• 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!

House approves repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'(edited)

WeAreReborn said:
But homosexuality isn't a negative condition... Or something that should only be tolerated. It should be accepted, and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't.
Click to expand...

So what's not negative about years of frequent sodomy performed upon the bottom of a human body?
 
Hancock said:
So what's not negative about years of frequent sodomy performed upon the bottom of a human body?
Click to expand...

Apparently nothing if they do it. Even if it is, I see no reason why we should condemn something that is none of our business.
 
one doesn't have to know all that much about the court to see that the loss of kagan isn't helpful

there has been a tremendous amount of movement on dadt in congress the last few days, i'd like to tell you, but it's unfortunately a rather long story

the bottom line---the votes do appear to be there, it does not quite appear that leadership knows what it has, but it will soon

scott brown spoke pretty unequivocally today, it'd be a smart move for #41 from massachusetts, elections have consequences, he is after all scott brown

it's all very, very complicated

the republicans have made it quite clear, and they mean what they say---they will kill everything and literally anything until the 2011 tax rate is established

we all saw the clinton/obama/bush/mcconnell/boehner tax plan whoosh thru the senate yesterday, 81-19

we all recall the mud throwing mutiny mounted against the president by the house libs, led by pete welch, anthony weiner, george miller, lynn woolsey...

it appeared tho, as of yesterday, that the progressives had conceded to their prez, consensus was that the tax cuts for the rich, and the republican written estate tax, and the 2% holiday on social security payroll on the workers' end, and the 13 months extension of unemployment---it was all sposed to pass today

but the progs did it again this morning, thru a snit over rules---essentially, they demand an opportunity to OPPOSE the senate bill as written (otherwise known as clinton/obama/bush), which embarrassment nancy, on the president's behalf, apparently, wishes to avoid

it does, however, look like the mcconnell/boehner bill will ultimately make it thru pelosi's place, the weiners, et al, will get a comprehensive amendment they can call their own

now, if that deal is ever done, once the 2011 tax is established, then, yes, there are republicans willing to deal, willing to go over on dadt and other things

meanwhile, harry has for weeks been like this---we'll do dream, we won't do dream, we'll do start, it's our top priority, we'll do dadt in a defense appropriations, we'll do it stand alone, we'll do dream as part of defense, we'll do it separately, start is our top priority...

he changes literally almost by the hour

bottom line---if and when he ever gets the votes on anything he'll go

and, like i said, once the tax bill is done, the browns and snowes and collins and murkowskis and lugars, benetts and voinovichs are willing to play

however...

an entirely new battlefront, as you probably know, has emerged in the last three days---this 1.1T omnibus with all the earmarks

the govt failed to pass a budget for 2010, has been operating on cr's (continuing resolutions) since october 1, the last passed on 12-8 running for only 2 weeks, i believe

republicans are on to the omnibus

republicans have a big decision to make, should they block it?

if they do, a war will break out, and that will very, very negatively impact movement on dadt (and the dream and the start...)

start, by the way, is probably more neocon than left

the gop's weighty call on the omnibus is complicated by the fact that so many of us ourselves are major earmarkers---and in THIS omnibus

maverick mccain, of all people, is the topical leader of tea, here, he has made anti-earmarks a mavericky crusade for his career

KEITH OLBERMANN REPORTED AT 8:01 EASTERN TONITE THAT HARRY HAS PULLED THE OMNIBUS

that's pretty much where it stands, dadt, in congress, i believe---the votes probably are there, but leadership is still having trouble getting its act together

i could provide many links, more than half from politico the last 3 or 4 days

stay up
 
Last edited:
Hancock said:
So what's not negative about years of frequent sodomy performed upon the bottom of a human body?
Click to expand...

....what the hell IS negative about it!?
 
Give me sodomy or give me death!
 
WeAreReborn said:
Apparently nothing if they do it. Even if it is, I see no reason why we should condemn something that is none of our business.
Click to expand...

Your diet of 100% fat isn't my business either. Your slashing and cutting of your extremities is my business either. Your allowing your spouse to beat you isn't my business either. Your refusal to exercise isn't my business either. Your attempt at suicide isn't my business either.

Obesity, heart disease, low self-esteem, and all manner of psychological problems are easily observable from the perch of every American. Should we see these conditions in a positive light? I would think not!

Should we publicly condemn such behaviors. What good would that do?
Do we each reserve the personal right to judge and condemn? Of course, but what good would that do?

The best course of action would be to educate everyone, including heterosexuals about the medical issue that may result from sodomy. As we get older, all of our muscles become more relaxed. When pre-relaxed sphincter muscles become more relaxed and a portion of the intestine is allowed to protude into the outside environment, this is not a good thing! Sanitation, comfort, and personal embarrassment due to malordorous smells become quite evident from PROLAPSE!
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
Now, granted, I left the Navy decades ago, and things might have changed. We were told no signs of affection while in uniform, except the obvious cases of departure/returns from tours of duty.
Click to expand...

Just1Voice said:
If heterosexuals are allowed to do it, then homosexuals should be allowed to do it as well. That said, I am pretty sure that PDA is strongly discouraged among straight folk while actively serving in the military, and as long as that is the case, then I think homosexuals are no more likely to break that taboo than heterosexuals.
Click to expand...

Precisely my point. There shouldn't be a differentiation between same-sex PDA and opposite-sex PDA.

Hancock said:
PS.

I generally support GLBT issues....
Click to expand...

Remember when you said this?

You're deluding yourself.
 
Hancock said:
The best course of action would be to educate everyone, including heterosexuals about the medical issue that may result from sodomy. As we get older, all of our muscles become more realxed. When pre-relaxed sphincter muscles become more relaxed and a portion of the intestine is allowed to protude into the outside environment, this is not a good thing! Sanitation, comfort, and personal embarrassment due to malordorous smells become quite evident from PROLAPSE!
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with homosexuals serving in the military?
 
Hancock said:
Your diet of 100% fat isn't my business either. Your slashing and cutting of your extremities is my business either. Your allowing your spouse to beat you isn't my business either. Your refusal to exercise isn't my business either. Your attempt at suicide isn't my business either.

Obesity, heart disease, low self-esteem, and all manner of psychological problems are easily observable from the perch of every American. Should we see these conditions in a positive light? I would think not!

Should we publicly condemn such behaviors. What good would that do?
Do we each reserve the personal right to judge and condemn? Of course, but what good would that do?

The best course of action would be to educate everyone, including heterosexuals about the medical issue that may result from sodomy. As we get older, all of our muscles become more relaxed. When pre-relaxed sphincter muscles become more relaxed and a portion of the intestine is allowed to protude into the outside environment, this is not a good thing! Sanitation, comfort, and personal embarrassment due to malordorous smells become quite evident from PROLAPSE!
Click to expand...

I would like to see a medical study proving such claims, otherwise it is hearsay.

Edit: Not that it really matters either way.
 
Last edited:
Harry Reid pulls $1.1 trillion spending bill from floor - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

yes, this is an absolutely huge development with gigantic reverberations on several fronts

biggest picture---it is a huge victory for the gop as harry's signal (forced by one armed daniel inouye from hawaii) that he will substitute another short term cr for his year long omnibus turns control over 2011 spending to the orange dude who cries, speaker boehner

however, by clearing this potential armageddon off his floor, harry almost surely enhances his chances of romancing the browns and murkowskis on dadt and other things

just fyi

stay up
 
Hancock said:
So what's not negative about years of frequent sodomy performed upon the bottom of a human body?
Click to expand...
Depends on who you are.

I personally would find it highly negative.

But that's me.

Random gay guy out there, who likes it up the ass, not so much.

What, did you think all gay men were sado-masochists as well?
 
WeAreReborn said:
I would like to see a medical study proving such claims, otherwise it is hearsay.

Edit: Not that it really matters either way.
Click to expand...

Fecal incontinence is a fairly wide known medical condition that is suffered by many older homosexuals and also many older wives who engaged in the act of sodomy. Apparently, the rectum protrudes into the outside environment when the sphincter muscle weakens and allows internal contents to leak.
 
The Mark said:
Depends on who you are.

I personally would find it highly negative.

But that's me.

Random gay guy out there, who likes it up the ass, not so much.

What, did you think all gay men were sado-masochists as well?
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that people tend to think gay sex is a sole defining characteristic of a homosexual. They can't separate serving in the military from GAY SEX ALL THE TIME. They can't even separate gay marriage from gay sex, as if having sex is the only basis on which we choose someone to marry. Then there's the absurd double standard. They're so concerned that SOME GAY DUDE MIGHT HIT ON ME. Somehow, that's just a horrible, traumatic experience that no man should have to go thr- say pretty lady at the bar, you're hot, can I get your number?

Yep. Dude hitting on dude? "**** THAT I'D PUNCH THAT QUEER IN THE JAW!" Dude hitting on lady? Lady should just put up with it and turn me down politely, I'm paying her a compliment!!
 
Hancock said:
Fecal incontinence is a fairly wide known medical condition that is suffered by many older homosexuals and also many older wives who engaged in the act of sodomy. Apparently, the rectum protrudes into the outside environment when the sphincter muscle weakens and allows internal contents to leak.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that women who have anal sex should be excluded from serving in the military. Got it.

edit: also, clearly anyone who smokes, drinks, eats too many cheeseburgers, has heterosexual sex, has homosexual sex, spins around in their office chair too much, or doesn't sleep 8 hours a night should also be excluded, because all of those things have potential health risks!
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I think the problem is that people tend to think gay sex is a sole defining characteristic of a homosexual. They can't separate serving in the military from GAY SEX ALL THE TIME. They can't even separate gay marriage from gay sex, as if having sex is the only basis on which we choose someone to marry. Then there's the absurd double standard. They're so concerned that SOME GAY DUDE MIGHT HIT ON ME. Somehow, that's just a horrible, traumatic experience that no man should have to go thr- say pretty lady at the bar, you're hot, can I get your number?

Yep. Dude hitting on dude? "**** THAT I'D PUNCH THAT QUEER IN THE JAW!" Dude hitting on lady? Lady should just put up with it and turn me down politely, I'm paying her a compliment!!
Click to expand...

Actually, I think people who think gay sex = anal sex is a bigger problem. They really need to meet more gay people.
 
Deuce said:
So what you're saying is that women who have anal sex should be excluded from serving in the military. Got it.

edit: also, clearly anyone who smokes, drinks, eats too many cheeseburgers, has heterosexual sex, has homosexual sex, spins around in their office chair too much, or doesn't sleep 8 hours a night should also be excluded, because all of those things have potential health risks!
Click to expand...

Dude, you totally missed my point!

I'm not saying gays or women should be excluded from militatry service...

A question was asked and my response included the focus upon the one and only negative aspect about one form of typical gay male sex. I focused upon it because, it is often overlooked by most youth, but many are forced to deal with it later.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Yes, she will have to. She already did so in the appeal on the stay order from the Log Cabin Republicans case.
Click to expand...

Not sure that is relevent but if true it helps our side.......
 
The Prof said:
Harry Reid pulls $1.1 trillion spending bill from floor - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

yes, this is an absolutely huge development with gigantic reverberations on several fronts

biggest picture---it is a huge victory for the gop as harry's signal (forced by one armed daniel inouye from hawaii) that he will substitute another short term cr for his year long omnibus turns control over 2011 spending to the orange dude who cries, speaker boehner

however, by clearing this potential armageddon off his floor, harry almost surely enhances his chances of romancing the browns and murkowskis on dadt and other things

just fyi

stay up
Click to expand...

Not sure of that.....they have to come up with some type of bill on spending so they will have to start all over taking up more time that won't be used for DADT.......Tomorrow is the last day unless they work the weekend to get just the spending bill done..........Then there is the START bill as wat is called the DREAM bill........There are a lot more votes with Hispanics that the dems covet then there are gays.............This is a huge defeat for DADT.............
 
Patria Antiqua said:
Am I the only person here who finds gay men hot, but lesbians getting it on slightly icky?
Click to expand...

well being a straight man I don't find a couple gays getting it on to be "hot". two lesbians-depends what they look like. Rachel Madcow pegging Rosie O'Bacon would make me hurl.
 
TurtleDude said:
well being a straight man I don't find a couple gays getting it on to be "hot". two lesbians-depends what they look like. Rachel Madcow pegging Rosie O'Bacon would make me hurl.
Click to expand...

I would have Rachel Maddow's reverse-babies. Smart is hot.
 
Patria Antiqua said:
Am I the only person here who finds gay men hot, but lesbians getting it on slightly icky?
Click to expand...

I don't know about slightly icky....I'm just kinda "eh" about it. In fact I'm so "eh" about it, I was surprised I found two guys to be extremely hot. I always figured guys were weirdos for liking lesbians.
 
Deuce said:
I would have Rachel Maddow's reverse-babies. Smart is hot.
Click to expand...

then go for Pam Karlan. LIke MadCow she is a lesbian. But she is much much smarter. It isn't close. She was a Junior Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, a supreme court clerk and considered one of the best far left law professors in the USA. She's also prettier than madcow. In college she had a crush on my suite mate (who got a Rhodes BTW). I was sort of shocked when she told me when I ran into her at a lecture she did at the local law school that she was a lesbian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom