Was having a very bad day--one of those pre-menstrual, post-breakup sobbing under my desk types of days....... and now I'm instantly happier. Thanksssss youtube, Roseanne, and uploader :o)
Rosanne Barr claims to be a socialist. The socialist Hitler seemed to follow the Communist Manifesto. Had she been born in Germany in the 40s, Hitler would have taken her and her family on a train ride to Auschwitz where they would have experimented on her and exterminated her. NAZI = Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism.
@quarterexchange They could all be active its not an insurmountable problem. I don't know what IEDs have to do with this? There seems to be much ado about nothing, about sex being performed in private. A quickie isn't going to bring down the world. The gays do it now in the military. Perhaps as in Israel most gays here wouldn't all be open. With that said it doesn't matter much. The ancient Greeks were gay friendly and were powerful. They declined due to greed.
@quarterexchange I feel that romance can be controlled by discipline, education and awareness. I don't think that it is such a big deal. The UK and Israel have disciplined militarys and they allow gays to serve. They have combat troops in a ground war now. I believe the countries that don't allow gays are doing so due to bigotry. The ancient Greeks were gay friendly and were powerful. They declined due to greed. By the way Russia does allow gays to openly serve.
@quarterexchange Remember a free society comes at a cost, freedom is not free. There are trade offs. In dictatorial societies things are simply dictated but in a free society human rights is a must. I don't want the USA to be like Russia, China, et al that you seem to use as a model.
@quarterexchange Romances can always be broken up. One party to it can be transferred. That's what they do now with men and woman. Not ideal but workable and it accommodates the rights of people.
@quarterexchange You're looking for a Utopia. There are problems that are simply going to have to be accepted and looked at as a normal part of life. Gays have been around as long as there has been life. Its about time that society accepts gays as one of the facts of life.
@quarterexchange Homosexuality is not eliminated that's my point, it is a common human problem to be dealt with through discipline, education and openness just like other problems are. The UK has a disciplined military and they allow gays to serve. They have combat troops in a ground war now. I believe the countries that don't allow gays are doing so due to bigotry. The ancient Greeks were gay friendly and were powerful. They declined due to greed.
@quarterexchange I don't disagree that there would be problems. I disagree in that I feel these problems can be dealt with. We will just have to agree to disagree.
@quarterexchange Where we disagree is that the countries such as Russia that you like to mention haven't allowed gays in. So it can't be determined that they had major problems with gays. The European Nato countries have and have not had many problems. The UK has a disciplined military and they allow gays to serve. I believe the countries that don't allow gays are doing so due to bigotry. The ancient Greeks were gay friendly and were powerful. They declined due to greed.
@quarterexchange I'll give you this, you have made the best case for your side. The conservative Christians bigotry is obvious, you used logic in making your case. Your point has some validity. What that said, these problems can be over come with discipline. Some problems are to be expected in a "free" society but they can be tolerated, minimized and overcome. Peace out.
@quarterexchange As long as the gay ban remains in affect this gives all males the option of avoiding a future draft. All one would have to do is claim to be gay. So what happens in an unpopular war with a draft? The stigma is not as bad today as it was years ago. So you mention risks and benefits well this one puts many holes in your risk/benefit assessment.
And since I know this is going to come up eventually, my husband is in the military. I eat, sleep, breathe military. I live on a military base. Not only have I met more servicemembers than you have, but I've also personally met more powerful ones than you have. My husband works with them.
Gen. Patraeus agrees the time has come for DADT to be repealed. So has Def. Sec. Gates.
So if you're going to talk about prominent military officers, why do you ignore those 2?
@quarterexchange Gotta think scientifically. If your conclusions about m/f relations (i love how many characters we're saving with that 'm/f' notation btw) are based on a system that has a variable unique from another system, then it calls into question the validity of ascribing the same conclusions for an untested scenario.
@quarterexchange No, i just led you in a circle on purpose. Since m/f relations in combat are 'different' from m/m relations, then conclusions based on one cannot adequately substitute for conclusions on the other. Let's try removing DADT on a few select areas of the armed forces, including combat zones, and see how it goes. The soldiers are more mature than you may believe.
@quarterexchange Another assumption. Just like saying that the only way to know if blacks can serve with whites is to let a few race riots play themselves out after integration. You said m/f relations have the unique 'biological imperative to protect women at all costs'. Since m/m interactions are devoid of such a problem, then by your own rationale, male/male and male/female interactions are inherently distinct. Therefore, conclusions based on male/female interactions are critically flawed.
@quarterexchange Furthermore, you can't prove a negative in this case. The burden of proof is on people making claims that it definitely will be a severe problem. They have only speculation and 1940's data on non male/male relationships (influenced by your 'chivalry' mechanism inherent only in non-male/male relationships) to base their assumptions. No empirical data whatsoever.
@quarterexchange There is no evidence that 'opposes me'. You admitted that male/female interactions were problematic in combat because of a unique 'chivalry' response that is not inherent in male/male interactions. If we found several thousand women to be secretly in the armed forces and combat situations, and they were kicked out...but absolutely no 'relationship related problems in combat' occurred with their presence, then that would raise questions on how accurate 1940's data are now.
@quarterexchange If you can supply direct evidence not assumptions based on other scenarios that you admit are unique, then I will stop being 'stubborn'. All it would take was some study that showed that male/male relationships actually 'do' cause the problems that you claim.
@quarterexchange If these 'experts' don't have empirical data to support their conclusions, how reliable are their conclusions? I don't care about Christian bigotry. That is a completely different matter altogether.
@quarterexchange Still speculation without direct empirical evidence. We will never 'get' that empirical evidence, because the prevailing thoughts are that assumptions are adequate substitutes for data.
@quarterexchange Are romantic relations among men an issue in the armed forces? If people have been put out of the service, then surely over the decades there have been episodes of 'gay relationships' causing the predicted problems in the armed forces.
@quarterexchange So we should worry about homophobes being uncomfortable? I thought those 'strong' armies of other nations were worth emulating. Comparing females to gay men in service no longer stands, because you said that chivalry is an instinct unique to male/female associations. Therefore, you cannot deduce that DADT 'saves thousands of lives'.
@quarterexchange That is an argumentative appeal to authority. Authorities also resisted integrating the armed forces, even the most highly decorated officials, and our military was top notch. You have simply agreed that this 'instinct to protect females at all costs' can be remedied by the right command or order. Therefore, it cannot be cited as an insurmoutable obstacle to any expanded DADT. you clearly want our soldiers to learn how to decieve their associates.
@quarterexchange So why are they able to suppress this 'chivalry gene' enough to be able to kill women on the other side, or through collateral damage?
@quarterexchange Instincts? If we had 'instincts' to be gentlemen, then why do men beat women at all? Why are our enemies just fine with shooting our women? I thought men instinctively protect females...so why are there men who do not? Psychology included the refusal of white officers to listen to the instructions of blacks. Change can happen, but not unless people give up their old ways, or even try.
@quarterexchange Just remove the policy, and allow the armed forces to evolve and adapt. It is not as severe as letting blacks serve, and we survived that.
@quarterexchange So why assume that gay males are impossible to keep in line if they are free to marry their boyfriends back home or march in gay parades? Doesn't make much sense since the male/female chivalry thing is unique to male/female scenarios.
@quarterexchange We can prevent chivalry. It is just another action to modify. Nothing too difficult. You make it seem as if holding open doors is burned into our DNA.
The same way that we enforce it for gay soldiers who would risk their lives to save the object of their affection who they don't wish to be killed by the enemy.
@quarterexchange Impulses that require thought...so the young men you talked about weeks ago whose morale would be affected because of pretty girls in the shower have to 'think' about their impulses? If you don't think an expanded DADT would stop people from 'rushing out into danger to save the object of their affection'...then why keep it for the gays for the exact same reason?
@quarterexchange Same way you currently stop gay males from saving their crushes or lovers in the heat of battle over another member of the unit. By just pretending that the policy covers it. If DADT is effective, then it should be expanded. If it is not effective then it should be thrown out. Your call.
@quarterexchange THANK YOU!! Finally somebody understands the parallel. Banning gays from revealing their sexuality allows them to serve, so banning straight women from doing the same should be equally effective at stopping sexual advances and romance in the ranks. People don't know that the women are heterosexual, so there will be no problems. Can you prove that chivalry is not a choice, but a biological imperative stronger than sexual impulse?
@quarterexchange Just dismiss him when he gets back. They'd dismiss a gay officer for a similar offense, so why not a straight one for the same reasons? Do you think our enemies are more accepting of homosexual men than women? Do they have laws to execute and imprison women for being women now?
@quarterexchange Just add to the policy "don't be more protective of women". If it is that simple to banish sexuality, then chivalry should be a cake walk.
Hey wait a second that episode that dean was on i remeber it clearly. At the end of the episode it said R.i.p Dean because..... well just watch the episode and youll see
@quarterexchange If you claim to 'know' something with no direct empirical evidence, then that is an assumption. The thing with women serving in the armed forces failed because they didn't have a heterosexual DADT to fix the problem of having people act differently because of their sexuality. Since DADT solves the problem of gay folks having any relationships and such, why wouldnt it work for letting women serve? Either eliminate the policy, or expand it for all sexual orientations.
I am so tired of a great episode like this and most of the comments are ranting and making political statements. This episode was pure fun! It didn't talk down about homosexuality to gays or straights, it was fun-remember fun. I swear some people are so obsessed with getting lucky with Hannity or Coulter, then just having fun. Believe it or not you may be very close to someone you would never guess is gay.
@quarterexchange So it hasnt happened yet, but you are certain that it will definitely happen absent of empirical data. Sure ok, I'll accept that. As far as comparing groups to serve in the armed forces, when blacks served in non-combat roles, it was common knowledge that they would either be sabotaged by racist troops, or they would be too incompetent to serve. If they were wrong about one assumption, why not another?
@quarterexchange Lovers broke down and refused to fight...hmm, doesn't that happen from time to time anyway? How do we know that there are no 'lovers' right now? Do we just assume that this will happen, or do you have any documentation of homosexual romance causing this result?
@quarterexchange I don't have to. That is going to exist no matter what. DADT just makes it virtually impossible to know if DADT is actually 'effective' in anything, since when a mission fails, there is absolutely no way to know if a 'gay couple messing things up' was the cause. DADT solves nothing.
@quarterexchange With an expanded DADT, letting men and women shower and sleep in the same quarters is no different than the current policy where gay soldiers sleep and shower with men to whom they are attracted every day. Your assumptions only work if we had a way of knowing which male soldiers were gay. DADT ensures that straight men will always shower and dress and sleep with gay men.
@quarterexchange Same with an expanded heterosexual policy. Just expand it and everything will be much better since women will be able to fight as well. The same folks that 'investigate' on websites and e-mails will just expand the search to make sure soldiers don't show signs of heterosexuality. Nobody would have a girlfriend, because everyone would be asexual...or they get kicked out. Problem solved.
@quarterexchange You don't know who the gays are, so that serves as a wild-card for random instances of 'gay related combat risks'. Your policy is horrible for keeping things predictable. Perhaps it would be more intelligent to train known homosexuals how to put the mission first...but the only way to do that is to know who they are. It is far cheaper and consistent with the goals that you are looking to reach. "banning" gays only creates secret gays. Which secret gays will mess up missions?
@quarterexchange The same way that it stops men from risking their lives for men that they find attractive. The same way one gets rid of any sexual attraction before an act of homo/heterosexuality happens. To keep secret gentlemen from risking their lives for females, we could conduct investigations within combat units and ban gays...er um...gentlemen.
@quarterexchange Easy. Just put that in the policy. They don't have to have 'sex', just put it in the expanded DADT. The armed forces can train people to do anything if it can get them to banish their sexual identity. Eliminating the tendency to pick up pens and such would be a simple task by comparison. I think checking somebody out that you find attractive is a lot more common than cracking your knuckles. How do we keep secret gays from risking their lives for 'attractive males'?
@quarterexchange Just say that chivalry is banned. Anyone that shows signs of chivalry will be kicked out. No holding open doors or anything. You don't have to 'encourage' it, just put it in the policy. If they can ban a person's very sexuality, then chivalry is small potatoes.
@quarterexchange Can you prove that such an 'instinct' is so much more powerful than the instinct to have sex that policies cannot adequately control it? If you can get people to pretend that they are asexual for decades at a time, then anything else is a piece of cake. Have that as part of the policy: No chivalry. It would also serve to save a lot of money, since there would be no army families to put into housing or anything. If you have a spouse, you get the boot.
@quarterexchange Would any form of DADT be good for civilian life? What would be the consequences for breaking the rule for civilians? The armed forces are bringing in people that drop out of high school or hardly speak English, as long as they put their penis into a vagina. Have a DADT policy for all sexualities, where chivalry is also banned. If you can force gays to subvert all extra affection in the interest of the mission, why wouldnt that work for straight males and females?
@quarterexchange It is indecent to kill civilians in times of war, yet since our soldiers do what is necessary to complete the mission, 'modesty' and 'decency' often take a back seat. The obvious fix to this shower problem, is to reconsider how we get our soldiers clean. If open showers are such a huge and insurmountable obstacle for our troops to overcome without getting rid of soldiers, then it is smarter to get rid of open showers instead. It would be cheaper.
@Darkbison7 For the same reasons that soldiers are not required to share a huge sleeping bag with their unit, it would make sense to update the whole 'all soldiers must shower with the ability to see each other' law for this century. My point is that DADT does not do what it sets out to do, because the application to heterosexual males with females is clearly laughable. It would be equally effective as a military policy. Equally sensible too.
@quarterexchange Are you under the assumption that I have expressed favor for military policies to be applied to civilians to enhance civilian unit cohesion, ensure effective civilian combat operations, prevent civilian relationships from forming, or eliminate civilian sex? If so, you are mistaken. My apologies for not being clear. Gays shower and dress with the gender they find attractive, but since DADT is in place, it is OK. Why wouldnt that work for women and str8 males?
@quarterexchange Let's review your justifications and how an 'Expanded DADT' would fix them. Relationships between men and women would not be possible, because they would not be able to reveal that they are heterosexual. It would be OK to shower together, because nobody knows that anyone watching them has any possibility of having sexual attraction. If they reveal their heterosexuality, they should be dismissed to maintain order and prevent the problems caused by gay relationships.
@quarterexchange That is civilian life. In the armed forces, it has been the policy to simply ask interested persons to just 'pretend you are asexual' or face expulsion. We do not have a DADT policy for civilian life. I have simply taken your arguments for the DADT policy in the armed forces, and asked why they would not work in the armed forces for heterosexuals if they 'work' for homosexuals. I see you are at a loss for an adequate explanation as to why women wouldn't be able to serve.
@quarterexchange Ok then. It is settled. Women will be allowed to serve in combat under the Don't Inquire, Don't Flaunt compromise of 2012. All we have to do, is expand the current policy and kick out any person who reveals their hetero or homo sexuality. According to DADT proponents, that is all you need to do to let women serve. They can even shower together. All of them will be presumed to be asexual.
@quarterexchange Nope, keep the policy, just apply it to everyone so women can fight too. Is there any reason why it would not work for heterosexual males just as well?
@quarterexchange I want you to outline exactly how the 'cons' would outweigh the 'pros' for the policy. Gays are already banned outright. You can use each and every justification for DADT for a policy where NO males and females are allowed to reveal ANY sexuality, to allow for a co-ed fighting unit. If it does not make sense for the whole unit, then it does not make sense for the gays in the unit either. "If you show signs of being heterosexual, you're fired." Why wouldn't that work?
@quarterexchange The shower issue is what keeps popping up on the news and in the Pentagon's survey, so obviously its all about showering and whether or not you'll still go out for beers and football with your unit in between wars. DADT was not a compromise. If you are gay, you can't serve. Just as sensless as saying women can serve, as long as men and women conceal their sexuality. Men are attracted to men and women. That is a fact of life.
@quarterexchange Since when is 'running the military' the issue? The fact that you disagree with segregation based on race in the old days...does that mean that you felt like you would have been a better General for all preceeding military operations? No. Do you have to be a superior president to point out how he or she is incorrect? No. Do I have to be a briliant warlord in order to make light of obvious flaws in the rationale behind policies? No.
@quarterexchange He studies for a living? Ah, maybe you should study for a living too. It might help you. I'd suggest completing college first before going for the service.
@quarterexchange Also? Not a child. You're not helping yourself, and it makes it look like you can't swim in this debate. Like you're sinking. Also? Bad argument. Poland was behind militarily because of World War I, because the technology of that war appeared to grind to a stand still, mostly because the tragedy of that conflict forced most nations to reconsider wars waged for empire and industry. I don't get your analogy, but the Polish were brave for trying what they did.
@quarterexchange I agree with your first point, so let's see you drop the habit of needing to bring up foreign military's which do not follow our doctrines. Our military is conducted like it should be. Berating some European Union country doesn't change that we have to micro-manage unit behavior, cohesion, and force deployment, like any good military would. It's not stupid to compare democracy to democracy, you just don't like that because than it takes the argument out of your court.
@quarterexchange So, DADT for gays showering with straight men, is just as effective as a DADT for heterosexual men showering with women. The men will be kicked out if they reveal their heterosexuality, so the problem is solved, right? We can let women shower with them, because the DADT idea is that if you have to hide your sexuality, then it is OK to shower with folks to whom you have sexual attraction. If you believe these concepts are somehow different, please explain.
@quarterexchange Is the 'army folks must shower together' law so difficult to augment, that the only rational scenario is to encourage all gay soldiers to only 'secretly' lust over the members of their unit in the showers? I regret to inform you, but when males are aroused, it is usually obvious. DADT does not keep gay men from showering with straight men. It is not the same as keeping women from showering with men...unless there was a DADT policy for heterosexuality for co-ed showering.
@quarterexchange There is no significant difference in banning family members from serving 'at all' if they have one person in the armed forces. Their bond is seen as 'too strong to serve together' so the DADT style solution is to ban all of your family members from serving. DADT does not stop gay relationships, any more than religion does in civilian life. I'm curious to know if you believe otherwise. I'm also curious about the 'army folks must shower together' thing that can't change.
@quarterexchange Right, it is chivalry. Female perks. We don't want to put our mothers the front lines, even if they are perfectly able to handle themselves. If we had a completely female force, complete with its own DADT for lesbians, we still wouldnt want them in heavy combat situations, nor would most other countries.
@quarterexchange We also know you don't serve, and haven't at all. You've stated that you want to do, what now? ROTC? Yeah, you're looking to get into it, but you're going to have to leave your opinions at the door once you actually think about going for a career in the military. It's miserable, pay sucks, and your commanding officers won't put up with. Hopefully, you'll learn some military bearing. But man, you're letting all of this consume you like it's the end of the world. It's not.
@quarterexchange No, you fail again because you gave me an article that contained an opinion about the service of Israeli women during the 1947-1948 war of independence and the subsequent policies AND how that translates to our armed forces today. I'm not a moron for reading it, and I told you I would. And I did disagree with his perspective. I still do. I think he's just looking at instances to support his point. Now he's right for Israel, but the whole argument? Maybe, maybe not.
@quarterexchange Yes, but that freedom is only limited to what might amount as a plausible breach of Operational Security. You're also supposed to be a fighting unit. I understand that. However, assuming we're not supposed to be free in the military, that why not make heterosexuals have different bunks and showers as well? I also don't care about "top" militaries, because Russia and China aren't us. They're not us, they're not our troops, so they're irrelevant. Compare democracy, to democracy.
Well, it was nice playing, but I'm about to watch the rest of this Roseanne episode. I've learned a bit, and have developed my rallying cry for this issue: "Why not have a DADT for women and just get them to pretend to be asexual just like we want the gays to do."
@quarterexchange You seem to believe that women and gay men are suitable parallels in all other cases, so I'm glad you see why they are not internchangeable. Would it help the women if all the men in the barracks were 'allegedly asexual'? A policy that said that the men had to pretend to be asexual, so no romantic relationships would develop should work, right? If the men revealed themselves as straight, then they'd get kicked out. Problem solved?
@quarterexchange Seeing him die? Was that why people didn't want blacks to serve? I thought they said something about unit cohesion and a decrease in effectiveness of the armed forces.
@quarterexchange Then a DADT policy would work for women to serve in the units as well. They just have to conceal their sexuality or face expulsion. They won't have romantic relationships or sex, because they are prohibited from revealing their sexuality to anyone.
@quarterexchange So the only way for gay males to know who other gay males are is through dialogue that will trigger DADT consequences? Is DADT effective in this endeavor? Would a DADT policy be effective for heterosexuality if women were serving in combat? "Women can serve, but they must not reveal themselves to be heterosexual."
@quarterexchange Adding blacks to the armed forces caused breakdowns in order and morale as well. The military adapts and evolves. DADT does not stop gay relationships, only causes them to become hidden. Its like a Sullivan Act with folks that just pretend not to be related and get away with it. It does not do acheive any realistic objective...just inspires lies and deceit within units.
@quarterexchange Yes, but herein lies the problem. We're a free country. Okay, that's not a problem at all, but we're still a Democracy which gives any citizen the right to vote, eat, sleep, and crap, so long as they're willing to be naturalized citizens, with non-criminals records, or if they're born here, citizens by virtue of said birth. We're not China, we're not Russia, we're the United States. Letting gays serve is more then the right thing to do, it is patriotic.
@NanaPudden The armed forces is a special part of the United States. Even their freedom of speech can be limited in the interests of protecting the country. Letting gays serve openly is the right thing to do, but the armed forces does not have to treat them equally or anything. They have heavy job discrimination policies.
@quarterexchange They are never discharged, because they are anonymous or do not want gays in their unit. Similarly, if you didn't want a black or a woman in your unit, all you would have to do is report that a problem was caused by their presence. Gay soldiers fight and die for their country, and they want to serve without the stress of having to hide their sexuality 24/7. 24/7 stress on the entire gay population in the military would cause problems.
@quarterexchange We don't know. All gay relationships between men in the same unit are invisible. The only way to document what goes on, is if we 'know' who is in a relationship. As of now, you have no observations about how 'gay men in relationships' behave. The armed forces evolve and adapt. 60 years ago, blacks and whites were terrible together. However, it is heart warming to hear folks say that man-man relationships are just as strong as male-female ones.
@quarterexchange Easy, just have a policy where they will be kicked out for having sex with women OR men in such situations. People can be just as 'distraught' over seeing a friend/mentor/family member get killed, without any sexual or romantic background between them.
We want soldiers to be friends, because it makes the soldier value the lives of another soldier that much more. If people get 'too distraught' if a boyfriend is killed, then let's go a step further and eliminate friendship.
@quarterexchange So when a man sees his best friend killed in combat, or his brother, son, father, mentor, or commanding officer...he just shrugs his shoulders since they were not romantically involved? DADT kicks out non-open gays as well. Anonymous tips about non-open gays have led to manifold instances of soldiers losing their jobs, despite following the policy. Whether they are open or not, does not matter.
@quarterexchange Commanding officers report instances or they can choose not to. Since we are fighting multiple wars, it is not secret that commanding officers have a motive to 'keep people in the armed forces'.
@quarterexchange 1948 Israel women serving with men isnt my idea of a compelling parallel to men being required to pretend like they are asexual or lose their jobs in 2010 USA. Again, you have yet to outline how the 'love' a man has for a man/woman is different from the distress you get from losing a son, brother, or best friend. If anything, you learn to do your job to perfection to 'prevent' the loss of life of somebody you hold dear, rather than how you'd work with a relative stranger.
@quarterexchange The issue with women does not apply. The vast majority of men in the nation are heterosexual, and engage in heterosexual sex. If 90% of the armed forces was homosexual, then what? We kick out 90% of our troops? We stop all action because Johnny is looking at Billy in the shower? You can uphold a policy against dating with folks on the job, without kicking folks out who date civilians or are married back home. Sex should be punished under those situations, not sexuality.
@quarterexchange What kind of issues? For something this important, you should be able to fully explain these 'bad issues in combat' caused by gay people serving openly. What are these issues, and how does DADT stop them from happening?
@quarterexchange Furthermore, the discharge rates are getting lower, because lo and behold, with each person that gets discharged, the remaining population gets better at hiding it. It is not that there is a 'decreasing gay population', but one that sees what 'not' to do, and one that learns how 'not' to lose their job. It is a combat scenario that gay soldiers adapt and evolve to handle to survive/stay employed. As more gays take over the 'find the gays' roles, they can protect their own.
@quarterexchange They would not have to even be 'rampant'. There could just be one. If that one exists, then the policy has failed to prevent it from happening, and thus will continue to fail to do what it was designed to do forever. You have not outlined how these gay relationships pose a threat. No combat data about gay males in a relationship causing anything negative. You make your assumptions from 'females and men'. If 100% of all gay men were in army relationships, explain the danger.
@quarterexchange Another hole, soldiers can behave just as irrationally for family or friends that are in combat situations. Should we kick out soldiers who show levels of friendship that are too high as well? You assume that men will do things drastically different for a boyfriend from what they would do for a brother, son, or best friend.
@quarterexchange What evidence do you have that they are dating members of their units? I don't think you have any. Sounds like the speculations about how black soldiers would exact revenge on whites if allowed to serve alongside them. 'Revenge' would have costed many lives in integrated units. More lives than any gay couple would cause from...'not leaving a boyfriend to die?'
@quarterexchange And how, exactly do the DADT policies stop gay men from having sex with men? Again, the scenario that you present is not compelling enough to warrant a permanent practice of giving all gay men the boot. There will be problems at first, but the armed forces will evolve and adapt, just like in combat situations. The US military will survive this repeal and become even stronger with troops that don't have the ridiculous notion that gay men are so sex-crazed that we'd lose wars.
@quarterexchange Yes, I do. For the obvious goal of keeping them employed, I am not inclined to explain further. Do you have any evidence that a repeal of DADT will lead to a significant increase in the number of gay couples in the military that will be so damaging that the best alternative would be to continue kicking out even the most decorated gay soldiers because of what clubs they go to or who they go home to when they come back from putting their lives on the line for the country?
@quarterexchange That just taugh me something...folks 'believe' that DADT erradicated gay relationships, only because DADT drove them undergound...so on the surface, people believe that gay relationships simply do not exist in the armed forces, and any change in DADT will unleash a sea of gay attraction that has been held back for years.
@quarterexchange Thousands upon thousands of couples? How many gay couples do you think are 'just waiting to happen'? So far, it has cost millions to kick out thousands and thousands of 'isolated individuals'. Do you disagree? Do you believe that there will be more gay couples kicked out after repeal than gay singles without repeal?
@quarterexchange Same way as they secretly do in civilian life. You don't have to 'tell' someone that you are gay to know that they are gay. There are manifold communication tools that have allowed discreet conversation between gay males that simply go unnoticed by a naive population that believes that DADT wiped out homosexual relationships in the armed forces. If men served with women but had to 'be asexual', then would they have to 'tell' women that they were not really asexual?
@quarterexchange I will seek to fully understand your position, because I am only recently getting on board with this corner of the gay rights movement. Explain to me what you feel will be the worst effect of a full repeal of the DADT policies on the armed forces over the next decade.
@quarterexchange Again, the DADT policy is useless against preventing people from having attraction to members of the same sex. You are underestimating the armed forces. There will be problems, there will be cases of openly homosexual people violating conduct policies, just as there are heterosexual violations of policies. However, pretending that DADT blocks out same sex relations in the armed forces is preposterous. It only teaches soldiers how to be great liars, who can be blackmailed.
@quarterexchange So basically, we should only adopt 'good foreign army' policies if we are faced with overwhelming odds from Mexico and Canada's dark alliance. I'm fine with that. Let me know when it happens. You are 'currently' fine with taking out vital parts of the unit not because they are a couple, but the mere fact that winked at each other is good enough to give them the boot under DADT. Now 'that' is ridiculous.
@quarterexchange Back to the college males thing. That assumes that improper conduct is not only natural, but expected and excuseable under those circumstances. "Hey, they were college males, they couldn't help but to have sex with the women." Right? DADT does not prevent gay soldiers from having relationships with each other. It was a naive assumption made in '96 that humans can simply switch to asexuality if a policy tells them to do so. Would that work for straight soldiers?
@quarterexchange So homosexual partners would not serve together in combat roles either...once we know who is partners with whom, right? It would be handled the same way. Gays already have ways of knowing who other gays are. You are being naive if you believe they are clueless as to who else is gay. We'd handle it the same as any partners that we don't want to serve together. But the fact is, that couples already exist and 'endanger' missions under DADT since they have militant discretion.
@quarterexchange Fatal flaw in your argument: Women and gay men are completely different. If anything, the parallel would have had to be 'heterosexual men can only serve if they pretend to be asexual'. DADT does that for gay folks. Straight men were not required to act like they had a different orientation to give the illusion that relationships would not happen, so why do that with the gays?
@quarterexchange You answered your own question. If you believe we should emulate S. Korea's policies, then enlistment should be mandatory like theirs, right? Straight soldiers losing their lovers...interesting, because DADT does not 'remove' homosexuality from the ranks. It only makes it harder to keep an eye on. If gay folks are free to be recognized as 'a couple' then they wouldnt be put in those situations. Would allowing women to serve 'undercover' stop relationships?
@quarterexchange It is rather nice to hear that you believe that the love between two men would be so much stronger than heterosexual friendship, that they would 'jeopardize unit cohesion'. Just how many 'new' gay couples do you think would exist if the policy is repealed? If anything, it is more sensible to know 'who' is in a homosexual relationship within a unit so their combat efficacy can be monitored. In short, the DADT policy does nothing to stop or address secret gay relationships.
@quarterexchange Aren't they showering with gays anyway? Do you believe that homosexual men will become salivating sex-fiends? Are the soldiers so juvenile and irresponsible that the only thing keeping widespread male rape at bay is that policy? Wow. You've got some interesting thoughts of what goes on in the mind of gay soldiers from day to day. I guess they can't control themselves and would automatically start raping all the straight males or having tawdry love affairs with folks.
@quarterexchange So, should we alter our goverment structures to make it so that the armed forces is the only viable form of long term employment as well? I'm sure that helps keeps Korean armies top-notch a lot more effectively than to whom the soldiers are attracted. Do you disagree? Black folks led to trouble in combat situations, and people of different religions leads to trouble in combat situations. I say we have an army of atheists by policy. If they show their religion, they're out.
@quarterexchange We saw the early effects of integrating the armed forces. People didn't know how to act, productivity went down, violence in the ranks increased, and this continued for years. Most of the men in the armed forces did not want colored folks in the ranks. Why didn't we listen to what they had to say about unit cohesion, morale, and their traditional values?
@quarterexchange Would codes of conduct change? Were there not problems between black and white soldiers? Was it worth the risk of bad morale and improper (negative) relationships in the ranks back then? Hmm...your argument really allows for lesbians to serve openly with all male units while heterosexual females should not. You seem to forget that 'poor conduct' will still be grounds for dismissal. The difference is that your spouse's genitalia will not get you put out of the armed forces.
@quarterexchange So...we should follow the human rights policies of our enemies? Also, I am curious to know exactly how allowing the gays that are already in the armed forces to serve with honesty wil destroy our standing as a world power. Don't wanna end up like miserable old Switzerland, eh? They couldnt possibly be happy over there.
Have any of our allies faced insurmountable problems as a result of letting gays serve openly? No.
On what basis do we believe it will be different for the US military?
There are already gays fighting in combat zones. When allowed to serve openly, conduct rules still apply. Heterosexual males are not allowed to wear dresses and blow kisses at their superiors or members of their units.
There will be discharges for poor conduct, just as there was for racism in the ranks.
@quarterexchange You're making the assumption that because ... someone has a hobby other than his livelihood, he's not what he says he is, correct? Guess what. I come from a military family, so I don't have to seek people out. And I'm not going to be big on what I'am except to say that no matter who I'am, it is not an attempt to devalue you, or put you out of this debate. I also have provided evidence. Where's yours? I've not seen a single web-page that I can verify.
@quarterexchange DADT has banned on the upwards of 20,000 troops over a 16 year period since it was drafted and signed into law 1993-1994 under the Clinton Administration. We shouldn't be banning people period over their perceived sexuality as that's not what the United States should stand for, and be about. Let some, other theocratic nation that supports terrorism make that kind of a mistake -- our decisiveness and steadfast is what's allowed us this far. It will continue to do so.
Now, we're just waiting on your sources because you're under the allusion you've posted any. This isn't looking good for you, particularly because as you've increasingly demand information of me, you haven't, in that exchange, provided information that I can verify. Which means that for me, we're reaching the end of this debate because there's no informational credulity on your part.
@quarterexchange You weren't asking at all. You were discussing your perspective on why women don't serve. Don't demand negative proof, otherwise, you'll get something that's not in the negative at all. Prove to me that 80% figure, because this is the last time I'll treat that opinion with logical backing. Here's my source, let's see yours:
@quarterexchange Again, it does matter, because their religious policies dictate their military policies. Our religious policies don't dictate our military policies, and it's also partly why we can survive our conflicts more succesfully, and countries like Pakistan and Armenia are forced to bully militants with limited reserve. Pakistan can't even secure it's own north-western corridor. How's that for a top military that doesn't let gays serve? Pretty poor, if you ask me.
@quarterexchange No, you're wrong here again. This isn't Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. You don't have any resources to back up your claims, and demanding negative proof to the contrary is what we consider, online and offline, to be a logical fallacy. Women aren't banned in the Israeli military, and Israel has fought more wars than we have. They're still there. Women, gays, men, the Merkava IV, have all worked to ensure that it can remain that way.
Hahahaha Lips is a transsexual place here in SoCal
easlerkerryn 4 days ago
roseanne is funnyer then friends!!!
keepsmilingboy 1 month ago
LOL "Why, you ain't one of those lesbians are you?"
Jackie: "okey dokey.".
aliasgirl47 5 months ago
Was having a very bad day--one of those pre-menstrual, post-breakup sobbing under my desk types of days....... and now I'm instantly happier. Thanksssss youtube, Roseanne, and uploader :o)
MeredithOD 5 months ago
Iririgjvmvmfkkfufiriiriri
MsCupcakeBunny 5 months ago
what if everybody thinks i'm gay?!
well then you can think their gay right back at em!
XD lmao!!
LionBoy316 7 months ago 5
From gay soldiers to a Roseanne episode. I love youtube.
piepeace 7 months ago
"LIPS" the name of the gay bar. *sides hurtin' from laughing so hard*
JMU1023 8 months ago 3
"so what.. you're not done riding him yet?"
hahahah
GetTheHook 9 months ago 2
"It's knives and forks on the left and... vibrators on the right."
MrLadyParts 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jackie: What are you doing!?!
Roseanne: The same thing I do at any bar, scorin' free drinks.
Nice...
Marge is hot!
JediKnightTahl 10 months ago
Comment removed
JediKnightTahl 10 months ago
Ohhh!!....Leon slammed her good at 2:23
Eddie62070 10 months ago
Leon is one of my favirote peoples on this show
brucekirk89 10 months ago
so what your not done riding him yet?!
<3 mark!
Dominated1408 10 months ago 2
BEST show ever!
:]
dollycarcass 11 months ago
What the hell is Leon wearing??? We gays dress a hell of a whole lot better than THAT! Well at least most of us do... LOL!
TheMightyKilokahn 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMightyKilokahn eat shit fagget!
TooBigToHide 9 months ago
that looks like a really lame gay bar... lmao. i've never been to one like that.
xxblodlustxx 1 year ago
"I haven't been dancing since...when was Dad's funeral."
atxbtsce 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Rosanne Barr claims to be a socialist. The socialist Hitler seemed to follow the Communist Manifesto. Had she been born in Germany in the 40s, Hitler would have taken her and her family on a train ride to Auschwitz where they would have experimented on her and exterminated her. NAZI = Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism.
Angellicationify 1 year ago
12-18-10 Don't be scared. History/Time will show that there are more important things to worry about than who we love.
lesbianmusic 1 year ago
@quarterexchange They could all be active its not an insurmountable problem. I don't know what IEDs have to do with this? There seems to be much ado about nothing, about sex being performed in private. A quickie isn't going to bring down the world. The gays do it now in the military. Perhaps as in Israel most gays here wouldn't all be open. With that said it doesn't matter much. The ancient Greeks were gay friendly and were powerful. They declined due to greed.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@quarterexchange I feel that romance can be controlled by discipline, education and awareness. I don't think that it is such a big deal. The UK and Israel have disciplined militarys and they allow gays to serve. They have combat troops in a ground war now. I believe the countries that don't allow gays are doing so due to bigotry. The ancient Greeks were gay friendly and were powerful. They declined due to greed. By the way Russia does allow gays to openly serve.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
Wait, is becky still the same actor as the previous seasons?
Coy310 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Remember a free society comes at a cost, freedom is not free. There are trade offs. In dictatorial societies things are simply dictated but in a free society human rights is a must. I don't want the USA to be like Russia, China, et al that you seem to use as a model.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Romances can always be broken up. One party to it can be transferred. That's what they do now with men and woman. Not ideal but workable and it accommodates the rights of people.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@quarterexchange You're looking for a Utopia. There are problems that are simply going to have to be accepted and looked at as a normal part of life. Gays have been around as long as there has been life. Its about time that society accepts gays as one of the facts of life.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Homosexuality is not eliminated that's my point, it is a common human problem to be dealt with through discipline, education and openness just like other problems are. The UK has a disciplined military and they allow gays to serve. They have combat troops in a ground war now. I believe the countries that don't allow gays are doing so due to bigotry. The ancient Greeks were gay friendly and were powerful. They declined due to greed.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@quarterexchange I don't disagree that there would be problems. I disagree in that I feel these problems can be dealt with. We will just have to agree to disagree.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Where we disagree is that the countries such as Russia that you like to mention haven't allowed gays in. So it can't be determined that they had major problems with gays. The European Nato countries have and have not had many problems. The UK has a disciplined military and they allow gays to serve. I believe the countries that don't allow gays are doing so due to bigotry. The ancient Greeks were gay friendly and were powerful. They declined due to greed.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@quarterexchange I'll give you this, you have made the best case for your side. The conservative Christians bigotry is obvious, you used logic in making your case. Your point has some validity. What that said, these problems can be over come with discipline. Some problems are to be expected in a "free" society but they can be tolerated, minimized and overcome. Peace out.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Russia has not come on board yet allowing gays to serve so how can you even mention them?
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Why don't you mention most of the NATO countries. Why are you mentioning Russia?
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@quarterexchange As long as the gay ban remains in affect this gives all males the option of avoiding a future draft. All one would have to do is claim to be gay. So what happens in an unpopular war with a draft? The stigma is not as bad today as it was years ago. So you mention risks and benefits well this one puts many holes in your risk/benefit assessment.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Are heterosexual men worried about becoming gay? Please.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
i cant figure out lesbians...guys junk is SO much more fun...))
paulyvi 1 year ago
@paulyvi that's your opinion and that's all stupid homophobe.
mayhem9024 1 year ago
@mayhem9024 really im not a homophobe butt i am a homo...i just prefer outties...))
paulyvi 1 year ago
@paulyvi i aplogies
mayhem9024 1 year ago
@mayhem9024 nothin to apologise for cuz i was kinda an ass...))
paulyvi 1 year ago
"what, ur not done ridin him yet?"
JUSTWATCHWRESTLING 1 year ago
@quarterexchange
"the 90% of general and 80% of Senior Officers who respectively disagree". Do you have a source for that arbitrary statistic?
larlar210 1 year ago
@quarterexchange
And since I know this is going to come up eventually, my husband is in the military. I eat, sleep, breathe military. I live on a military base. Not only have I met more servicemembers than you have, but I've also personally met more powerful ones than you have. My husband works with them.
Gen. Patraeus agrees the time has come for DADT to be repealed. So has Def. Sec. Gates.
So if you're going to talk about prominent military officers, why do you ignore those 2?
larlar210 1 year ago
@quarterexchange @quarterexchange
1. the military has been studying gays in the military since the 1950's and all the results have pointed to gays not affecting unit cohesion.
2. communal living isn't an issue for the 22 NATO countries that allow open homosexuals.
3. The next time you "consider" joining ROTC you should also consider that there ARE gays in the military, and they DO live in the barracks already.
larlar210 1 year ago
So i had this feeling when i got to this video i'd see walls of debating text. Just enjoy the fucking clip people.
StinkyGreenBud 1 year ago 2
@quarterexchange More like 'lets not leave the house because somebody in the 1940's died when they left the house.'
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So we wait on foreign armies to lead us?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Gotta think scientifically. If your conclusions about m/f relations (i love how many characters we're saving with that 'm/f' notation btw) are based on a system that has a variable unique from another system, then it calls into question the validity of ascribing the same conclusions for an untested scenario.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange No, i just led you in a circle on purpose. Since m/f relations in combat are 'different' from m/m relations, then conclusions based on one cannot adequately substitute for conclusions on the other. Let's try removing DADT on a few select areas of the armed forces, including combat zones, and see how it goes. The soldiers are more mature than you may believe.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Another assumption. Just like saying that the only way to know if blacks can serve with whites is to let a few race riots play themselves out after integration. You said m/f relations have the unique 'biological imperative to protect women at all costs'. Since m/m interactions are devoid of such a problem, then by your own rationale, male/male and male/female interactions are inherently distinct. Therefore, conclusions based on male/female interactions are critically flawed.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Furthermore, you can't prove a negative in this case. The burden of proof is on people making claims that it definitely will be a severe problem. They have only speculation and 1940's data on non male/male relationships (influenced by your 'chivalry' mechanism inherent only in non-male/male relationships) to base their assumptions. No empirical data whatsoever.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange There is no evidence that 'opposes me'. You admitted that male/female interactions were problematic in combat because of a unique 'chivalry' response that is not inherent in male/male interactions. If we found several thousand women to be secretly in the armed forces and combat situations, and they were kicked out...but absolutely no 'relationship related problems in combat' occurred with their presence, then that would raise questions on how accurate 1940's data are now.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange If you can supply direct evidence not assumptions based on other scenarios that you admit are unique, then I will stop being 'stubborn'. All it would take was some study that showed that male/male relationships actually 'do' cause the problems that you claim.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange If these 'experts' don't have empirical data to support their conclusions, how reliable are their conclusions? I don't care about Christian bigotry. That is a completely different matter altogether.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Still speculation without direct empirical evidence. We will never 'get' that empirical evidence, because the prevailing thoughts are that assumptions are adequate substitutes for data.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Are romantic relations among men an issue in the armed forces? If people have been put out of the service, then surely over the decades there have been episodes of 'gay relationships' causing the predicted problems in the armed forces.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Current armed forces: Are soliders able to overcome 'biological instinct' to protect females when the job calls for them to do so?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So we should worry about homophobes being uncomfortable? I thought those 'strong' armies of other nations were worth emulating. Comparing females to gay men in service no longer stands, because you said that chivalry is an instinct unique to male/female associations. Therefore, you cannot deduce that DADT 'saves thousands of lives'.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange That is an argumentative appeal to authority. Authorities also resisted integrating the armed forces, even the most highly decorated officials, and our military was top notch. You have simply agreed that this 'instinct to protect females at all costs' can be remedied by the right command or order. Therefore, it cannot be cited as an insurmoutable obstacle to any expanded DADT. you clearly want our soldiers to learn how to decieve their associates.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Do men in uniform go out of their way and endager the mission to avoid killing females?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So why are they able to suppress this 'chivalry gene' enough to be able to kill women on the other side, or through collateral damage?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Instincts? If we had 'instincts' to be gentlemen, then why do men beat women at all? Why are our enemies just fine with shooting our women? I thought men instinctively protect females...so why are there men who do not? Psychology included the refusal of white officers to listen to the instructions of blacks. Change can happen, but not unless people give up their old ways, or even try.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Just remove the policy, and allow the armed forces to evolve and adapt. It is not as severe as letting blacks serve, and we survived that.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So why assume that gay males are impossible to keep in line if they are free to marry their boyfriends back home or march in gay parades? Doesn't make much sense since the male/female chivalry thing is unique to male/female scenarios.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Nope, unique as in males work differently with males than they do with females.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So what you're saying, is that male/female interactions are unique?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Then obviously, heterosexuals are more in need of governance of their behavior and sexuality than homosexuals.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange A 'nobody'? Wow man...that's harsh. This adrenaline rush to save females...why does it not work for gay men saving other men again?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange If we can train soldiers to shoot and kill women and children, we can train them to stop holding doors open.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange If its effective for gays...
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Were there any anti chivalry or DADT policies to even attempt to stop such results in 1948? No.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So how does it stop gay folks from being 'chivalrous' toward men they find attractive?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange We can prevent chivalry. It is just another action to modify. Nothing too difficult. You make it seem as if holding open doors is burned into our DNA.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
The same way that we enforce it for gay soldiers who would risk their lives to save the object of their affection who they don't wish to be killed by the enemy.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Impulses that require thought...so the young men you talked about weeks ago whose morale would be affected because of pretty girls in the shower have to 'think' about their impulses? If you don't think an expanded DADT would stop people from 'rushing out into danger to save the object of their affection'...then why keep it for the gays for the exact same reason?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Same way you currently stop gay males from saving their crushes or lovers in the heat of battle over another member of the unit. By just pretending that the policy covers it. If DADT is effective, then it should be expanded. If it is not effective then it should be thrown out. Your call.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange THANK YOU!! Finally somebody understands the parallel. Banning gays from revealing their sexuality allows them to serve, so banning straight women from doing the same should be equally effective at stopping sexual advances and romance in the ranks. People don't know that the women are heterosexual, so there will be no problems. Can you prove that chivalry is not a choice, but a biological imperative stronger than sexual impulse?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Just dismiss him when he gets back. They'd dismiss a gay officer for a similar offense, so why not a straight one for the same reasons? Do you think our enemies are more accepting of homosexual men than women? Do they have laws to execute and imprison women for being women now?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Just add to the policy "don't be more protective of women". If it is that simple to banish sexuality, then chivalry should be a cake walk.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
Hey wait a second that episode that dean was on i remeber it clearly. At the end of the episode it said R.i.p Dean because..... well just watch the episode and youll see
animex1231 1 year ago
@quarterexchange If you claim to 'know' something with no direct empirical evidence, then that is an assumption. The thing with women serving in the armed forces failed because they didn't have a heterosexual DADT to fix the problem of having people act differently because of their sexuality. Since DADT solves the problem of gay folks having any relationships and such, why wouldnt it work for letting women serve? Either eliminate the policy, or expand it for all sexual orientations.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
I am so tired of a great episode like this and most of the comments are ranting and making political statements. This episode was pure fun! It didn't talk down about homosexuality to gays or straights, it was fun-remember fun. I swear some people are so obsessed with getting lucky with Hannity or Coulter, then just having fun. Believe it or not you may be very close to someone you would never guess is gay.
gravelandgrain100 1 year ago
As an aside, I think it is odd that people are more willing to let gays protect the country, than get married in it.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The question is, how is a DADT policy any different from letting women serve if no troops are allowed to disclose their heterosexuality either?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
Comment removed
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So it hasnt happened yet, but you are certain that it will definitely happen absent of empirical data. Sure ok, I'll accept that. As far as comparing groups to serve in the armed forces, when blacks served in non-combat roles, it was common knowledge that they would either be sabotaged by racist troops, or they would be too incompetent to serve. If they were wrong about one assumption, why not another?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Lovers broke down and refused to fight...hmm, doesn't that happen from time to time anyway? How do we know that there are no 'lovers' right now? Do we just assume that this will happen, or do you have any documentation of homosexual romance causing this result?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange I don't have to. That is going to exist no matter what. DADT just makes it virtually impossible to know if DADT is actually 'effective' in anything, since when a mission fails, there is absolutely no way to know if a 'gay couple messing things up' was the cause. DADT solves nothing.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange With an expanded DADT, letting men and women shower and sleep in the same quarters is no different than the current policy where gay soldiers sleep and shower with men to whom they are attracted every day. Your assumptions only work if we had a way of knowing which male soldiers were gay. DADT ensures that straight men will always shower and dress and sleep with gay men.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Same with an expanded heterosexual policy. Just expand it and everything will be much better since women will be able to fight as well. The same folks that 'investigate' on websites and e-mails will just expand the search to make sure soldiers don't show signs of heterosexuality. Nobody would have a girlfriend, because everyone would be asexual...or they get kicked out. Problem solved.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange You don't know who the gays are, so that serves as a wild-card for random instances of 'gay related combat risks'. Your policy is horrible for keeping things predictable. Perhaps it would be more intelligent to train known homosexuals how to put the mission first...but the only way to do that is to know who they are. It is far cheaper and consistent with the goals that you are looking to reach. "banning" gays only creates secret gays. Which secret gays will mess up missions?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange The same way that it stops men from risking their lives for men that they find attractive. The same way one gets rid of any sexual attraction before an act of homo/heterosexuality happens. To keep secret gentlemen from risking their lives for females, we could conduct investigations within combat units and ban gays...er um...gentlemen.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Easy. Just put that in the policy. They don't have to have 'sex', just put it in the expanded DADT. The armed forces can train people to do anything if it can get them to banish their sexual identity. Eliminating the tendency to pick up pens and such would be a simple task by comparison. I think checking somebody out that you find attractive is a lot more common than cracking your knuckles. How do we keep secret gays from risking their lives for 'attractive males'?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Just say that chivalry is banned. Anyone that shows signs of chivalry will be kicked out. No holding open doors or anything. You don't have to 'encourage' it, just put it in the policy. If they can ban a person's very sexuality, then chivalry is small potatoes.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Can you prove that such an 'instinct' is so much more powerful than the instinct to have sex that policies cannot adequately control it? If you can get people to pretend that they are asexual for decades at a time, then anything else is a piece of cake. Have that as part of the policy: No chivalry. It would also serve to save a lot of money, since there would be no army families to put into housing or anything. If you have a spouse, you get the boot.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Would any form of DADT be good for civilian life? What would be the consequences for breaking the rule for civilians? The armed forces are bringing in people that drop out of high school or hardly speak English, as long as they put their penis into a vagina. Have a DADT policy for all sexualities, where chivalry is also banned. If you can force gays to subvert all extra affection in the interest of the mission, why wouldnt that work for straight males and females?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange It is indecent to kill civilians in times of war, yet since our soldiers do what is necessary to complete the mission, 'modesty' and 'decency' often take a back seat. The obvious fix to this shower problem, is to reconsider how we get our soldiers clean. If open showers are such a huge and insurmountable obstacle for our troops to overcome without getting rid of soldiers, then it is smarter to get rid of open showers instead. It would be cheaper.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@Darkbison7 For the same reasons that soldiers are not required to share a huge sleeping bag with their unit, it would make sense to update the whole 'all soldiers must shower with the ability to see each other' law for this century. My point is that DADT does not do what it sets out to do, because the application to heterosexual males with females is clearly laughable. It would be equally effective as a military policy. Equally sensible too.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Are you under the assumption that I have expressed favor for military policies to be applied to civilians to enhance civilian unit cohesion, ensure effective civilian combat operations, prevent civilian relationships from forming, or eliminate civilian sex? If so, you are mistaken. My apologies for not being clear. Gays shower and dress with the gender they find attractive, but since DADT is in place, it is OK. Why wouldnt that work for women and str8 males?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Let's review your justifications and how an 'Expanded DADT' would fix them. Relationships between men and women would not be possible, because they would not be able to reveal that they are heterosexual. It would be OK to shower together, because nobody knows that anyone watching them has any possibility of having sexual attraction. If they reveal their heterosexuality, they should be dismissed to maintain order and prevent the problems caused by gay relationships.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange That is civilian life. In the armed forces, it has been the policy to simply ask interested persons to just 'pretend you are asexual' or face expulsion. We do not have a DADT policy for civilian life. I have simply taken your arguments for the DADT policy in the armed forces, and asked why they would not work in the armed forces for heterosexuals if they 'work' for homosexuals. I see you are at a loss for an adequate explanation as to why women wouldn't be able to serve.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Ok then. It is settled. Women will be allowed to serve in combat under the Don't Inquire, Don't Flaunt compromise of 2012. All we have to do, is expand the current policy and kick out any person who reveals their hetero or homo sexuality. According to DADT proponents, that is all you need to do to let women serve. They can even shower together. All of them will be presumed to be asexual.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Nope, keep the policy, just apply it to everyone so women can fight too. Is there any reason why it would not work for heterosexual males just as well?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange I want you to outline exactly how the 'cons' would outweigh the 'pros' for the policy. Gays are already banned outright. You can use each and every justification for DADT for a policy where NO males and females are allowed to reveal ANY sexuality, to allow for a co-ed fighting unit. If it does not make sense for the whole unit, then it does not make sense for the gays in the unit either. "If you show signs of being heterosexual, you're fired." Why wouldn't that work?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange The shower issue is what keeps popping up on the news and in the Pentagon's survey, so obviously its all about showering and whether or not you'll still go out for beers and football with your unit in between wars. DADT was not a compromise. If you are gay, you can't serve. Just as sensless as saying women can serve, as long as men and women conceal their sexuality. Men are attracted to men and women. That is a fact of life.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Since when is 'running the military' the issue? The fact that you disagree with segregation based on race in the old days...does that mean that you felt like you would have been a better General for all preceeding military operations? No. Do you have to be a superior president to point out how he or she is incorrect? No. Do I have to be a briliant warlord in order to make light of obvious flaws in the rationale behind policies? No.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange He studies for a living? Ah, maybe you should study for a living too. It might help you. I'd suggest completing college first before going for the service.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Also? Not a child. You're not helping yourself, and it makes it look like you can't swim in this debate. Like you're sinking. Also? Bad argument. Poland was behind militarily because of World War I, because the technology of that war appeared to grind to a stand still, mostly because the tragedy of that conflict forced most nations to reconsider wars waged for empire and industry. I don't get your analogy, but the Polish were brave for trying what they did.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
@quarterexchange I agree with your first point, so let's see you drop the habit of needing to bring up foreign military's which do not follow our doctrines. Our military is conducted like it should be. Berating some European Union country doesn't change that we have to micro-manage unit behavior, cohesion, and force deployment, like any good military would. It's not stupid to compare democracy to democracy, you just don't like that because than it takes the argument out of your court.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So, DADT for gays showering with straight men, is just as effective as a DADT for heterosexual men showering with women. The men will be kicked out if they reveal their heterosexuality, so the problem is solved, right? We can let women shower with them, because the DADT idea is that if you have to hide your sexuality, then it is OK to shower with folks to whom you have sexual attraction. If you believe these concepts are somehow different, please explain.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Is the 'army folks must shower together' law so difficult to augment, that the only rational scenario is to encourage all gay soldiers to only 'secretly' lust over the members of their unit in the showers? I regret to inform you, but when males are aroused, it is usually obvious. DADT does not keep gay men from showering with straight men. It is not the same as keeping women from showering with men...unless there was a DADT policy for heterosexuality for co-ed showering.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange There is no significant difference in banning family members from serving 'at all' if they have one person in the armed forces. Their bond is seen as 'too strong to serve together' so the DADT style solution is to ban all of your family members from serving. DADT does not stop gay relationships, any more than religion does in civilian life. I'm curious to know if you believe otherwise. I'm also curious about the 'army folks must shower together' thing that can't change.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Right, it is chivalry. Female perks. We don't want to put our mothers the front lines, even if they are perfectly able to handle themselves. If we had a completely female force, complete with its own DADT for lesbians, we still wouldnt want them in heavy combat situations, nor would most other countries.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange We also know you don't serve, and haven't at all. You've stated that you want to do, what now? ROTC? Yeah, you're looking to get into it, but you're going to have to leave your opinions at the door once you actually think about going for a career in the military. It's miserable, pay sucks, and your commanding officers won't put up with. Hopefully, you'll learn some military bearing. But man, you're letting all of this consume you like it's the end of the world. It's not.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
@quarterexchange No, you fail again because you gave me an article that contained an opinion about the service of Israeli women during the 1947-1948 war of independence and the subsequent policies AND how that translates to our armed forces today. I'm not a moron for reading it, and I told you I would. And I did disagree with his perspective. I still do. I think he's just looking at instances to support his point. Now he's right for Israel, but the whole argument? Maybe, maybe not.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Yes, but that freedom is only limited to what might amount as a plausible breach of Operational Security. You're also supposed to be a fighting unit. I understand that. However, assuming we're not supposed to be free in the military, that why not make heterosexuals have different bunks and showers as well? I also don't care about "top" militaries, because Russia and China aren't us. They're not us, they're not our troops, so they're irrelevant. Compare democracy, to democracy.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well, it was nice playing, but I'm about to watch the rest of this Roseanne episode. I've learned a bit, and have developed my rallying cry for this issue: "Why not have a DADT for women and just get them to pretend to be asexual just like we want the gays to do."
Darkbison7 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@quarterexchange I could be wrong, but I'm very suspicious of 1948 male/female professional relations.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange You seem to believe that women and gay men are suitable parallels in all other cases, so I'm glad you see why they are not internchangeable. Would it help the women if all the men in the barracks were 'allegedly asexual'? A policy that said that the men had to pretend to be asexual, so no romantic relationships would develop should work, right? If the men revealed themselves as straight, then they'd get kicked out. Problem solved?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quarterexchange Seeing him die? Was that why people didn't want blacks to serve? I thought they said something about unit cohesion and a decrease in effectiveness of the armed forces.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quarterexchange Then a DADT policy would work for women to serve in the units as well. They just have to conceal their sexuality or face expulsion. They won't have romantic relationships or sex, because they are prohibited from revealing their sexuality to anyone.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quarterexchange So the only way for gay males to know who other gay males are is through dialogue that will trigger DADT consequences? Is DADT effective in this endeavor? Would a DADT policy be effective for heterosexuality if women were serving in combat? "Women can serve, but they must not reveal themselves to be heterosexual."
Darkbison7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quarterexchange Adding blacks to the armed forces caused breakdowns in order and morale as well. The military adapts and evolves. DADT does not stop gay relationships, only causes them to become hidden. Its like a Sullivan Act with folks that just pretend not to be related and get away with it. It does not do acheive any realistic objective...just inspires lies and deceit within units.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Yes, but herein lies the problem. We're a free country. Okay, that's not a problem at all, but we're still a Democracy which gives any citizen the right to vote, eat, sleep, and crap, so long as they're willing to be naturalized citizens, with non-criminals records, or if they're born here, citizens by virtue of said birth. We're not China, we're not Russia, we're the United States. Letting gays serve is more then the right thing to do, it is patriotic.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NanaPudden The armed forces is a special part of the United States. Even their freedom of speech can be limited in the interests of protecting the country. Letting gays serve openly is the right thing to do, but the armed forces does not have to treat them equally or anything. They have heavy job discrimination policies.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange They are never discharged, because they are anonymous or do not want gays in their unit. Similarly, if you didn't want a black or a woman in your unit, all you would have to do is report that a problem was caused by their presence. Gay soldiers fight and die for their country, and they want to serve without the stress of having to hide their sexuality 24/7. 24/7 stress on the entire gay population in the military would cause problems.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange We don't know. All gay relationships between men in the same unit are invisible. The only way to document what goes on, is if we 'know' who is in a relationship. As of now, you have no observations about how 'gay men in relationships' behave. The armed forces evolve and adapt. 60 years ago, blacks and whites were terrible together. However, it is heart warming to hear folks say that man-man relationships are just as strong as male-female ones.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Easy, just have a policy where they will be kicked out for having sex with women OR men in such situations. People can be just as 'distraught' over seeing a friend/mentor/family member get killed, without any sexual or romantic background between them.
We want soldiers to be friends, because it makes the soldier value the lives of another soldier that much more. If people get 'too distraught' if a boyfriend is killed, then let's go a step further and eliminate friendship.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So when a man sees his best friend killed in combat, or his brother, son, father, mentor, or commanding officer...he just shrugs his shoulders since they were not romantically involved? DADT kicks out non-open gays as well. Anonymous tips about non-open gays have led to manifold instances of soldiers losing their jobs, despite following the policy. Whether they are open or not, does not matter.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quarterexchange Commanding officers report instances or they can choose not to. Since we are fighting multiple wars, it is not secret that commanding officers have a motive to 'keep people in the armed forces'.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange 1948 Israel women serving with men isnt my idea of a compelling parallel to men being required to pretend like they are asexual or lose their jobs in 2010 USA. Again, you have yet to outline how the 'love' a man has for a man/woman is different from the distress you get from losing a son, brother, or best friend. If anything, you learn to do your job to perfection to 'prevent' the loss of life of somebody you hold dear, rather than how you'd work with a relative stranger.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange The issue with women does not apply. The vast majority of men in the nation are heterosexual, and engage in heterosexual sex. If 90% of the armed forces was homosexual, then what? We kick out 90% of our troops? We stop all action because Johnny is looking at Billy in the shower? You can uphold a policy against dating with folks on the job, without kicking folks out who date civilians or are married back home. Sex should be punished under those situations, not sexuality.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quarterexchange What kind of issues? For something this important, you should be able to fully explain these 'bad issues in combat' caused by gay people serving openly. What are these issues, and how does DADT stop them from happening?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Furthermore, the discharge rates are getting lower, because lo and behold, with each person that gets discharged, the remaining population gets better at hiding it. It is not that there is a 'decreasing gay population', but one that sees what 'not' to do, and one that learns how 'not' to lose their job. It is a combat scenario that gay soldiers adapt and evolve to handle to survive/stay employed. As more gays take over the 'find the gays' roles, they can protect their own.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange They would not have to even be 'rampant'. There could just be one. If that one exists, then the policy has failed to prevent it from happening, and thus will continue to fail to do what it was designed to do forever. You have not outlined how these gay relationships pose a threat. No combat data about gay males in a relationship causing anything negative. You make your assumptions from 'females and men'. If 100% of all gay men were in army relationships, explain the danger.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quarterexchange Another hole, soldiers can behave just as irrationally for family or friends that are in combat situations. Should we kick out soldiers who show levels of friendship that are too high as well? You assume that men will do things drastically different for a boyfriend from what they would do for a brother, son, or best friend.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange What evidence do you have that they are dating members of their units? I don't think you have any. Sounds like the speculations about how black soldiers would exact revenge on whites if allowed to serve alongside them. 'Revenge' would have costed many lives in integrated units. More lives than any gay couple would cause from...'not leaving a boyfriend to die?'
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange And how, exactly do the DADT policies stop gay men from having sex with men? Again, the scenario that you present is not compelling enough to warrant a permanent practice of giving all gay men the boot. There will be problems at first, but the armed forces will evolve and adapt, just like in combat situations. The US military will survive this repeal and become even stronger with troops that don't have the ridiculous notion that gay men are so sex-crazed that we'd lose wars.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Yes, I do. For the obvious goal of keeping them employed, I am not inclined to explain further. Do you have any evidence that a repeal of DADT will lead to a significant increase in the number of gay couples in the military that will be so damaging that the best alternative would be to continue kicking out even the most decorated gay soldiers because of what clubs they go to or who they go home to when they come back from putting their lives on the line for the country?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange That just taugh me something...folks 'believe' that DADT erradicated gay relationships, only because DADT drove them undergound...so on the surface, people believe that gay relationships simply do not exist in the armed forces, and any change in DADT will unleash a sea of gay attraction that has been held back for years.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange And how exactly does DADT erradicate romantic involvement in the ranks? All it has done is make them hide it very well.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Thousands upon thousands of couples? How many gay couples do you think are 'just waiting to happen'? So far, it has cost millions to kick out thousands and thousands of 'isolated individuals'. Do you disagree? Do you believe that there will be more gay couples kicked out after repeal than gay singles without repeal?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Same way as they secretly do in civilian life. You don't have to 'tell' someone that you are gay to know that they are gay. There are manifold communication tools that have allowed discreet conversation between gay males that simply go unnoticed by a naive population that believes that DADT wiped out homosexual relationships in the armed forces. If men served with women but had to 'be asexual', then would they have to 'tell' women that they were not really asexual?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange I will seek to fully understand your position, because I am only recently getting on board with this corner of the gay rights movement. Explain to me what you feel will be the worst effect of a full repeal of the DADT policies on the armed forces over the next decade.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Again, the DADT policy is useless against preventing people from having attraction to members of the same sex. You are underestimating the armed forces. There will be problems, there will be cases of openly homosexual people violating conduct policies, just as there are heterosexual violations of policies. However, pretending that DADT blocks out same sex relations in the armed forces is preposterous. It only teaches soldiers how to be great liars, who can be blackmailed.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So basically, we should only adopt 'good foreign army' policies if we are faced with overwhelming odds from Mexico and Canada's dark alliance. I'm fine with that. Let me know when it happens. You are 'currently' fine with taking out vital parts of the unit not because they are a couple, but the mere fact that winked at each other is good enough to give them the boot under DADT. Now 'that' is ridiculous.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Back to the college males thing. That assumes that improper conduct is not only natural, but expected and excuseable under those circumstances. "Hey, they were college males, they couldn't help but to have sex with the women." Right? DADT does not prevent gay soldiers from having relationships with each other. It was a naive assumption made in '96 that humans can simply switch to asexuality if a policy tells them to do so. Would that work for straight soldiers?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So homosexual partners would not serve together in combat roles either...once we know who is partners with whom, right? It would be handled the same way. Gays already have ways of knowing who other gays are. You are being naive if you believe they are clueless as to who else is gay. We'd handle it the same as any partners that we don't want to serve together. But the fact is, that couples already exist and 'endanger' missions under DADT since they have militant discretion.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Fatal flaw in your argument: Women and gay men are completely different. If anything, the parallel would have had to be 'heterosexual men can only serve if they pretend to be asexual'. DADT does that for gay folks. Straight men were not required to act like they had a different orientation to give the illusion that relationships would not happen, so why do that with the gays?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange You answered your own question. If you believe we should emulate S. Korea's policies, then enlistment should be mandatory like theirs, right? Straight soldiers losing their lovers...interesting, because DADT does not 'remove' homosexuality from the ranks. It only makes it harder to keep an eye on. If gay folks are free to be recognized as 'a couple' then they wouldnt be put in those situations. Would allowing women to serve 'undercover' stop relationships?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange It is rather nice to hear that you believe that the love between two men would be so much stronger than heterosexual friendship, that they would 'jeopardize unit cohesion'. Just how many 'new' gay couples do you think would exist if the policy is repealed? If anything, it is more sensible to know 'who' is in a homosexual relationship within a unit so their combat efficacy can be monitored. In short, the DADT policy does nothing to stop or address secret gay relationships.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Aren't they showering with gays anyway? Do you believe that homosexual men will become salivating sex-fiends? Are the soldiers so juvenile and irresponsible that the only thing keeping widespread male rape at bay is that policy? Wow. You've got some interesting thoughts of what goes on in the mind of gay soldiers from day to day. I guess they can't control themselves and would automatically start raping all the straight males or having tawdry love affairs with folks.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So, should we alter our goverment structures to make it so that the armed forces is the only viable form of long term employment as well? I'm sure that helps keeps Korean armies top-notch a lot more effectively than to whom the soldiers are attracted. Do you disagree? Black folks led to trouble in combat situations, and people of different religions leads to trouble in combat situations. I say we have an army of atheists by policy. If they show their religion, they're out.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange We saw the early effects of integrating the armed forces. People didn't know how to act, productivity went down, violence in the ranks increased, and this continued for years. Most of the men in the armed forces did not want colored folks in the ranks. Why didn't we listen to what they had to say about unit cohesion, morale, and their traditional values?
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Would codes of conduct change? Were there not problems between black and white soldiers? Was it worth the risk of bad morale and improper (negative) relationships in the ranks back then? Hmm...your argument really allows for lesbians to serve openly with all male units while heterosexual females should not. You seem to forget that 'poor conduct' will still be grounds for dismissal. The difference is that your spouse's genitalia will not get you put out of the armed forces.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange So...we should follow the human rights policies of our enemies? Also, I am curious to know exactly how allowing the gays that are already in the armed forces to serve with honesty wil destroy our standing as a world power. Don't wanna end up like miserable old Switzerland, eh? They couldnt possibly be happy over there.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
Have any of our allies faced insurmountable problems as a result of letting gays serve openly? No.
On what basis do we believe it will be different for the US military?
There are already gays fighting in combat zones. When allowed to serve openly, conduct rules still apply. Heterosexual males are not allowed to wear dresses and blow kisses at their superiors or members of their units.
There will be discharges for poor conduct, just as there was for racism in the ranks.
Darkbison7 1 year ago
@quarterexchange You're making the assumption that because ... someone has a hobby other than his livelihood, he's not what he says he is, correct? Guess what. I come from a military family, so I don't have to seek people out. And I'm not going to be big on what I'am except to say that no matter who I'am, it is not an attempt to devalue you, or put you out of this debate. I also have provided evidence. Where's yours? I've not seen a single web-page that I can verify.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
@quarterexchange DADT has banned on the upwards of 20,000 troops over a 16 year period since it was drafted and signed into law 1993-1994 under the Clinton Administration. We shouldn't be banning people period over their perceived sexuality as that's not what the United States should stand for, and be about. Let some, other theocratic nation that supports terrorism make that kind of a mistake -- our decisiveness and steadfast is what's allowed us this far. It will continue to do so.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Yep, and I already have.
Now, we're just waiting on your sources because you're under the allusion you've posted any. This isn't looking good for you, particularly because as you've increasingly demand information of me, you haven't, in that exchange, provided information that I can verify. Which means that for me, we're reaching the end of this debate because there's no informational credulity on your part.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
@quarterexchange You weren't asking at all. You were discussing your perspective on why women don't serve. Don't demand negative proof, otherwise, you'll get something that's not in the negative at all. Prove to me that 80% figure, because this is the last time I'll treat that opinion with logical backing. Here's my source, let's see yours:
Google: Band_of_Sisters:_American_Women_at_War_in_Iraq
Google: 1-7-us-military-personnel-iraq-female
NanaPudden 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Again, it does matter, because their religious policies dictate their military policies. Our religious policies don't dictate our military policies, and it's also partly why we can survive our conflicts more succesfully, and countries like Pakistan and Armenia are forced to bully militants with limited reserve. Pakistan can't even secure it's own north-western corridor. How's that for a top military that doesn't let gays serve? Pretty poor, if you ask me.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
@quarterexchange Okay, re frame this one here, because I don't understand.
NanaPudden 1 year ago
@quarterexchange No, you're wrong here again. This isn't Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. You don't have any resources to back up your claims, and demanding negative proof to the contrary is what we consider, online and offline, to be a logical fallacy. Women aren't banned in the Israeli military, and Israel has fought more wars than we have. They're still there. Women, gays, men, the Merkava IV, have all worked to ensure that it can remain that way.
NanaPudden 1 year ago