|
|
|
|
#1
11-29-2007, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about? [/ QUOTE ] They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it. [/ QUOTE ] You honestly think its just that simple? [/ QUOTE ] No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone. 
|
|
#2
11-29-2007, 06:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about? [/ QUOTE ] They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it. [/ QUOTE ] You honestly think its just that simple? [/ QUOTE ] No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone. [/ QUOTE ] CC, You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights? This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems.
|
|
#3
11-29-2007, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about? [/ QUOTE ] They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it. [/ QUOTE ] You honestly think its just that simple? [/ QUOTE ] No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone. [/ QUOTE ] CC, You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights? This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems. [/ QUOTE ] How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day?
|
|
#4
11-29-2007, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about? [/ QUOTE ] They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it. [/ QUOTE ] You honestly think its just that simple? [/ QUOTE ] No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone. [/ QUOTE ] CC, You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights? This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems. [/ QUOTE ] How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day? [/ QUOTE ] Then logically you have no objection to forcing female soldiers to have male roommates not of their choice do you?
|
|
#5
11-29-2007, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about? [/ QUOTE ] They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it. [/ QUOTE ] You honestly think its just that simple? [/ QUOTE ] No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone. [/ QUOTE ] CC, You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights? This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems. [/ QUOTE ] How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day? [/ QUOTE ] Then logically you have no objection to forcing female soldiers to have male roommates not of their choice do you? [/ QUOTE ] I don't really care
|
|
#6
11-29-2007, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about? [/ QUOTE ] They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it. [/ QUOTE ] You honestly think its just that simple? [/ QUOTE ] No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone. [/ QUOTE ] CC, You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights? This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems. [/ QUOTE ] How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day? [/ QUOTE ] Then logically you have no objection to forcing female soldiers to have male roommates not of their choice do you? [/ QUOTE ] I don't really care [/ QUOTE ] Of course not. Pretty pathetic. Go with that and see how many female recruits there are next year.
|
|
#7
11-29-2007, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about? [/ QUOTE ] They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it. [/ QUOTE ] You honestly think its just that simple? [/ QUOTE ] No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone. [/ QUOTE ] CC, You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights? This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems. [/ QUOTE ] How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day? [/ QUOTE ] You dont think there is a significant difference between skin color and sexuality?
|
|
#8
11-29-2007, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about? [/ QUOTE ] They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it. [/ QUOTE ] You honestly think its just that simple? [/ QUOTE ] No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone. [/ QUOTE ] CC, You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights? This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems. [/ QUOTE ] How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day? [/ QUOTE ] You dont think there is a significant difference between skin color and sexuality? [/ QUOTE ] not in this context.
|
|
#9
11-29-2007, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So should we create whole units of personnel that are only homosexuals? Is that the integration you are talking about? [/ QUOTE ] They should just remove don't ask don't tell. If someone joins up and they show up to a military event with a male partner or they talk about having relations with another man just get used to it. [/ QUOTE ] You honestly think its just that simple? [/ QUOTE ] No, the gays who enter the military will be harassed and it will be a big issue and people will throw a hissy fit about everything. The military will be pissed about it and so will a lot of other people. A lot of gay people who are open will be take serious harassment and it won't be easy for anyone. [/ QUOTE ] CC, You ever been in the military? If you have you know that for singles who live on base, you usually have a roommate. Naturally they now assign you one of your same sex. So is the military just supposed to say tough [censored] to the joe who gets assigned a gay roomie of the same sex but violently objects to same? Or should they also assign housing by sexual preference, in which case one gay man might object to being assigned with a certain other, when there really aren't any other available choices. And what of family housing? An unmarried gay guy supposed to get a house instead of a barracks billet with his significant other when same isn't offered (assuming still the case) to unmarried straights? This is a lot more complicated that you are making it out to be even aside from other problems. [/ QUOTE ] How is it any more complicated than if you substitute "black" for "gay" and 1950 for present day? [/ QUOTE ] Cause people were never afraid of black people wanting to sexually harass them? A lot of homophobia comes from sexist guys being afraid of other guys treating them the way that those sexist guys treat women.
|
|
#10
11-29-2007, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
Cause people were never afraid of black people wanting to sexually harass them? A lot of homophobia comes from sexist guys being afraid of other guys treating them the way that those sexist guys treat women. [/ QUOTE ] They might not have been scared of sexual harrassment, but I bet the "worst case scenario" back in 1950 seemed a lot worse - on both sides, BTW - than anything that would happen today. I don't think that repealing DADT would result in people getting killed; that was a legitimate concern in 1950. The armed forces did manage somehow, though. Also, women in the military had all these same problems *and* needed to get their own barracks, restrooms, etc. at the military's expense. Once again, they managed it with no loss of life or morale. What's the holdup?
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
