UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4939 times:
...Again.
So a quick update for those of you who haven't been able to closely follow all the drama.
Back in May, the US House voted 234 to 194 to repeal the US Military policy on gay servicemembers, Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). The ban then stalled before the Senate and no action was taken until late September. Majority Leader Reed attempted to attach the repeal of DADT to the National Defense Authorization Act, along with some other non relevant legislation pieces such as the Dream Act.
Republicans objected to the way in which DADT was attached to a bill that should have been left alone and was not relevant to the policy. So with a 56-44 vote, the bill failed to garner the required 60 and failed. Senator Reed attempted to basically do the same thing again on Dec 9, but once again failed. Republicans still rejected the repeal of DADT being linked to the NDAA.
So, the only recourse was to vote on a stand alone bill in the Senate. However, since the stand alone bill that was passed in May by the House failed, any vote that the Senate held would have to be approved by the House.
So today with a vote of 250-175 -- a larger margin than the vote in May -- the House voted again to repeal DADT. The next step will be for the Senate to vote on the stand alone bill that Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Colins (R-ME) has introduced. This may happen as early as two days from now.
As it stands, the Senate still needs 60 votes. However, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe has announced that she is on board, and will vote in favor. Additionally Alaskan Republican Senator Murkowski and Massachusetts Republican Senator Brown have indicated their support for repealing DADT.
...This is it folks. We could possibly be a few days away from the end of this ugly policy. If looks as though there are the votes to support repeal. Hopefully these leaders vote on their principles, and not try any childish obstruction games (Senator McCain).
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7735 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4923 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter):
...This is it folks. We could possibly be a few days away from the end of this ugly policy. If looks as though there are the votes to support repeal. Hopefully these leaders vote on their principles, and not try any childish obstruction games (Senator McCain).
I certainly hope so. It must be pretty frosty in the McCain house these days, with both daughter and wife being vocal proponents of the DADT repeal. This could finally be it.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2020 posts, RR: 12 Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4905 times:
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Thread starter): ...This is it folks. We could possibly be a few days away from the end of this ugly policy. If looks as though there are the votes to support repeal. Hopefully these leaders vote on their principles, and not try any childish obstruction games (Senator McCain).
I certainly hope so, as well. We are long past the time when this should have been repealed.
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4905 times:
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 2):
We all know that the so called leaders are known for following their Principles. We shall see. Nothing will surprise me.
I'm just worried that some of these Senators will not have the integrity to vote on their true principles.
...If Scott Brown - my Senator - does not support gays in the military, then he ought to just say so! But if he votes against this bill because of the excuse, "We need to focus on the tax bill before we focus on this issue", it will be such a bullsh*t cop out.
I'm really getting tired of the fact that our government seemingly cannot work on more than one issue at a time! And the stonewalling tactic of saying that we cannot deal with subject Y, until subject X is dealt with, is pure obstructionism.
WarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6548 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4892 times:
[quote=UH60FtRucker,reply=4]I'm just worried that some of these Senators will not have the integrity to vote on their true principles.
...If Scott Brown - my Senator - does not support gays in the military, then he ought to just say so! But if he votes against this bill because of the excuse, "We need to focus on the tax bill before we focus on this issue", it will be such a bullsh*t cop out.
I'm really getting tired of the fact that our government seemingly cannot work on more than one issue at a time! And the stonewalling tactic of saying that we cannot deal with subject Y, until subject X is dealt with, is pure obstructionism.
I certainly agree with that. Obstructionism is now a fine art in Washington, although it seems like a bulldozer to me.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16935 posts, RR: 57 Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4711 times:
UH60FtRucker,
You're hot, you're smart, and you're fair-minded. Pity DADT doesn't apply to you.
No, in all seriousness, there's a reason you're on my RU list. And it's not just because of what you look like without a shirt on.
So my question is: the DOD says that the new policy will take "a few months" to implement. Why does it take so long? What time-consuming steps are involved in this? It's not like this involves any new equipment or highly-specialized technical training.
Now, I would be in favor of allowing troops who are horribly opposed to this leave the Service (there'd have to be some plan to repay student loans and stuff). But it seems to me that the number who would actually quit the Service over this would be quite small... and they would probably be the people you don't want in the Service, anyway.
Zentraedi From Japan, joined Jun 2007, 649 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days ago) and read 4642 times:
The comments on Scott Brown's Facebook page are golden:
Quoting facebook poster: "Dear Senator Brown....now that you have voted down DADT...can you please help me with my cause of allowing blind people to serve in the military? I see no difference between them and gay members.....they can't help the way they are born....thanks!"
Quoting facebook poster: "I suppose now you are going to rewrite the Uniform Code of Military Justice to remove sodomy and unwanted sexual assault from the code. I am glad that I now longer have to serve in a homosexual dominated Army. When we quickly turn from the best Armed Forces in the history of mankind into second rate organizations you will be sorry you voted for political correctness. I am ashamed of your vote. You will no longer have my support on your agendas. At least we knew Teddy and Barney would screw us all along. What's next - coming out of the closet and joining Barney?"
Quoting facebook poster: "Another nail in America's coffin...you sir, have been busy with your hammer lately. Frankly, you disgust me, you are a sheep in wolf's clothing. If I were a soldier hunkered down in some God-forsaken country like Afghanistan and needed to relieve myself, the last thing I want to be worried about is some pervert looking at my junk...what in God's name are you thinking?"
Quoting facebook poster: "Such a sad sad day for our brave troops. Sure don't understand you Senator Brown. I'm baffled and bewildered and fear for our nation's morality. Ancient Rome's immorality comes to mind. Their end was not good. Fell like a sack of bricks and I'm afraid you've dropped a ton of them."
Quoting facebook poster: "As far as I am concerned your nothing more than a RINO and a trader to our nation. you can forget any tea party support. You just burned your last bridge."
cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days ago) and read 4638 times:
Quote: Republicans objected to the way in which DADT was attached to a bill that should have been left alone and was not relevant to the policy.
In the interest of full disclosure, it's worthy of note that the DADT amendment that established the policy was enacted as an attachment to the exact same Defense Appropriations bill - ergo, the Republicans did not have a leg to stand on with this complaint.
Glad to see that this bad policy will finally be ended.
Quote: "As far as I am concerned your nothing more than a RINO and a trader to our nation."
A trader, huh? Does he trade illegal rhinoceri? Why is it that you can't please the conservative base without being a homophobe?
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 19255 posts, RR: 63 Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days ago) and read 4612 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7): So my question is: the DOD says that the new policy will take "a few months" to implement. Why does it take so long? What time-consuming steps are involved in this? It's not like this involves any new equipment or highly-specialized technical training.
But Gates also cautioned Saturday that although Obama is expected to sign the measure next week, repeal will not happen immediately. Under the legislation, the policy may be altered only once new guidelines are put in place that are "consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention," he said.
So it's just a matter of new guidelines being drafted and approved.
Glad to see there were some Repubs voting to repeal DADT today.
comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4721 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days ago) and read 4609 times:
Quoting cargolex (Reply 9): Quote:
"As far as I am concerned your nothing more than a RINO and a trader to our nation."
A trader, huh? Does he trade illegal rhinoceri? Why is it that you can't please the conservative base without being a homophobe?
I believe 'rhinoceri' has two i's - you know like in 'Airbii'.
The conservative base is not necessarily homophobic - they are merely against recognizing and legitimizing its existence. A key issue is 'family values' which is viewed as threatened by Gay Marriage. A lot of Americans look to their Church for guidance, and that is the source of the sentiment.
cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4589 times:
Quote: The conservative base is not necessarily homophobic - they are merely against recognizing and legitimizing its existence.
Respectfully, I would say that these two things are one and the same - that seeking to prevent the recognition of people's existence is a fundamental form of prejudice regardless of who they are.
Quote: A key issue is 'family values' which is viewed as threatened by Gay Marriage.
I've heard that but I really don't understand that. The same people seem to have no problem with "The Bachelor" or "Who wants to marry a millionaire" or the people who get drunk and get married on a lark in Vegas (I've actually witnessed this happen in person). Heterosexual marriages in the U.S. have a divorce rate of over 50%.
Somehow, I fail to see the logical leap here as to how gay people have anything to do with this.
Are gay people running around with Uzis forcing straight people to get divorced?
BAKJet From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 740 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4589 times:
Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 8): Quoting facebook poster:
"Another nail in America's coffin...you sir, have been busy with your hammer lately. Frankly, you disgust me, you are a sheep in wolf's clothing. If I were a soldier hunkered down in some God-forsaken country like Afghanistan and needed to relieve myself, the last thing I want to be worried about is some pervert looking at my junk...what in God's name are you thinking?"
and this argument is so ridiculous..HELLO, wake up people. There are already gays serving in the military, the only difference is that now they can be open about it. In fact, I would think this guy would be happy since now the soldier "hunkered down in some God-forsaken country like Afghanistan" can make sure there are no "gay perverts looking at his junk"...just saying. Xenophobic, homophobic idiots. Sheesh. I wish they would at least TRY to think before they speak/post.Thank god DADT got repealed.
comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4721 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4568 times:
Quoting cargolex (Reply 12): Respectfully, I would say that these two things are one and the same - that seeking to prevent the recognition of people's existence is a fundamental form of prejudice regardless of who they are.
Agreed. I was just pointing out the semantic difference - does 'the word homophobe' imply hate or does it imply rejection? Either way, it is prejudice, it's hurtful and cannot be condoned.
Quoting cargolex (Reply 12): Somehow, I fail to see the logical leap here as to how gay people have anything to do with this.
Agreed again - there is no logical connection, but people have been threatened over the ages by others who aren't like them or even just look different. I wonder if it is just hard wired into our DNA as a defense mechanism.
Cargolex, its easy for me to ponder these questions but the gay community deals with the pain of prejudice everyday. I am glad today's vote brings us all a little closer together.
moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2020 posts, RR: 12 Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4556 times:
Quoting comorin (Reply 11): A key issue is 'family values' which is viewed as threatened by Gay Marriage.
One thing I don't understand is how they want to "defend" and "preserve" marriage by making it illegal for some people to get married...
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4510 times:
Glad to see that the US will finally join the growing list of countries where gay/lesbian personnel can serve in the military without having to hide themselves . I am sure that Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Uruguay will be happy to welcome the US aboard .
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4454 times:
This is a small but critical social change in the USA. This repeal has ended, as one politician noted yesterday, the last legal segregation in the USA.
It will take anywhere from at least 60 days to a full year to fully implement the repeal of DADT. New rules have to be put in, reviews of procedures and applications have to take place. There could be continuing issues in combat areas or in some highly specialized groups. I am quite sure some officers will find loopholes and show their prejudices although other established rules as to gender and sexual harassment should be a deterrent.
Nothing in this change of policy will mean that certain sexual or personal behaviors covered by other reasonable military law and rules that apply, not only for gay or heterosexuals, will end. Most importantly it means that for many in military service they will have far less worrying about being discharged for just being gay or lesbian by those outing members for their own selfish gains or religious prejudices. Some are supporting this law due to the need to retain soldiers in the military at a time of great stress to retain due to 2 wars and other demands and not have to resort to a return of drafting/conscription with it's many problems.
Many 100's of thousands of GLTB's have served honorably for over 200 years in USA military service with no real problems and contributing their lives and skills. Now we are making law to protect those that serve.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4345 posts, RR: 12 Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4400 times:
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 2): We all know that the so called leaders are known for following their Principles.
I'd be concerned if our leaders (or more properly, the custodians of the power we, The People grant them) didn't try to follow their principles. They were elected because their principles most closely matched those of the population they represent.
Glad to see this backward, exclusionary policy is about to be overturned.
AGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4354 times:
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 17): the last legal segregation in the USA.
Oh no no .... there will be plenty more . All they have to do is create a in justice , group it ..package it and protest ..standby for more fun.
If UH-60 is good with it then I will trust his judgement. If a person of any type is willing to join ... endure the rigors of military training achieve rank and become a good soldier then it is a good thing. I am thankful for our soldiers ... I don't care who they are ..I trust our command and our code of honor to produce fighting men and women to protect us.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7735 posts, RR: 27 Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4324 times:
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 19): All they have to do is create a in justice , group it ..package it and protest ..standby for more fun.
Certainly that hasn't been the case with gays as they have clearly been pushed into second class citizenry until very recently. Sexual orientation should have no bearing on anything whatsoever provided an individual can do their job as well as you or I.
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 19): If UH-60 is good with it then I will trust his judgement
It shouldn't require the opinion of an active duty military servicemember or the Pentagon survey to convince you. People who want to serve should be able to do so, period, without having to lie about any aspect of who they are. It's called using logic.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9 Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4303 times:
So when can we expect the first ACLU discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of an openly "gay'" soldier (sounds stupid doesn't it) that has been passed over for a promotion that went to a straight soldier?
AGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17 Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4295 times:
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20): It shouldn't require the opinion of an active duty military servicemember or the Pentagon survey to convince you
Well.. UH is far better in tune to the issue of moral , cohesion etc ...than am I and that is what I care about . The Military is not the place to champion social reforms in my opinion .... but hey uncle Harry needed to bring it home for the Pres and that is all they care about.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7735 posts, RR: 27 Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4285 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 21): So when can we expect the first ACLU discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of an openly "gay'" soldier (sounds stupid doesn't it) that has been passed over for a promotion that went to a straight soldier?
Right, because that's the agenda here
So "soldier" can only mean "macho and straight"?? What a joke. Poke fun at the semantics all you want - it's meaningless. I have a couple of gay friends who are so ripped you'd certainly not wonder if they could handle themselves in combat, much less some retired guy who hates them. You guys are somethin else.
Quoting AGM100 (Reply 22):
Well.. UH is far better in tune to the issue of moral , cohesion etc ...than am I and that is what I care about
Again this is where logic proves useful. You really think the orientation of who's next to you is going to be even a passing thought when there's terror fighters lobbing RPG rounds at your position from behind nearby rock formations? For cryin' out loud...
[Edited 2010-12-19 11:30:59]
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
You sir are an example for all other military folks to follow. Kudos!
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7): You're hot, you're smart, and you're fair-minded. Pity DADT doesn't apply to you.
Down boy!
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7): No, in all seriousness, there's a reason you're on my RU list. And it's not just because of what you look like without a shirt on.
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23): Right, because that's the agenda here
No kidding! It really is quite offensive to suggest that gay people are going to use their sexuality as a means of blackmail.
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
25 fr8mech: I don't think that's the agenda, but I can certainly see that this will become a concern. I don't pretend to know how military promotion boards work,
27 Aaron747: I don't see how. If there is someone in there, gay or otherwise, looking for an excuse to sue they should be kicked out. Are Latinos and blacks getti
28 fr8mech: Really? You don't think questions will be asked if a gay is passed over? I believe there will be. It's human nature to question the motives of those
30 Aaron747: If a gay person is passed over because their service is unfit based on reports, then they deserve what they get. If there's some homophobe officer wh
31 FlyPNS1: I was suprised to see 8 Republicans actually vote for this....I only expected 3 or 4. It was nice to see McCain lose....what a bitter old man he has b
32 fr8mech: If all works the way it should. But, to whom will the burden of proof fall?
33 UH60FtRucker: Sorry for the late reply. But we went and celebrated our twin sons' 3rd birthday at my in-laws. Basically my own personal version of hell. Well first,
34 kiwiandrew: Actually , in a way , I find this more impressive than if you had been pro-repeal all along . I admire you for being open enough to take another look
35 ZANL188: Picking a nit here... that's how the ARMY promotes people... not necessarily the military in general...
36 DocLightning: Yeah, that's what's admirable. Someone willing to admit he was wrong.
37 N1120A: The ACLU has already been involved and a strong force in repealing this disgusting, un-American policy. Further, I think there will and should be sig
38 Maverick623: All branches promote the same exact way, with the only differences being in how you get promotion points and such. What he described was the same way
39 ZANL188: I'm 23 years retired Air Force and nobody in that time ever got promoted by reaching a certain level of "promotion points" as UH60 described it. Ther
40 UH60FtRucker: Well hey... the truth of the matter is this: the entire point of my post wasn't to give an in depth education on how the military promotion system wo
41 tugger: Well congratulations USA! The President signed the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell today! Though I wish it had been done sooner and without as much ha
42 UH60FtRucker: So it's official. President Obama signed the repeal into law. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presi...-repeal-dont-law/story?id=12457296
43 Venus6971: But article 125 of the UCMJ is still on the books.
44 garnetpalmetto: But is it A) Actually enforced? How many straight service members get arrested for having consensual oral/anal sex with their partners and B) Is it e
45 AGM100: No I am not concerned about that at all... not at all. Soldiers will react and act according to there training in times of fire. Human will , bravery
46 Venus6971: Well lets say if a gay serviceman reports to sick call with problems due to having consensual sex and as to have a operation that takes him out of ac
47 PSA53: It's about time! This is the only part of gay politics that I'm 100% in favor of .How could you deny anyone from entering the arm forces to defend our
48 UH60FtRucker: I would completely disagree. But I would welcome any supporting arguments you may have. The DoD implementation plan for the integration of gay servic
49 Venus6971: To follow up, if said gay serviceman is healed and back on duty with a lighter wallet and one less pay grade with instructions from his commander to
50 UH60FtRucker: Honestly, I think you're venturing into the inappropriate zone. Drawing parallels between gays and HIV is rather tasteless. Especially when there are
51 PSA53: But there is,or anyone that engages in oral sex,gay or otherwise.Stop putting a bag over our heads.Sex is you're "religion."This why so many people o
52 OA412: It takes balls to go back and reevaluate your belief system. It takes even bigger balls to admit that you're wrong. Care to expand upon your implicat
53 Maverick623: Last I checked, civilians controlled the military, not the other way around. Article 125 is as good as gone (and has been for a few months, the SecDe
54 Aaron747: What in the world are you talking about?? There are no parallels. In both homo and heterosexual populations, there are people who are careless and pe
55 tugger: If he "slams" an "openly gay" fellow soldier he will most likely get slammed back in equal measure. You are talking about a soldier and a Marine at t
56 Cargolex: The real reason "people" object to Gays being treated equally, which is pretty much what 100% of Gay political issues are about, is that they are big
57 DocLightning: This is a wholly inaccurate representation of me. (I would have used "medical research" as a motive... I've been out of college a depressingly long t
58 OA412: My humblest apologies. It's been fixed. Oh for the love of God...
59 DocLightning: We're incorrigible. Ahem... I believe we were discussing a serious topic in here?
60 DeltaMD90: Good, now Doc can join up. I think he has a think for military men lol
61 N1120A: Man UH60, you have certainly evolved into someone I like a lot more than a few years ago. This actually surprised me a bit. I would have thought kicki
62 DocLightning: I'm surprised. I guess they would have to serve non-combat roles. I suppose it makes sense. At some point in his career, a career officer is going to
63 fr8mech: I disagree. Many people just object to the lifestyle. I object to the 'gangsta' lifestyle; does that make me a bigot? I can't stand Country-Western m
64 Mir: The issue, however, is that being gay is not a lifestyle. No, unless you project that dislike onto all black people. Which is exactly what you do whe
65 fr8mech: Yeah, I knew that would come up. It is a lifestyle...one they do not choose. But being gay is as much a lifestyle as being straight. I don't like the
66 kiwiandrew: What exactly is "the gay lifestyle" ? I am gay myself and I have absolutely no idea what it is any more than I know what "the straight lifestyle "is
67 Mir: Then why are you trying to justify your beliefs by comparing it to the gangsta lifestyle, or the country-western lifestyle, both of which are entirel
68 fr8mech: OK, I was trying to be a little sensitive, but that apparently isn't going to work. What I don't like or approve of (not that gays need my, or anyone
69 DocLightning: You disapprove of ME as a person because I have sex with a man in the privacy of my own home and because I have no desire now or ever to have sex wit
70 fr8mech: No Doc, I do not disapprove of you. I disapprove of certain aspects of the lifestyle you lead, actually, a very narrow aspect of it, that's all. A li
71 UH60FtRucker: Likewise, man. I agree that it's rather surprising. Because lets be honest, the military has a knack for treating personnel in the same manner they t
72 Maverick623: By strict definition, yes, it does. And that, in and of itself, is not an evil thing. I'm not going to bite your head off just because you feel a cer
73 OA412: What lifestyle is that? What you're suggesting here is that there is a single gay "lifestyle". Is there a single straight "lifestyle". It all depends
74 Aaron747: Then don't have sex with men or watch men have sex with men. It's that simple. Why do you care if other men do or want to watch others do same? What'
75 fr8mech: WHo said anything about subjugation. I said I find it distastful, that's all. Do you define yourself by your sexuality? I don't define gay people by
76 Mir: Fine. I too have no desire to have sex with other men (I find the thought of it very off-putting), nor do I care to see such sex (or heterosexual sex
77 AeroWesty: I've no problem with that statement at all, and I don't believe it makes you a bigot, unless you make choices about people in regards to your beliefs
78 Quokka: How does the above square with all the shrill denunciations of Fr8mech as a bigot? A bigot is one who constantly and steadfastly holds to his or her
79 fr8mech: Mir, I appreciate you going back (therefore, sending me back). I mis-read his post. I don't object to equal treatment of gays, whether I find certain
80 Mir: Okay, that's fine. No problems there. I still disagree with calling it a lifestyle, since that really does imply choice in the matter, but your main
81 DeltaMD90: Saying the "gay" lifestyle is like saying I lead the "black car" lifestyle for driving a black car. Gays and straights are mostly alike on 99% of thin
82 DocLightning: Wonderful. I disapprove of yours. I think that you should not have the same rights that I do because of it. You should not be able to serve in the mi
83 mariner: Fair enough. I don't particularly like to watch couples screwing, gay or straight, unless I'm involved. I don't ask or expect anyone to approve of wh
84 fr8mech: quote=DeltaMD90,reply=81]well what if a gay person disagreed with your straightness?[/quote] And...that would be his problem, not mine. Doc, please se
85 DocLightning: Then that's different and I apologize. Yes, I find heterosexual sex distasteful. Believe me, I'm quite familiar with female anatomy and there ain't n
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7735 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, 
You sir are an example for all other military folks to follow. Kudos!
Printer friendly format 
