

I've bolded some of the behaviors you've exhibited in this thread alone, for your convenience.

Gee, for how many DECADES did the gays stay out of public view? During that time, when there was almost never a PDA by a gay couple (males or females), the ONLY thing you would see was men kissing women.

And for how many decades were people of color treated differently? And for how many decades were women not allowed to vote? And for how many decades was it permissible to sell your daughter to the highest bidder? Just because something was once an accepted norm does not mean it was automatically right. We're a progressive species, and if you can't keep up? You'll be left behind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

my point is that i don't wanna see it from anyone.... gay couples, straight couples or anything in between i don't want to see make out sessions or hear about your hot sex etc..

however i do believe it is unfair that a straight married person in hte military can say "my wife and I" or "My husband and I" but someone who is gay has to say "a friend and i went to a movie" and hope no one asks more questions.... that... THAT... is not right!!!

Link to comment

I don't care whether or not anyone likes what I have to say. Y'all can suck a lemon as far as I care. I didn't ask you to like me or what I said, I just posted what I considered to be valid beliefs on the subject.

And you know what, I asked a simple, CLEAR question earlier, but it was completely ignored because people wanted to vent their spleens against me just because they can't allow me to have my beliefs...

I just want to know one thing: why is the whole DADT issue such a big goddamn freakin deal?!?!? As was stated by a previous poster, there HAVE BEEN gays in the military for years. The ones who got kicked out simply couldn't keep quiet about their orientation. Repealing it doesn't really change anything, other than simply allowing open displays of their sexuality...

I have a second question to add to that: Will the repeal of DADT in any way HELP our military be any safer or better at doing their jobs?

My thought is NO, it won't.

Think about this: some of the countries where our military men and women are stationed are controlled by RELIGIONS that are VIOLENTLY ANTI-GAY. Did anyone bother to stop and think what the citizens of THOSE COUNTRIES might start thinking about our military? I think it will make life MORE DANGEROUS for our soldiers in those countries, because those religions don't just focus on the gays themselves, but also on those who HARBOR or in any way CONDONE the gays.

Are any of you willing to shut up about my personal beliefs and consider the two bolded questions above?

Link to comment

I don't care whether or not anyone likes what I have to say. Y'all can suck a lemon as far as I care. I didn't ask you to like me or what I said, I just posted what I considered to be valid beliefs on the subject.

And you know what, I asked a simple, CLEAR question earlier, but it was completely ignored because people wanted to vent their spleens against me just because they can't allow me to have my beliefs...

Says the guy who whines and moans every time somebody points out that his bigoted, small-minded world-view is in no way based on fact but instead on pure hateful prejudice. You're allowed to have your world view. Just don't be surprised when you get called on it every time you trumpet your ignorance as you have been in this thread.

I have a second question to add to that: Will the repeal of DADT in any way HELP our military be any safer or better at doing their jobs?My thought is NO, it won't.

And this is an apt-demonstration of why you are narrow-minded.

Not that I expect you to actually read anything, but here's an apt portrayal of the situation:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/ns/us_news-military/

Do you think that militarymen who can translate Arabic are somehow plentiful and grow on trees? If you do, you're really not very well appraised of the situation.

Think about this: some of the countries where our military men and women are stationed are controlled by RELIGIONS that are VIOLENTLY ANTI-GAY. Did anyone bother to stop and think what the citizens of THOSE COUNTRIES might start thinking about our military? I think it will make life MORE DANGEROUS for our soldiers in those countries, because those religions don't just focus on the gays themselves, but also on those who HARBOR or in any way CONDONE the gays.

Think about this: Knowing whether a serviceman is gay or not can help you to place him in a country which is not one of those countries (similarly to how militarywomen are not sent to the few nations where women have no rights).

Furthermore, I'd like you to do the following:

1: Name one of those nations.

2: If we aren't unilaterally in that nation, name the other armies.

3: Name which of the other armies allows gay troops to serve openly.

4: Name any acts of violence against those gay troops.

Basically, your tactic here is known as "concern trolling" because you've created a hypothetical which has demonstrably never actually happened in parallel situations and are "concerned" (yeah, right) for our gay soldiers because they'll be somehow in danger, though those in the other armies are not. As usual, your "point" ends up with absolutely zero fact.

Are any of you willing to shut up about my personal beliefs and consider the two bolded questions above?

If you don't want us to talk about your ignorance, stop crowing about it as if it's a good thing. I understand your butthurt at having every single falsehood that you have trotted out in this thread torn to shreds, but get used to it. You were the one dumb enough to spread your tripe in this forum. If you didn't expect this kind of response, then you're that much dumber for it. If you don't like it, you know where the door is.

To be clear: Not one person has said that you don't have the right to say what you say. Similarly, we have every right to call you a moron when you act like one so you really need to grow up and take your medicine.

Finally:

What the hell??? I NEVER said that gay people were any less worthy of existing than straight people. You however continually treat me as if I am nothing more than dirt under your feet, you would prefer that I didn't even exist.

Um. Nobody said you said this. You should stop and think before posting. It might make you seem much less, you know, dumb. If you don't want to be treated like a bigoted, hateful, ignorant Neo-Con then stop acting like one.

  • Like 3
Link to comment

I don't care whether or not anyone likes what I have to say. Y'all can suck a lemon as far as I care. I didn't ask you to like me or what I said, I just posted what I considered to be valid beliefs on the subject.

And your beliefs have been challenged, appropriately so due to the fact you posted them in the segment of the forum that you did. Please be prepared to stand by your beliefs in a mature and adult manner, state your case clearly and concede when you're bested, and try to not flip out and accuse everybody of being out to get you ☆

Will the repeal of DADT in any way HELP our military be any safer or better at doing their jobs?

Obviously it will. When all Men and Women have the opportunity to serve as equals, doesn't that benefit everybody? When Mr G or Ms L no longer need to be concerned about keeping their secrets safe, they can better devote their time and energies to their roles within the service. My thought on the matter is that you believe that the DADT stipulation being repealed somehow gives Gay & Lesbian folk some manner of special treatment that elevates them above everybody else. Newsflash: It doesn't. This just gives Gay & Lesbian servicepeople the same rights as everybody else. How is equality a bad thing?

Think about this: some of the countries where our military men and women are stationed are controlled by RELIGIONS that are VIOLENTLY ANTI-GAY. Did anyone bother to stop and think what the citizens of THOSE COUNTRIES might start thinking about our military? I think it will make life MORE DANGEROUS for our soldiers in those countries, because those religions don't just focus on the gays themselves, but also on those who HARBOR or in any way CONDONE the gays.

This is quite sensationalist, at best ~ it reads like a Fox News Headline, which certainly doesn't do you any favors. Firstly, Gay & Lesbian individuals don't need to be "harbored" or "condoned" ~ we simply ask to be treated the same as everybody else. A man and a woman can kiss in public, and hold hands; why's it such a big deal if I want to hold my lovers hand? Or kiss in the movie theater? Or tell her "I love you"? This is of course all moot, as in a combat situation neither gay nor straight people will be engaging in such behaviors anyway. DADT applies predominantly to the outside lives of servicepeople; the family and friends they leave behind. Why should it matter that our Mr G sends his correspondence home to a man instead of a woman? Or that Ms L receives cookies from a lovely young lady and not a boy? If these people have chosen to put their life on the line to defend your freedoms ~ why does it matter at all who they love and want to protect? ♥

Live and let live. Love and let love.

Link to comment

...

Think about this: Knowing whether a serviceman is gay or not can help you to place him in a country which is not one of those countries (similarly to how militarywomen are not sent to the few nations where women have no rights).

Furthermore, I'd like you to do the following:

1: Name one of those nations.

2: If we aren't unilaterally in that nation, name the other armies.

3: Name which of the other armies allows gay troops to serve openly.

4: Name any acts of violence against those gay troops.

Basically, your tactic here is known as "concern trolling" because you've created a hypothetical which has demonstrably never actually happened in parallel situations and are "concerned" (yeah, right) for our gay soldiers because they'll be somehow in danger, though those in the other armies are not. As usual, your "point" ends up with absolutely zero fact.

...

The only part of your post I will bother replying to is the fact that you misunderstood my statement. I wasn't talking about those militant religions attacking JUST the GLBT soldiers, I was referring to the fact that they would target ANY soldier, just because America has announced to the world that gays can openly serve in the military. Obama and his minions made TARGETS of ALL soldiers stationed in those countries (mostly middleastern countries), REGARDLESS of the sexuality of each individual soldier. I have friends (some of whom are female) in the military who are stationed in Saudi Arabia, and they could be in danger in the future just for the fact that the American military no longer has the rule which was intended to keep sexual activities BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WHERE THEY BELONG!

And your beliefs have been challenged, appropriately so due to the fact you posted them in the segment of the forum that you did. Please be prepared to stand by your beliefs in a mature and adult manner, state your case clearly and concede when you're bested, and try to not flip out and accuse everybody of being out to get you ☆

I am not "bested", and I won't compromise. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. I never expected nor demanded that anyone agree with me, just simply asked that certain possibilities be considered. However, people have been more interested in tearing me apart than having civil debate.

Obviously it will. When all Men and Women have the opportunity to serve as equals, doesn't that benefit everybody? When Mr G or Ms L no longer need to be concerned about keeping their secrets safe, they can better devote their time and energies to their roles within the service. My thought on the matter is that you believe that the DADT stipulation being repealed somehow gives Gay & Lesbian folk some manner of special treatment that elevates them above everybody else. Newsflash: It doesn't. This just gives Gay & Lesbian servicepeople the same rights as everybody else. How is equality a bad thing?

It is MUCH EASIER to provide equal treatment when a person's sexual habits are UNKNOWN. When you bring sexual habits out into the open, you change the entire situation. Just because I am a man married to a woman, you treat me differently... What if all you ever knew about me was that I was a man, and never knew anything about my love-life or sexual activities?

This is quite sensationalist, at best ~ it reads like a Fox News Headline, which certainly doesn't do you any favors. Firstly, Gay & Lesbian individuals don't need to be "harbored" or "condoned" ~ we simply ask to be treated the same as everybody else. A man and a woman can kiss in public, and hold hands; why's it such a big deal if I want to hold my lovers hand? Or kiss in the movie theater? Or tell her "I love you"? This is of course all moot, as in a combat situation neither gay nor straight people will be engaging in such behaviors anyway. DADT applies predominantly to the outside lives of servicepeople; the family and friends they leave behind. Why should it matter that our Mr G sends his correspondence home to a man instead of a woman? Or that Ms L receives cookies from a lovely young lady and not a boy? If these people have chosen to put their life on the line to defend your freedoms ~ why does it matter at all who they love and want to protect? ♥

Live and let live. Love and let love.

Pudding, you missed the same point that Leilin did, that other countries (specifically those who are ruled by religious fanatics who are violently anti-gay) could be that much more likely to attack the American troops (ALL of the troops, not just gay soldiers) because America had to go and make a big announcement that gays can be open about their sexuality while serving. Our soldiers (and in many cases even civilian non-combatants) are already enemies in those countries... Now those countries will likely be even more violent...

Link to comment

Are you going to explain why none of the other nations that have openly gay troops have had an attack happen for that reason, Artemis, or are you going to just go on acting as if another situation that you made up is fact?

You're up to 7-8 of those in this thread alone, so I'm guessing you'll continue on your previous silly schtick.

I especially like how you whine away that NOBODY is listening to you. Waaaaaah! And when people address your points and challenge you to provide your facts, well HMPH! That's just not worth responding to.

In other words, we can add "hyopcrite" to your modifiers, you hypocritical, homophobic, bigoted concern troll you. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Are you going to explain why none of the other nations that have openly gay troops have had an attack happen for that reason, Artemis, or are you going to just go on acting as if another situation that you made up is fact?

You're up to 7-8 of those in this thread alone, so I'm guessing you'll continue on your previous silly schtick.

I especially like how you whine away that NOBODY is listening to you. Waaaaaah! And when people address your points and challenge you to provide your facts, well HMPH! That's just not worth responding to.

In other words, we can add "hyopcrite" to your modifiers, you hypocritical, homophobic, bigoted concern troll you. :)

Do those other countries with gay soldiers (and I don't know which countries they are) make huge public statements that gays will be serving in their militaries?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...