Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Is Obama a pussy? (4 Viewers)

[Jeee]

Multi-task is haz difficult LOL country ruler one ting at time or OH NO.

It's a moronic proposal that there being another issue to attend to means we shouldn't attempt to deal with the problems of the people and really, this kind of rationale is the kind that empowers all that crazy stupid homeland security paranoia. Are you really going to use an argument (there are more important things than rights, like WAR, amirite?) that ties into justifying Guantanamo to support the continued defense (yes, the administration is actively defending this policy - OH NO BUT THAT MEANS WAR GO BOOM) of this policy? Really?

And really, unless you are in a minority group yourself then there will always be 'better things to do' in every single situation. That's part of being in a minority, remember? So those amongst us with authority have to buckle up and make the huge and painful effort of signing that one piece of paper and saving millions of dollars in order to establish equality, even if we have better things to do like Presidential date nights and fashion debuts for the First Lady.

If he's got to sign one piece of paper, that's fine, lol. As long as he's not pulled off track, because believe it or not, there are more important things that need to be addressed than gay service people.
I'm part of a minority group.
There are more homosexual people than Palestinians in this world.

 

[loquasagacious]

Perhaps they should adopt don't ask don't tell for homophobia. Seeing as most of those who frequent intellectual circles would call homophobia vastly more morally corrupt than homosexuality that the former be banned instead. That way the group would be able to function fine because nobody would be homophobic or acting upon it. You surely don't wish to protect the right o be homophobic over the right to be homosexual do you oh open minded one?

Well played.

Also a very good point Kami, the idea that leaders should lurch from crisis to crisis and devote their attention to only one thing at a time is completely absurd and seems to be reflective of how the media would like to operate.

 

[Iron]

Perhaps they should adopt don't ask don't tell for homophobia. Seeing as most of those who frequent intellectual circles would call homophobia vastly more morally corrupt than homosexuality that the former be banned instead. That way the group would be able to function fine because nobody would be homophobic or acting upon it. You surely don't wish to protect the right o be homophobic over the right to be homosexual do you oh open minded one?

PLs dont accuse me of being open minded. It's nasty and low.
My life philosophy is one with solid foundations. This means that I can totally reject certain things, rather than wait for some fork-tongued devil to work some word power and smash my little boat into God's great ocean.

 

[Iron]

And what do you propose? Lurching from crisis to crisis while ignoring long-term policy objectives and the betterment of society?

It's a simple thing to do. Executive order, done. I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers to draft it. Stroke of a pen and it's done. Just because Rome is burning doesn't mean that we should stop being decent people.

We never have been very decent - nor will we be! But this proposal is part of a much broader attack on the sanctity of the family unit, which is one of the most decent and vital things we have...

 

[Lentern]

PLs dont accuse me of being open minded. It's nasty and low.
My life philosophy is one with solid foundations. This means that I can totally reject certain things, rather than wait for some fork-tongued devil to work some word power and smash my little boat into God's great ocean.

Very well but the question still remains. In a democracy where two groups can not exist in the same institution which should be purged?

The first group was once begrudged by society. Thought to be immoral and inferior, most people no longer feel that way. They are not by definition intollerant of others and such arguements like they are not as committed are waved by the fact that they have chosen to enlist in a life risking operation for the sake of their country.

The second holds views contrary to the majority of society, they by definition foster intollerance and are likely if they have a problem with one demographic to have problems with several. Their commitment must be questioned if it was able to be compromised by the presence of different demographics in the army.

On the whole the second group must be the bigger liability to the armed forces.

 

[Iron]

That's a very poor and false analysis.

There's a vast difference between having a desire to act a certain way and acting that way. Dont ask, dont tell respects the first part, but not the second. This is how it should be, you deceitful trollop who is laughably endowed

 

[Tully B.]

I know rite? Like winning the fing way, doing something with the trillion dollar debt etc
Rome is BURNING son! And you fiddle with so-called queer rights?
It's insane!

The only people who call them "queer rights" are the bigots who oppose them. Rights, are always important, and should always be on people's mind, particular people who are in power, and particularly when those rights are being prevented. It is issues such as these that will outlast the repercussions of any modern wars, for they underpin the very nature of our society.

Blacks were once segregated from whites in the military. The reason? Because they made the whites feel uncomfortable. Because the whites hated the blacks. This is a very similar situation, and can, as Truman demonstrated in 1948, be very easily rectified.

We never have been very decent - nor will we be! But this proposal is part of a much broader attack on the sanctity of the family unit, which is one of the most decent and vital things we have...

It seems to me that your so-called "family unit" is quite a perverted idea, as it symbolises the oppression of anyone and everyone different from your oh-so-high-and-mighty self.

 

[kami]

If he's got to sign one piece of paper, that's fine, lol. As long as he's not pulled off track, because believe it or not, there are more important things that need to be addressed than gay service people.
I'm part of a minority group.
There are more homosexual people than Palestinians in this world.

While I'm not going to get into a sexual orientation versus being Palestinian, I'm sure you can perceive the issue of being a minority then? Palestinian rights will always have less priority than things that intersect with the straight white male because they are entirely unimportant to the straight white male unless a social conscience comes into play. That's integral to the whole minority rights issue for every single minority in existence. Suspending social conscience because 'there are more important things' just doesn't work for us, ever.

And believe it or not, almost everything queer activists work toward only requires signatures on a few pieces of paper. People have just been digging their heels in over that to an epic degree.

 

[Tully B.]

That's a very poor and false analysis.

There's a vast difference between having a desire to act a certain way and acting that way. Dont ask, dont tell respects the first part, but not the second. This is how it should be, you deceitful trollop who is laughably endowed

But you're talking about gays acting inappropriately, not gays being gay. If anyone acts inappropriately in the military, it shouldn't be about whether they are gay or straight, it should be about the fact that they acted inappropriately. Being straight/gay is a state of being, not a state of behaving.

 

[Lentern]

That's a very poor and false analysis.

There's a vast difference between having a desire to act a certain way and acting that way. Dont ask, dont tell respects the first part, but not the second. This is how it should be, you deceitful trollop who is laughably endowed

Try again. If X has no problem with Y but Y has a problem with X it should be Y that is forced to adapt not the other way round.

 

[Iron]

Invoking segregation as analogous to so-called homosexual rights is laughable. 'Blacks' pose no threat to the fabic of society, to our moral way of life - indeed, to segregate them into a different class based soley on colour was to corrupt our own morality. No good Christian could support such racism.
However all civil rights does not mean any civil rights. We're intelligent enough to realise that skin colour is far less important to a well-functioning society than sexuality and the strength of the family unit.
To not marry or have a family is a valid and respectable choice of an individual. It is not oppression. However open homosexuality, as tragic and painful as it is, should not be a valid moral choice and merely encourages the destructive individualism which has charged western civilization to the cliff-edge of oblivion

 

[Iron]

Being straight/gay is a state of being, not a state of behaving.

What, so if I steal my fren's possessions, that's because i'm a theif and that is a state of being, not a state of behaving?

suuuuuuuuuure
an stfu lentern, you scallywag

 

[Lentern]

Invoking segregation as analogous to so-called homosexual rights is laughable. 'Blacks' pose no threat to the fabic of society, to our moral way of life - indeed, to segregate them into a different class based soley on colour was to corrupt our own morality. No good Christian could support such racism.
However all civil rights does not mean any civil rights. We're intelligent enough to realise that skin colour is far less important to a well-functioning society than sexuality and the strength of the family unit.
To not marry or have a family is a valid and respectable choice of an individual. It is not oppression. However open homosexuality, as tragic and painful as it is, should not be a valid moral choice and merely encourages the destructive individualism which has charged western civilization to the cliff-edge of oblivion

We are not talking about their existance and liberties in society we are talking about their role in the armed forces. You have long since conceded that the problem is more the perceptions homophobic troops have of them not the homosexuality themselves so it comes down to purging the army of the presence of one explicit group, homophobes or homofags.

 

[Iron]

We are not talking about their existance and liberties in society we are talking about their role in the armed forces. You have long since conceded that the problem is more the perceptions homophobic troops have of them not the homosexuality themselves so it comes down to purging the army of the presence of one explicit group, homophobes or homofags.

Lol bs. Youre missing the whole point, as usual, you guy. Hi!
Theyre allowed to be soliders - I have no problem with this. They just shouldnt tell the other soldiers because being a solider has nothing to do with being a homosexual. Any professional environment requires sexuality to be irrelevant during work hours. K?

 

[*TRUE*]

Lol bs. Youre missing the whole point, as usual, you guy. Hi!
Theyre allowed to be soliders - I have no problem with this. They just shouldnt tell the other soldiers because being a solider has nothing to do with being a homosexual. Any professional environment requires sexuality to be irrelevant during work hours. K?

Agree with the above.
EDIT: IF by sexuality being irrelevant during work hours you mean no special treatment allotted to gays or straights as a result of their sexuality. I see nothing wrong with a person talking about their private lives at times.

 

[Sprangler]

Lol bs. Youre missing the whole point, as usual, you guy. Hi!
Theyre allowed to be soliders - I have no problem with this. They just shouldnt tell the other soldiers because being a solider has nothing to do with being a homosexual. Any professional environment requires sexuality to be irrelevant during work hours. K?

By your logic - the same rules must apply for straight soldiers as well. No talking about past/current relationships, sex or anything that could possibly reveal your sexual preference. How about discharging bigoted religious nuts like yourself - although if they did that in the US that would basically cut out the entire south, which is pretty much their whole army.

 

[Lentern]

Lol bs. Youre missing the whole point, as usual, you guy. Hi!
Theyre allowed to be soliders - I have no problem with this. They just shouldnt tell the other soldiers because being a solider has nothing to do with being a homosexual. Any professional environment requires sexuality to be irrelevant during work hours. K?

It does not compromise the effectiveness of the defence forces but for the homophobic members therefore it is the homophobes who need to keep their dark secrets to themselves not the gays. And don't bring god into this these are soldiers they shoot people it is no a godly matter.

 

[Iron]

It does not compromise the effectiveness of the defence forces but for the homophobic members therefore it is the homophobes who need to keep their dark secrets to themselves not the gays. And don't bring god into this these are soldiers they shoot people it is no a godly matter.

Defending against evil is always a Godly matter. These guys need to be of the highest quality. You talk about 'homophobia' as if it is inherently immoral and discriminatory and oppressive, but you pay no heed to the morality of those in question. As always, you prove to be a very confused Catholic

 

[Iron]

By your logic - the same rules must apply for straight soldiers as well. No talking about past/current relationships, sex or anything that could possibly reveal your sexual preference. How about discharging bigoted religious nuts like yourself - although if they did that in the US that would basically cut out the entire south, which is pretty much their whole army.

Lol you make it sound like it's impossible to resist any talk of sexuality! Wasnt it only last week that those sailors got into all that trouble for having a private bet about how many women they could sleep with? It's always unacceptable.
But sure, casual talk will come up about girls etc, naturally. But silence is the price that the homosexual must pay in order to enlist. Their immorality would have an intolerable effect on morale

 

[Lentern]

Defending against evil is always a Godly matter. These guys need to be of the highest quality. You talk about 'homophobia' as if it is inherently immoral and discriminatory and oppressive, but you pay no heed to the morality of those in question. As always, you prove to be a very confused Catholic

I love it when you question my catholicism but when it comes to the crunch defend me against accusations of judiasm. First of all as clever as they are I don't think our leaders especially ones like Hawkey (agnostics) have infallible good and evil radars and it is they not the humble closet homosexual risking his life for these dundeheads that decides who he shoots at.

I speak on the matter not as a catholic but as a believer in democracy living in a country where the people have long since declared the gays can stay.