• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

apdst said:
I'm wrong? How do you know I'm wrong? Speaking from personal experience?
Click to expand...

You are most definitely Wong here. A lesbian I knew in the Navy was discharged for merely being seen entering an off post hotel with another female and leaving an hour later.

She was discharged for being seen by another sailor off post.
 
G.I. Joe said:
Actually, my wife thinks grown men sodomizing each other is nasty as well, just as most women do. Think about it. Two women kissing turns a lot of people on, even females, but even most females agree that two males kissing is disgusting.
Click to expand...

I think you're a bit confused about what what most people think.

Most straight men are 'turned on' by young, nubile, Barbie-like, college age girls (i.e. fake lesbians) rubbing each other's breasts with baby oil and wrestling during spring break. That's their own, selfish ideal of 'hot' homosexuality.

The idea of two real lesbians rolling around in the sack and kissing... lets say Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen Degeneres... doesn't turn them on at all.

I suspect if most posters here were to post photos of themselves and their wives, we'd vote, as a group, NOT to watch them kiss or engage in other sexual activity, because we'd find them unattractive and nasty.

:rofl
 
Grateful Heart said:
I suspect if most posters here were to post photos of themselves and their wives, we'd vote, as a group, NOT to watch them kiss or engage in other sexual activity, because we'd find them unattractive and nasty.

:rofl
Click to expand...

Here -- let me be the first.


wed.jpg



Of course, that was a few years ago............
 
Blackdog said:
You are most definitely Wong here. A lesbian I knew in the Navy was discharged for merely being seen entering an off post hotel with another female and leaving an hour later.

She was discharged for being seen by another sailor off post.
Click to expand...

What were the grounds for the discharge?
 
missypea said:
Dang. Unable to make picture show...just the link, AGAIN. What am I doing wrong?
Click to expand...

I dunno, but I do feel the need to inform you that my reply "I'd pay to see me some of that hot porn" will have to wait until I see the actual photo.
 
G.I. Joe said:
Allow me to introduce a novel concept to you guys. The Amry is NOT a free society. We have rules all over the place about what is expected of a soldier, i.e. hair length, drug use, etc. The Army has guidelines put forth that are meant to convey what type of image it wants each individual soldier to exude. In the eyes of the Army, and the majority of the population of the U.S., homosexuality does not represent it's values. If the powers that be decide that gays should not serve, then it is their perogative to do so. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Now allow me to introduce a novel concept to YOU. The army is NOT a free society. You have rules all over the place and one of them is about to be that YOU don't get to decide who YOU serve beside. When the POTUS, aka commander in chief, decides that DADT is a stupid and backwards policy not worthy of any great nation, YOU will suck it up and deal with it or YOU won't be serving at all.

How you like them apples?
 
jallman said:
Now allow me to introduce a novel concept to YOU. The army is NOT a free society. You have rules all over the place and one of them is about to be that YOU don't get to decide who YOU serve beside. When the POTUS, aka commander in chief, decides that DADT is a stupid and backwards policy not worthy of any great nation, YOU will suck it up and deal with it or YOU won't be serving at all.

How you like them apples?
Click to expand...

Exactly. A platoon does not get to vote whether they want Jews, blacks, Indians, Muslims, or Scientologists in their midst. Soldiers give up those bigotries and prejudices when they put on the uniform and swear an oath to their country. Those who refuse to get along are tossed out.

The bigots didn't like them apples. They've gotten over it.

They'll get over gays soon enough.

:rofl
 
G.I. Joe said:
The men I've gone to war with don't feel that way. I'm not going to lose any sleep over your opinion.
Click to expand...

And I'm not going to lose any sleep over your impotent angst when gays are serving openly in the military in the next couple of years. And I damned sure ain't gonna lose any sleep when apdst stresses over whether the men are looking at his or his buddy's junk in the showers.

Well I might lose sleep chuckling to myself. I do love it when people like you two find yourselves in a hopeless position of impotence.
 
jallman said:
Well I might lose sleep chuckling to myself. I do love it when people like you two find yourselves in a hopeless position of impotence.
Click to expand...

I get a kick out of guys on my Rivals.com sports board who slip up and make a derogatory racial post. If not banned immediately, they get pounded into quiet submission by the rest of the 'converted.'

:2wave:
 
Moderator's Warning:
Settle down and cease the flaming and baiting. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and there will be consequences for any further instances.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Now allow me to introduce a novel concept to YOU. The army is NOT a free society. You have rules all over the place and one of them is about to be that YOU don't get to decide who YOU serve beside. When the POTUS, aka commander in chief, decides that DADT is a stupid and backwards policy not worthy of any great nation, YOU will suck it up and deal with it or YOU won't be serving at all.

How you like them apples?
Click to expand...


Yeah, nevermind the fact that soldiers actually have rights. There may be so many people, "not serving at all", that there will be the need for conscriptions to fill the ranks of our armed forces. I'm sure that's going to have a positive effect on our military.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, nevermind the fact that soldiers actually have rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah, nevermind that homos actually have rights. And let me ask this...what right of the straight soldiers is being infringed upon when a gay serves in the military? Huh? Can you answer that? Can ya? Huh? Huh?

There may be so many people, "not serving at all", that there will be the need for conscriptions to fill the ranks of our armed forces. I'm sure that's going to have a positive effect on our military.
Click to expand...

I see no evidence to support that scenario.
 
jallman said:
Yeah, nevermind that homos actually have rights. And let me ask this...what right of the straight soldiers is being infringed upon when a gay serves in the military? Huh? Can you answer that? Can ya? Huh? Huh?
Click to expand...

Soldiers have a right to a safe, comfortable wooking and living environment. That policy is the reason that a couple of soldiers are going to prison for 12+ years for taking pictures of females showering. Why are they going to prison? They're going to prison for violating those female soldiers's right to a safe, comfortable working and living environment, free of harrassment of any kind. Don't hear anyone telling those females to, "suck it up", do we? That case also blows the males and females sharing showers together, too. Huh?

If a straight soldier refuses to share billets with a gay soldier, or a gay soldier refuses to share billets with straight soldiers, it is that soldier's right to request appropriate billeting. I know you don't want to accept that, but as a former member of the United States military, you should be familiar with those policies.
 
apdst said:
Soldiers have a right to a safe, comfortable wooking and living environment.
Click to expand...

Comfortable?????

Where were you stationed, the Hilton? :rofl What is your definition of comfortable?

As for rights, soldiers have LIMITED rights. A white soldier cannot say "I don't want to be bunked with a ni**er".

And if that soldier is "uncomfortable" with that, they will show his ass the door. The same if DADT is removed and gays can serve openly.

What are you guys afraid of, some gay guy looking at your package or something? Sheez.

I like the logic, bombs and bullets flying through the air won't distract a combat unit, but they can't if a gay guy is in their unit? Gimme a break.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Comfortable?????

Where were you stationed, the Hilton? :rofl What is your definition of comfortable?

As for rights, soldiers have LIMITED rights. A white soldier cannot say "I don't want to be bunked with a ni**er".

And if that soldier is "uncomfortable" with that, they will show his ass the door. The same if DADT is removed and gays can serve openly.

What are you guys afraid of, some gay guy looking at your package or something? Sheez.

I like the logic, bombs and bullets flying through the air won't distract a combat unit, but they can't if a gay guy is in their unit? Gimme a break.
Click to expand...


DoD policy uses the term comfortable. You know that since you were in the service for 20 plus years. Right?


What are you guys afraid of, some gay guy looking at your package or something? Sheez.
Click to expand...

There's more to it than that and I think you know it, but won't admit it.
 
apdst said:
Soldiers have a right to a safe, comfortable wooking and living environment.
Click to expand...

OK.

That policy is the reason that a couple of soldiers are going to prison for 12+ years for taking pictures of females showering. Why are they going to prison? They're going to prison for violating those female soldiers's right to a safe, comfortable working and living environment, free of harrassment of any kind.
Click to expand...

Which has what to do with gays serving in the military?

Don't hear anyone telling those females to, "suck it up", do we?
Click to expand...

Not when they've been violated, no.

That case also blows the males and females sharing showers together, too. Huh?
Click to expand...

No one has been arguing that asinine bull**** stance except for you.

If a straight soldier refuses to share billets with a gay soldier, or a gay soldier refuses to share billets with straight soldiers, it is that soldier's right to request appropriate billeting.
Click to expand...

Really? I need you to show me some documentation of that "right".

I know you don't want to accept that, but as a former member of the United States military, you should be familiar with those policies.
Click to expand...

I was never presented with a "right" to demand billeting based on my comfort. I call bull**** on your argument.
 
apdst said:
DoD policy uses the term comfortable. You know that since you were in the service for 20 plus years. Right?
Click to expand...

Which doesn't define what comfortable is. It is a catch phrase more or less that has little meaning since it isn't defined. But then you already know that too.

apdst said:
There's more to it than that and I think you know it, but won't admit it.
Click to expand...


When all that is said and done, not really. What it comes down to it is, if DADT is removed and gays can serve openly, you will have to follow orders or get out.
 
This isn't for former service members, as I'm aware that you are all familiar with this information. It's for those who have never served in the armed forces who think that soldiers can't complain about the conditions in which they have to serve.

FM27-1, Chapter 10

Soldiers may write or petition any member of Congress about a complaint. You should not interfere with or try to dissuade a soldier from exercising this right. UCMJ, Article 138 (Chapter 13), protects a soldier's right to complain and request correction of a grievance against his commander.

FM 27-1 Chptr 10 Soldiers' Rights, Responsibilities, and Restrictions
Click to expand...
 
jallman said:
Really? I need you to show me some documentation of that "right".
Click to expand...

Look at the post above. Perhaps you forgot that information since you've been seperated from the service.
 
apdst said:
This isn't for former service members, as I'm aware that you are all familiar with this information. It's for those who have never served in the armed forces who think that soldiers can't complain about the conditions in which they have to serve.
Click to expand...

Who said soldiers can't complain? They can complain alright, but that doesn't mean their situation is going to change just because of them complaining about it.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
This isn't for former service members, as I'm aware that you are all familiar with this information. It's for those who have never served in the armed forces who think that soldiers can't complain about the conditions in which they have to serve.
Click to expand...

And nothing in that entire document indicates a "right" to change billeting based on "comfort" of the soldier.

Just as I thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom