If a prison rape can "cause" a person to be gay, it sounds as though your orientation is on a delicate balance, able to tip one way or the other, depending on circumstances. No. I wasn't raped. Its funny to know the str8 guys think gays are not masculine. Masculinity attracts us. So most of us are masculine. But you wouldn't know that because the only gays you can recognize are the nelly ones. There you stand among masculine gay men, making fun of the effeminate gays and you're never the wiser.
@ToxicOdiousOne may "know" how the queer thinks, but he wouldn't recognize one even if he were fucked in the ass by one. Your cousin is queer Toxic. So is the guy you hang out with on a Friday night. It isn't written on our foreheads. We fake being str8 pretty good. One day, you are going to forgive yourself for being gay. Btw, did you know Willy Nelson is gay? Check on You Tube; Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other.
Call me names all night and into the morning. Its kinky pillow talk. Remember the words of Brad Paisley- "I'm Still a Guy". I served in the military. I own a Kimber .45cal hand gun. I drive a Ford F150. I ride a 750cc Kawasaki Vulcan. I play football and basketball. I am not neat nor tidy. I like country music, 2-step and line dance. I have an ambition to go bear hunting. I like MGD and I own a Stetson hat. 2 wks ago, I gave a guy a black eye. A yr ago, I broke a guy's nose and knocked him out.
@ToxicOdiousOne assumes that I'm offended by being called a faggot. He believes the term "faggot" deserves clarification, saying I like anal twinks. Being a faggot for 48 yrs, I can honestly say that I have never heard, "he likes anal twinks". Actually Toxic, I prefer a rugged man with a thick cock. (In a previous post, he accuses ME of using cyber graffiti). Then Toxic comes out of the closet and says he can relate to me. He knows how we think. Very brave of you Toxic. You go girl.
@ToxicOdiousOne says that he wants "to see them (homosexuals) suffer". Yeah. Because God knows how much better homosexuals have it over the heterosexuals. Those damn homosexuals aren't suffering nearly as much as those heterosexuals. uh....wait....what?
@ToxicOdiousOne "They put dyke and fag on their business cards". That depends upon the business.If being gay promotes the product or the sale of the product, then "yes". Put Dyke or Fag on the business card. It is a way to clench the deal. The Christians do the same thing when they include the fish symbol on their business advertisement. They "use" the christian symbol for personal gain. Go Christians. Jesus was all in favor of using religion to promote business....oh, wait.
@ToxicOdiousOne get on with it Toxic. Say what you mean, what you believe, "All gays and lesbians are to report to their designated gas chambers immediately. Women and children first. Pushing and shoving is permitted. Please inhale deeply."
@ToxicOdiousOne "their sexuality is not our business". You are right about that. So when a subordinate accuses a higher ranking member of the military of being gay, the military should say, 'their sexuality is not our business." However, the DADT policy does not stop the military from discharging the service member. Removing the ban on gays will stop the government from making what goes on in the bedroom its business.
@ToxicOdiousOne "Sex has no place in the military" - OK. You are just talking nonsense. Clearly you never served. The majority of military are men, ages of 18 - 25. Testosterone is at its peak. It is surging through blood vessels of very healthy, robust military men. They're cooped up on ship or in tents for months at a time. Women wiggle their tits in front of them. But Toxic believes they should all be celibate. I am guessing Toxic is mormon. Gay, "Yes". But a mormon idealist all the same.
@ToxicOdiousOne Women introduced sexual problems into the military? Toxic is commenting like a man who isn't all there. Which century is he living in? Brigham Young called. He wants Toxic to return to the 19th Century and to stop playing with his great, great, great, grandson's computer.
@ToxicOdiousOne "It will force public employers to hire sodomites against their will". Toxic can't seem to get his head out of the bedroom. It makes me wonder if Toxic is aware that heterosexual couples also practice oral and anal sex. Wives have even been known to use "toys" to penetrate their husbands. If Toxic were to join the Marines and be sent to Asia where he could go on liberty, he would discover the existence, the use and the pleasure of massage therapists using Ben wah beads on him.
I am not trying to insult you when I say that, what you said makes no sense to me whatsoever. Just like that little quip you made earlier. I didn't think that I would need to explain what I was doing by showing how your quip applies to discrimination as well homosexuality. Are you saying that DADT is not discriminatory because homosexuality is a private matter? Discrimination as defined in the dictionary has nothing to do with privacy. Please explain.
Ultimately what you have to weigh out for yourself is whether your love for the people who serve our country is greater than your hate against homosexuals. I have to admit that I am somewhat of a homophobe. I am completely indifferent to most gay rights issues. But, to deprive our servicemen of the help they need because of our personal prejudices does the military a greater disservice than it does the gay community.
Are we the good men, and the evil that flourishes is the discrimination? Woe to those people who call discrimination good? Is that what you are saying?
My response to you was regarding to your question as to why it is necessary to make their sexuality public knowledge.
If a person is competent at his job, he should be able to keep it no matter what sexual orientation. The only thing that really matters is competence. If the best medic in the military was gay, I would hate for the military to lose this person because of something that trivial. Our military is over extended, and I think they need all the help they can get.
As an example only, you can take a high level officer who is in the closet, whose service has been invaluable to the country and see his career destroyed by DADT if a third party outs this person(e.g. disgruntled subordinate). If this person has a life partner, he or she will be forced to reject his life partner in order to serve his country. Would we want to risk losing this persons service over something as trivial as his or her sexual orientation.
"Why is your vested interest is seeing that homosexuals are in the military? You people are sick! "
Because it's about basic human rights. Plain and simple. I don't know why you are so vested in your hate towards Homosexuals in the miltiary....why? What have they done to your directly?
1) Its not about making things public, you don't go gallivanting about screaming "I'm heterosexual", but the fact that you can be the way you are and not get dishonorably discharged if someone finds out is what is absurd.
2) Not perverts
3) If the actual sexual act is such an issue then sex should be banned for all in the military. Why should it be only create issues between homosexuals? It doesn't make sense.
If the UK can have a strong military and allow homosexuals to serve, then allowing gays to serve does not prevent a military from preforming. If our military could not do the same it wouldn't be due to the allowance of gays to serve it would be American incompetence.
It's been proven in other countries that policies that allow homosexuals to serve does not effect performance or the "unit cohesion" that has been discussed. So by that logic, allowing gays to serve would simply promote national security by providing us with the best people regardless of sexuality.
Okay lets look at some countries that allow for gays to openly serve in the military (UK, Australia, Germany, Israel, Spain, Canada) then look at some who don't (the US, North Korea, Cuba). And this wouldn't become a "queer" military simply by getting rid of DADT. Other countries that allow homosexuals in the military are not thought of as less respected. These same countries are the same one serving side by side American troops. It hasn't caused a problem so far so why would that change?
6) Homosexuals are not disobeying any orders, if you understood DADT you would know that it prohibits openly homosexual members from serving, so those who are a part of the military are not doing anything that can even be classified as breaking rules, much less flaunting about the way you describe it.
2) Mullen says that it is a issue of integrity loss on the part of soldiers and the military itself
3) He's sexuality is not anyone's business, he is simply being logical, not everyone who supports simple human rights like this is gay. Though your blatant homophobia makes me think you might be.
4) McCaskill is simply being rational
5) DADT is not "the simplest directive" it asks people to deny who they are, that's a pretty big request in my oppinion
1) McCaskill is not a communist or an anarchist; she is the only one to point out the obvious/most sensible thing during the hearings.
2) Homosexuals are not violating any military rules they are simply following a pointless policy.
Also, do you not understand the purpose of the Supreme Court? Because by your logic any law that was ever in place is to be followed & never questioned. Policies should not be enforced because simply they exist but rather because they are sensible/constitutional.
Senator McCaskill hit the nail right directly on the head on that. Geez, that was a good one. This is exactly why the DADT policy doesn't work, because when asking a service member to be honest about themselves during the evaluation, by law, they are forced to be silent on this matter. THANK YOU SEN. MCCASKILL. Finally, politicians that makes a whole lot of sense.
As Senator McCaskill said would it not be appropriate for the president to issue an Executive Order to temporarily suspend DADT for the current gay and lesbian military members serving currently to talk to the Adm. Mullen and Sec. Gates?
Just a question for you ToxicOdiousOne, is everyone in prison gay?
jusitke07 2 years ago
If a prison rape can "cause" a person to be gay, it sounds as though your orientation is on a delicate balance, able to tip one way or the other, depending on circumstances. No. I wasn't raped. Its funny to know the str8 guys think gays are not masculine. Masculinity attracts us. So most of us are masculine. But you wouldn't know that because the only gays you can recognize are the nelly ones. There you stand among masculine gay men, making fun of the effeminate gays and you're never the wiser.
SethKlan 2 years ago
I like new country too. I also like some old country like Patsy Cline and Willy Nelson. Also check out "I like Mike" on YouTube. Its about baseball.
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne may "know" how the queer thinks, but he wouldn't recognize one even if he were fucked in the ass by one. Your cousin is queer Toxic. So is the guy you hang out with on a Friday night. It isn't written on our foreheads. We fake being str8 pretty good. One day, you are going to forgive yourself for being gay. Btw, did you know Willy Nelson is gay? Check on You Tube; Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other.
SethKlan 2 years ago
Call me names all night and into the morning. Its kinky pillow talk. Remember the words of Brad Paisley- "I'm Still a Guy". I served in the military. I own a Kimber .45cal hand gun. I drive a Ford F150. I ride a 750cc Kawasaki Vulcan. I play football and basketball. I am not neat nor tidy. I like country music, 2-step and line dance. I have an ambition to go bear hunting. I like MGD and I own a Stetson hat. 2 wks ago, I gave a guy a black eye. A yr ago, I broke a guy's nose and knocked him out.
SethKlan 2 years ago
In a battle of wits Toxic, you are not weak. You are unarmed.
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne assumes that I'm offended by being called a faggot. He believes the term "faggot" deserves clarification, saying I like anal twinks. Being a faggot for 48 yrs, I can honestly say that I have never heard, "he likes anal twinks". Actually Toxic, I prefer a rugged man with a thick cock. (In a previous post, he accuses ME of using cyber graffiti). Then Toxic comes out of the closet and says he can relate to me. He knows how we think. Very brave of you Toxic. You go girl.
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne leaves me with a mental picture of his brain at work.....the wheel is spinning but the hamster is dead.
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne says that he wants "to see them (homosexuals) suffer". Yeah. Because God knows how much better homosexuals have it over the heterosexuals. Those damn homosexuals aren't suffering nearly as much as those heterosexuals. uh....wait....what?
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne sounds like he is using a quote, (with out giving credit to its author). From where did you obtain these sentences?
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne I'm sorry. I was ignoring you again. What were you babbling about?
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne "They put dyke and fag on their business cards". That depends upon the business.If being gay promotes the product or the sale of the product, then "yes". Put Dyke or Fag on the business card. It is a way to clench the deal. The Christians do the same thing when they include the fish symbol on their business advertisement. They "use" the christian symbol for personal gain. Go Christians. Jesus was all in favor of using religion to promote business....oh, wait.
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne The Final Solution to Toxic's homophobia.
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne get on with it Toxic. Say what you mean, what you believe, "All gays and lesbians are to report to their designated gas chambers immediately. Women and children first. Pushing and shoving is permitted. Please inhale deeply."
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne "their sexuality is not our business". You are right about that. So when a subordinate accuses a higher ranking member of the military of being gay, the military should say, 'their sexuality is not our business." However, the DADT policy does not stop the military from discharging the service member. Removing the ban on gays will stop the government from making what goes on in the bedroom its business.
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne "Sex has no place in the military" - OK. You are just talking nonsense. Clearly you never served. The majority of military are men, ages of 18 - 25. Testosterone is at its peak. It is surging through blood vessels of very healthy, robust military men. They're cooped up on ship or in tents for months at a time. Women wiggle their tits in front of them. But Toxic believes they should all be celibate. I am guessing Toxic is mormon. Gay, "Yes". But a mormon idealist all the same.
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Women introduced sexual problems into the military? Toxic is commenting like a man who isn't all there. Which century is he living in? Brigham Young called. He wants Toxic to return to the 19th Century and to stop playing with his great, great, great, grandson's computer.
SethKlan 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne "It will force public employers to hire sodomites against their will". Toxic can't seem to get his head out of the bedroom. It makes me wonder if Toxic is aware that heterosexual couples also practice oral and anal sex. Wives have even been known to use "toys" to penetrate their husbands. If Toxic were to join the Marines and be sent to Asia where he could go on liberty, he would discover the existence, the use and the pleasure of massage therapists using Ben wah beads on him.
SethKlan 2 years ago
I am not trying to insult you when I say that, what you said makes no sense to me whatsoever. Just like that little quip you made earlier. I didn't think that I would need to explain what I was doing by showing how your quip applies to discrimination as well homosexuality. Are you saying that DADT is not discriminatory because homosexuality is a private matter? Discrimination as defined in the dictionary has nothing to do with privacy. Please explain.
rasgua2000 2 years ago
Ultimately what you have to weigh out for yourself is whether your love for the people who serve our country is greater than your hate against homosexuals. I have to admit that I am somewhat of a homophobe. I am completely indifferent to most gay rights issues. But, to deprive our servicemen of the help they need because of our personal prejudices does the military a greater disservice than it does the gay community.
rasgua2000 2 years ago
Are we the good men, and the evil that flourishes is the discrimination? Woe to those people who call discrimination good? Is that what you are saying?
rasgua2000 2 years ago
My response to you was regarding to your question as to why it is necessary to make their sexuality public knowledge.
If a person is competent at his job, he should be able to keep it no matter what sexual orientation. The only thing that really matters is competence. If the best medic in the military was gay, I would hate for the military to lose this person because of something that trivial. Our military is over extended, and I think they need all the help they can get.
rasgua2000 2 years ago
As an example only, you can take a high level officer who is in the closet, whose service has been invaluable to the country and see his career destroyed by DADT if a third party outs this person(e.g. disgruntled subordinate). If this person has a life partner, he or she will be forced to reject his life partner in order to serve his country. Would we want to risk losing this persons service over something as trivial as his or her sexual orientation.
rasgua2000 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why is your vested interest is seeing that homosexuals are in the military? You people are sick! "
Because it's about basic human rights. Plain and simple. I don't know why you are so vested in your hate towards Homosexuals in the miltiary....why? What have they done to your directly?
jusitke07 2 years ago
I'll continue this later, calculus awaits me...Though I doubt this debate will go anywhere further tomorrow.
mcalisteralyssa1 2 years ago
4) How would this be affirmative action? That would be a completely different issue. The absence of DADT wouldn't provide any special privileges.
mcalisteralyssa1 2 years ago
1) Its not about making things public, you don't go gallivanting about screaming "I'm heterosexual", but the fact that you can be the way you are and not get dishonorably discharged if someone finds out is what is absurd.
2) Not perverts
3) If the actual sexual act is such an issue then sex should be banned for all in the military. Why should it be only create issues between homosexuals? It doesn't make sense.
mcalisteralyssa1 2 years ago
If the UK can have a strong military and allow homosexuals to serve, then allowing gays to serve does not prevent a military from preforming. If our military could not do the same it wouldn't be due to the allowance of gays to serve it would be American incompetence.
mcalisteralyssa1 2 years ago
So we should emulate North Korea?
mcalisteralyssa1 2 years ago
It's been proven in other countries that policies that allow homosexuals to serve does not effect performance or the "unit cohesion" that has been discussed. So by that logic, allowing gays to serve would simply promote national security by providing us with the best people regardless of sexuality.
mcalisteralyssa1 2 years ago
The point I was trying to make was that simply because things are one way in terms of laws does not mean that the status quo should countiue
mcalisteralyssa1 2 years ago
Okay lets look at some countries that allow for gays to openly serve in the military (UK, Australia, Germany, Israel, Spain, Canada) then look at some who don't (the US, North Korea, Cuba). And this wouldn't become a "queer" military simply by getting rid of DADT. Other countries that allow homosexuals in the military are not thought of as less respected. These same countries are the same one serving side by side American troops. It hasn't caused a problem so far so why would that change?
mcalisteralyssa1 2 years ago
6) Homosexuals are not disobeying any orders, if you understood DADT you would know that it prohibits openly homosexual members from serving, so those who are a part of the military are not doing anything that can even be classified as breaking rules, much less flaunting about the way you describe it.
mcalisteralyssa1 2 years ago
1) No he doesn't
2) Mullen says that it is a issue of integrity loss on the part of soldiers and the military itself
3) He's sexuality is not anyone's business, he is simply being logical, not everyone who supports simple human rights like this is gay. Though your blatant homophobia makes me think you might be.
4) McCaskill is simply being rational
5) DADT is not "the simplest directive" it asks people to deny who they are, that's a pretty big request in my oppinion
mcalisteralyssa1 2 years ago
You are simply a moron, there really is no other way to describe you.
mcalisteralyssa1 2 years ago
1) McCaskill is not a communist or an anarchist; she is the only one to point out the obvious/most sensible thing during the hearings.
2) Homosexuals are not violating any military rules they are simply following a pointless policy.
Also, do you not understand the purpose of the Supreme Court? Because by your logic any law that was ever in place is to be followed & never questioned. Policies should not be enforced because simply they exist but rather because they are sensible/constitutional.
mcalisteralyssa1 2 years ago
Senator McCaskill hit the nail right directly on the head on that. Geez, that was a good one. This is exactly why the DADT policy doesn't work, because when asking a service member to be honest about themselves during the evaluation, by law, they are forced to be silent on this matter. THANK YOU SEN. MCCASKILL. Finally, politicians that makes a whole lot of sense.
jusitke07 2 years ago
I love me some Claire McCaskill!
xadnder 2 years ago 2
As Senator McCaskill said would it not be appropriate for the president to issue an Executive Order to temporarily suspend DADT for the current gay and lesbian military members serving currently to talk to the Adm. Mullen and Sec. Gates?
aclark55 2 years ago 2