Should Our Military Have Scaled Brokeback Mountain?

[3rdnlng]

At least they gave you rounds for your rifle. When Clinton deployed me to Kuwait in 1993 as a measure to dissuade Saddam from re-invading, they didn't even issue us rounds.

 

Well, if you guys were with me I'd buy as many rounds as you needed. Seriously, as a vet who saw no action in a war zone, thanks for your service guys!

Edited March 20, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[Deranged Rhino]

You are very good at changing the narrative. You have pretty much zeroed in on gays and ignored transgenders. You want to make this about what you want to talk about rather than discuss the broader picture.

In this thread, absolutely. I refuse to talk seriously with you about this subject when your starting point is an article that isn't even an article. It's just fear mongering bull that offers nothing of substance.

 

This isn't hard to figure out. Start a real thread on the topic and I will happily discuss it with you. Start a thread with a jokey/homophobic headline and link a homophobic, mouth breathing ex boxer as your launching pad and I will wipe my ass with it before I'll waste any serious time debating the actual topic. Which is exactly what you should have done when you first read this article.

 

You want to argue with JiA over his response by stating he isn't presenting facts while he certainly did.

JiA has not provided facts to support his claim. He provided facts but has no idea what those facts mean -- as he's demonstrated in this thread he cannot even put the link he used into the proper context of his own argument. He made a statement that gays are "an unhealthy group" and thus shouldn't be allowed to serve. And to prove his point, his "facts" were an STD study from 2008. That doesn't prove gays are an unhealthy group no matter how badly JiA wishes it does, so how could it possibly support his thesis?

 

Answer: it can't. And JiA knows it. He didn't know it before, because he's not smart enough, but he realized it when I started asking follow up questions that he refuses to answer.

 

You are the one having the hissy fit here.

I am calm and collected and in no way having a hissy fit. Long sentences and big words may seem threatening at first glance, but I assure you there is no anger on this end. There is a complete lack of respect for JiA -- that is what you are detecting -- but that's not a hissy fit.

 

JiA made an ignorant and false claim with his OP in this thread and I am taking him to task for it. Why? Because in over a decade of posting on this site JiA has consistently made homophobic and racist slurs part of his "thing". I'm all for free speech, JiA should say whatever he wants -- but too many people on here let him slide for his hateful comments that bring down the entire discourse simply because he happens to align politically with the majority of folks on PPP. Worse, as the years have gone on and homophobia has become socially unacceptable, JiA has softened and claimed he doesn't hate gays.

 

Which is clearly a complete and utter lie. I can tolerate a lot. But the personality tri-fecta of being a bigot (check), dishonest (check), and ignorant (check) which JiA employs begs to be destroyed every time he makes a stupid, homophobic, or otherwise hurtful post. No one else here but for two or three other posters ever call him on his shite. That's why he thinks he can get away with it.

 

But I'm fair. Maybe I misunderstood his post which is why I asked him to defend it and explain it -- but he won't. Because he is a coward who will not even admit how hateful he is. If he would just admit it, I'd be more willing to let his comments slide without a response, but he has less balls in his sack than Lance Armstrong.

 

If you think intellectually thrashing someone as weak minded and feeble as JiA constitutes having a hissy fit, then I'd argue you're missing the point of PPP.

 

You have even accused me of taking sides with JiA when in fact I haven't taken a position on the content of either the article or what JiA has said.

I did not accuse you of anything. I feel like I have a pretty good bead on you, 3rd, and I don't lump you in with JiA nor did I mean to. What I asked was if you agreed with JiA's position and you didn't answer. . So, before you try to turn this all around, try answering the question (though, considering the rest of my post re your OP, I understand if you won't).

 

Based on the "facts" that JiA presented, a 2008 CDC report about STDs in the gay and bi-sexual community as evidence for why he would restrict ALL gays from serving in the military because they are "an unhealthy group". Forget the fact JiA doesn't understand the article he posted, nor does he have any understanding of statistics, his contention boils down to this logical fallacy:

 

BECAUSE SOME GAY MEN HAVE STDs, NO GAY MEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO SERVE.

 

I asked JiA if he believes there are any straight service men with STDs today, he answered yes. When I asked him if those straight soldiers with STDs should be forced to resign from active service, he equivocated. Wonder why that is...

 

 

Do you agree with JiA's thesis? I bet you don't. And yet, you're defending him.

 

Your arguments are actually based on your long held dislike for JiA and the author's penchant for not pussiefooting around. The question here is where, if at all, should the line be drawn? Another question would be,can you discuss it without taking on the Richard Simmons persona?

 

None of my posts in this thread, but for the ones where I specifically answered your questions, have had ANYTHING to do with the article or your thesis question. I understand how that could be confusing, and apologize, but I've been going after JiA's OP this whole time and not your OP. I do not respect the article or the way you are asking the question, and as such, I've ignored it throughout this thread because it's so ridiculous to me. If you want to have a conversation about gays in the military, I will. But not in this ridiculous thread.

 

And I've given my reasons why, several times now.

 

I thought it entertaining he searched my post history. I am getting followers? Does he have photos of me tacked up on his wall?

This is how stupid you are. You cannot even tell what my old handle was on here even though it's right in front of you.

 

God, you're dense.

[3rdnlng]

In this thread, absolutely. I refuse to talk seriously with you about this subject when your starting point is an article that isn't even an article. It's just fear mongering bull that offers nothing of substance.

 

This isn't hard to figure out. Start a real thread on the topic and I will happily discuss it with you. Start a thread with a jokey/homophobic headline and link a homophobic, mouth breathing ex boxer as your launching pad and I will wipe my ass with it before I'll waste any serious time debating the actual topic. Which is exactly what you should have done when you first read this article.

 

 

JiA has not provided facts to support his claim. He provided facts but has no idea what those facts mean -- as he's demonstrated in this thread he cannot even put the link he used into the proper context of his own argument. He made a statement that gays are "an unhealthy group" and thus shouldn't be allowed to serve. And to prove his point, his "facts" were an STD study from 2008. That doesn't prove gays are an unhealthy group no matter how badly JiA wishes it does, so how could it possibly support his thesis?

 

Answer: it can't. And JiA knows it. He didn't know it before, because he's not smart enough, but he realized it when I started asking follow up questions that he refuses to answer.

 

 

I am calm and collected and in no way having a hissy fit. Long sentences and big words may seem threatening at first glance, but I assure you there is no anger on this end. There is a complete lack of respect for JiA -- that is what you are detecting -- but that's not a hissy fit.

 

JiA made an ignorant and false claim with his OP in this thread and I am taking him to task for it. Why? Because in over a decade of posting on this site JiA has consistently made homophobic and racist slurs part of his "thing". I'm all for free speech, JiA should say whatever he wants -- but too many people on here let him slide for his hateful comments that bring down the entire discourse simply because he happens to align politically with the majority of folks on PPP. Worse, as the years have gone on and homophobia has become socially unacceptable, JiA has softened and claimed he doesn't hate gays.

 

Which is clearly a complete and utter lie. I can tolerate a lot. But the personality tri-fecta of being a bigot (check), dishonest (check), and ignorant (check) which JiA employs begs to be destroyed every time he makes a stupid, homophobic, or otherwise hurtful post. No one else here but for two or three other posters ever call him on his shite. That's why he thinks he can get away with it.

 

But I'm fair. Maybe I misunderstood his post which is why I asked him to defend it and explain it -- but he won't. Because he is a coward who will not even admit how hateful he is. If he would just admit it, I'd be more willing to let his comments slide without a response, but he has less balls in his sack than Lance Armstrong.

 

If you think intellectually thrashing someone as weak minded and feeble as JiA constitutes having a hissy fit, then I'd argue you're missing the point of PPP.

 

 

I did not accuse you of anything. I feel like I have a pretty good bead on you, 3rd, and I don't lump you in with JiA nor did I mean to. What I asked was if you agreed with JiA's position and you didn't answer. . So, before you try to turn this all around, try answering the question (though, considering the rest of my post re your OP, I understand if you won't).

 

Based on the "facts" that JiA presented, a 2008 CDC report about STDs in the gay and bi-sexual community as evidence for why he would restrict ALL gays from serving in the military because they are "an unhealthy group". Forget the fact JiA doesn't understand the article he posted, nor does he have any understanding of statistics, his contention boils down to this logical fallacy:

 

BECAUSE SOME GAY MEN HAVE STDs, NO GAY MEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO SERVE.

 

I asked JiA if he believes there are any straight service men with STDs today, he answered yes. When I asked him if those straight soldiers with STDs should be forced to resign from active service, he equivocated. Wonder why that is...

 

 

Do you agree with JiA's thesis? I bet you don't. And yet, you're defending him.

 

 

 

None of my posts in this thread, but for the ones where I specifically answered your questions, have had ANYTHING to do with the article or your thesis question. I understand how that could be confusing, and apologize, but I've been going after JiA's OP this whole time and not your OP. I do not respect the article or the way you are asking the question, and as such, I've ignored it throughout this thread because it's so ridiculous to me. If you want to have a conversation about gays in the military, I will. But not in this ridiculous thread.

 

And I've given my reasons why, several times now.

 

 

This is how stupid you are. You cannot even tell what my old handle was on here even though it's right in front of you.

 

God, you're dense.

 

Well, you appear to be the only person in this thread that doesn't want to talk about this thread's premise. You and JiA can attack each other and go at it back and forth but all that does is deprive the rest of us of your learned thoughts on where to draw the line. I especially wanted to hear your thoughts on transgenders in the military.

 

BTW, I defended JiA's right to have an opinion re part of the premise of this thread. I also commented that he had produced something to back up his opinion. I didn't judge the quality of his facts. You jumped all over JiA and ripped into my linked article and its author. You even admonished me for having a little fun with the title.

 

Do you remember a few years ago when you claimed hyperbole was a legitimate tool in an author's toolbox? Should not Matt Barber be allowed that same tool as say, yourself?

[Deranged Rhino]

Well, you appear to be the only person in this thread that doesn't want to talk about this thread's premise.

No one is talking about the thread's premise because the article you used to start it doesn't ask a question, it states an opinion.

 

You and JiA can attack each other and go at it back and forth but all that does is deprive the rest of us of your learned thoughts on where to draw the line. I especially wanted to hear your thoughts on transgenders in the military.

Great, start another thread with better source material for the discussion and I'll happily oblige. But discussing that here, in this thread, is not going to happen.

 

BTW, I defended JiA's right to have an opinion re part of the premise of this thread. I also commented that he had produced something to back up his opinion. I didn't judge the quality of his facts.

If we are arguing about Bush's administration (only using this as an example because you know my feelings on that subject and I know yours) and I threw out a ridiculous statement about Bush and then the facts I presented to back up my statement was vapid and irrelevant to my own point, you would absolutely jump all over me as would every other poster on here. And you'd be justified in doing so.

 

So you might not judge the quality of JiA's facts, but I think that's a double standard.

 

You jumped all over JiA and ripped into my linked article and its author.

I only ripped into your linked article when you asked me directly about it. Prior to that, I ignored it because I didn't want to get drawn into a debate about the article.

 

You even admonished me for having a little fun with the title.

The title alone without the article, okay. The title and the article together is just one thing too many. I resisted mentioning the title of the thread because I know you are just having fun with it -- but you pushed for reasons as to why I wouldn't engage, so I gave them to you.

 

Do you remember a few years ago when you claimed hyperbole was a legitimate tool in an author's toolbox? Should not Matt Barber be allowed that same tool as say, yourself?

 

It absolutely is a legitimate tool. And Barber can use it all he wishes. I have no problem with hyperbole as a literary device. I do have a problem when people use it to stroke the fires of hate and fear which is (in the best case scenario) the way Barber uses it in the article. But really, he's not using hyperbole, he's saying what he believes. And it's his right to do that.

 

But that doesn't mean I have to respect what he's saying or take him seriously. Articles like this don't further the discussion, they end the discussion. And if Barber cared to have an honest conversation about the topic, he wouldn't use the hateful phrases and words he did. He doesn't want to have a discussion, he wants gays to go back to being second class citizens.

 

It's bigotry of the worst kind.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Well, you appear to be the only person in this thread that doesn't want to talk about this thread's premise. You and JiA can attack each other and go at it back and forth but all that does is deprive the rest of us of your learned thoughts on where to draw the line. I especially wanted to hear your thoughts on transgenders in the military.

 

BTW, I defended JiA's right to have an opinion re part of the premise of this thread. I also commented that he had produced something to back up his opinion. I didn't judge the quality of his facts. You jumped all over JiA and ripped into my linked article and its author. You even admonished me for having a little fun with the title.

 

Do you remember a few years ago when you claimed hyperbole was a legitimate tool in an author's toolbox? Should not Matt Barber be allowed that same tool as say, yourself?

The thread's premise wasn't rejected. The article in the OP was. And quite frankly, Greg is winning this argument.

[Jauronimo]

Embarrassing.

[3rdnlng]

Maybe the veterans should speak up regarding where the line should be drawn?

 

From the article:

 

“A controversial ex-surgeon general, fired by President Bill Clinton after recommending children be taught how to masturbate (Joycelyn Elders), now has released a report advocating the incorporation of transgendered people into the U.S. military, and contending that a 40 percent attempted suicide rate and 43 percent burden of ‘additional psychiatric diagnoses’ constitute no reason to exclude them from America’s armed forces.”

 

As FRC’s Tony Perkins noted last year, “President Obama is finally admitting that sexual assault is a serious problem in the military – but what he hasn’t conceded is that his policy on homosexuality helped create it. According to a new Pentagon survey, most of the victims were not female (12,000 incidents), but male (14,000) – highlighting a growing trend of same-sex assault in our ranks.”

 

The report further suggests that “Taxpayers should provide ‘cross-sex hormone treatment,’ ‘medically necessary gender-confirming surgery’ and ‘continuity of care.’”

Where to begin.

So, under this objectively insane proposal, you and I – the American taxpayer – will be forced to underwrite, to the tune of tens-of-millions, the immoral, unethical and unconscionable cosmetic genital mutilation surgery of every sexually confused Tom, Dick and Harry who decides to enlist.

[3rdnlng]

The thread's premise wasn't rejected. The article in the OP was. And quite frankly, Greg is winning this argument.

 

Yes, Greg has convinced me that while he can rant and rave about JiA and the author's article, he's above posting in this thread where he thinks the line should be drawn re the LGBT incorporation into the military. If Greg is winning an argument then it's because he's changed the argument and I don't want to argue his argument.

[Jim in Anchorage]

In this thread, absolutely. I refuse to talk seriously with you about this subject when your starting point is an article that isn't even an article. It's just fear mongering bull that offers nothing of substance.

 

This isn't hard to figure out. Start a real thread on the topic and I will happily discuss it with you. Start a thread with a jokey/homophobic headline and link a homophobic, mouth breathing ex boxer as your launching pad and I will wipe my ass with it before I'll waste any serious time debating the actual topic. Which is exactly what you should have done when you first read this article.

 

 

JiA has not provided facts to support his claim. He provided facts but has no idea what those facts mean -- as he's demonstrated in this thread he cannot even put the link he used into the proper context of his own argument. He made a statement that gays are "an unhealthy group" and thus shouldn't be allowed to serve. And to prove his point, his "facts" were an STD study from 2008. That doesn't prove gays are an unhealthy group no matter how badly JiA wishes it does, so how could it possibly support his thesis?

 

Answer: it can't. And JiA knows it. He didn't know it before, because he's not smart enough, but he realized it when I started asking follow up questions that he refuses to answer.

 

 

I am calm and collected and in no way having a hissy fit. Long sentences and big words may seem threatening at first glance, but I assure you there is no anger on this end. There is a complete lack of respect for JiA -- that is what you are detecting -- but that's not a hissy fit.

 

JiA made an ignorant and false claim with his OP in this thread and I am taking him to task for it. Why? Because in over a decade of posting on this site JiA has consistently made homophobic and racist slurs part of his "thing". I'm all for free speech, JiA should say whatever he wants -- but too many people on here let him slide for his hateful comments that bring down the entire discourse simply because he happens to align politically with the majority of folks on PPP. Worse, as the years have gone on and homophobia has become socially unacceptable, JiA has softened and claimed he doesn't hate gays.

 

Which is clearly a complete and utter lie. I can tolerate a lot. But the personality tri-fecta of being a bigot (check), dishonest (check), and ignorant (check) which JiA employs begs to be destroyed every time he makes a stupid, homophobic, or otherwise hurtful post. No one else here but for two or three other posters ever call him on his shite. That's why he thinks he can get away with it.

 

But I'm fair. Maybe I misunderstood his post which is why I asked him to defend it and explain it -- but he won't. Because he is a coward who will not even admit how hateful he is. If he would just admit it, I'd be more willing to let his comments slide without a response, but he has less balls in his sack than Lance Armstrong.

 

If you think intellectually thrashing someone as weak minded and feeble as JiA constitutes having a hissy fit, then I'd argue you're missing the point of PPP.

 

 

I did not accuse you of anything. I feel like I have a pretty good bead on you, 3rd, and I don't lump you in with JiA nor did I mean to. What I asked was if you agreed with JiA's position and you didn't answer. . So, before you try to turn this all around, try answering the question (though, considering the rest of my post re your OP, I understand if you won't).

 

Based on the "facts" that JiA presented, a 2008 CDC report about STDs in the gay and bi-sexual community as evidence for why he would restrict ALL gays from serving in the military because they are "an unhealthy group". Forget the fact JiA doesn't understand the article he posted, nor does he have any understanding of statistics, his contention boils down to this logical fallacy:

 

BECAUSE SOME GAY MEN HAVE STDs, NO GAY MEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO SERVE.

 

I asked JiA if he believes there are any straight service men with STDs today, he answered yes. When I asked him if those straight soldiers with STDs should be forced to resign from active service, he equivocated. Wonder why that is...

 

 

Do you agree with JiA's thesis? I bet you don't. And yet, you're defending him.

 

 

 

None of my posts in this thread, but for the ones where I specifically answered your questions, have had ANYTHING to do with the article or your thesis question. I understand how that could be confusing, and apologize, but I've been going after JiA's OP this whole time and not your OP. I do not respect the article or the way you are asking the question, and as such, I've ignored it throughout this thread because it's so ridiculous to me. If you want to have a conversation about gays in the military, I will. But not in this ridiculous thread.

 

And I've given my reasons why, several times now.

 

 

This is how stupid you are. You cannot even tell what my old handle was on here even though it's right in front of you.

 

God, you're dense.

Wow. And I'm angry? Nice you can find "over a decade" of my racist posts since my join date is November 2008. And why the hell would I care what you're old handle was? I assume it was dickhead or something like that but whats that got to do with anything? Well I'm going to adapt you're debate style. You're stupid stupid stupid stupid. Worse than stupid. Hey that's easy. No wonder you do it.

[Deranged Rhino]

Wow. And I'm angry? Nice you can find "over a decade" of my racist posts since my join date is November 2008. And why the hell would I care what you're old handle was? I assume it was dickhead or something like that but whats that got to do with anything? Well I'm going to adapt you're debate style. You're stupid stupid stupid stupid. Worse than stupid. Hey that's easy. No wonder you do it.

All that, and you still don't have an answer? I've seen some people that are full of shiiiit before, but man you take the cake.

 

Edit to ask you again: Do you believe straight soldiers with STDs should be discharged from service?

Edited March 21, 2014 by GreggyT

[Jim in Anchorage]

All that, and you still don't have an answer? I've seen some people that are full of shiiiit before, but man you take the cake.

 

Edit to ask you again: Do you believe straight soldiers with STDs should be discharged from service?

No. Do I believe those with a life style that lends itself to disease should be let in? No. You know in that enlightened ivory tower you live in we should all " celebrate" gay life but all the military I talk to [a lot] are not happy with serving with open gays. And to me their opinion is worth 10000x what yours is.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

No. Do I believe those with a life style that lends itself to disease should be let in? No. You know in that enlightened ivory tower you live in we should all " celebrate" gay life but all the military I talk to [a lot] are not happy with serving with open gays. And to me their opinion is worth 10000x what yours is.

That's fantastically, and shamefully, logically inconsistent.

 

And I'll note that, at the time, they didn't want to serve with !@#$s either.

[3rdnlng]

That's fantastically, and shamefully, logically inconsistent.

 

And I'll note that, at the time, they didn't want to serve with !@#$s either.

 

What's your opinion on transgenders in the military?

[Jim in Anchorage]

That's fantastically, and shamefully, logically inconsistent.

 

And I'll note that, at the time, they didn't want to serve with !@#$s either.

I'll say the same thing to you I said to Gregg. I talk to real people, in military uniforms, active service every day and they don't want to be with open gays. Really doesn't matter what you find fantastic or shameful. These are the people that live with it.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I'll say the same thing to you I said to Gregg. I talk to real people, in military uniforms, active service every day and they don't want to be with open gays. Really doesn't matter what you find fantastic or shameful. These are the people that live with it.

Then !@#$ em'. They can resign their posts, and deal with the consequences.

 

 

 

What's your opinion on transgenders in the military?

If an individual is a good soldier, then I don't give a !@#$.

[3rdnlng]

Then !@#$ em'. They can resign their posts, and deal with the consequences.

 

 

If an individual is a good soldier, then I don't give a !@#$.

 

Were you ever in the military? People are rejected from joining the military for many reasons. Poor eyesight, height, various health and mental issues, blah, blah, blah.

Edited March 21, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[Deranged Rhino]

No.

Then, please explain to me how you justify excluding all gay men because some have STDs when you're willing to let straight men WITH STDs serve this very day? How can you rationalize that inherent contradiction without falling back on the fact that you just don't like gays?

 

I'm willing to listen.

 

Do I believe those with a life style that lends itself to disease should be let in? No.

And yet, the diseases you're objecting to are STDs. STDs are not just prone to gay men. And you've admitted you're fine with straight men with STDs standing a post -- just so long as they got their STDs the 'murcian way on putting his penis inside a vagina.

 

Do you see the problem with your argument? Do you see why it can come across as ignorant, homophobic rationalization of your own fear of "catching the gay" disease?

 

You know in that enlightened ivory tower you live in we should all " celebrate" gay life but all the military I talk to [a lot] are not happy with serving with open gays. And to me their opinion is worth 10000x what yours is.

I never said we should celebrate anything. I believe a person is not defined by their sexuality alone, just as they aren't defined by their race or religion alone. The only person I'm judging in this thread is you, whereas you are judging an entire segment of the population and calling it righteous. It's not shocking to me that you would associate with fellow minded bigots and homophobes. The lesser minds always run in packs.

 

And in my (extensive) experience working with, living with, and socializing with active military personnel, I can say without a doubt that your focus group is in the VAST minority of active military personnel. The majority feel the way ND described it in his post -- if they can shoot straight, who cares about the rest.

Edited March 21, 2014 by GreggyT

[3rdnlng]

Then, please explain to me how you justify excluding all gay men because some have STDs when you're willing to let straight men WITH STDs serve this very day? How can you rationalize that inherent contradiction without falling back on the fact that you just don't like gays?

 

I'm willing to listen.

 

 

And yet, the diseases you're objecting to are STDs. STDs are not just prone to gay men. And you've admitted you're fine with straight men with STDs standing a post -- just so long as they got their STDs the 'murcian way on putting his penis inside a vagina.

 

Do you see the problem with your argument? Do you see why it can come across as ignorant, homophobic rationalization of your own fear of "catching the gay" disease?

 

 

I never said we should celebrate anything. I believe a person is not defined by their sexuality alone, just as they aren't defined by their race or religion alone. The only person I'm judging in this thread is you, whereas you are judging an entire segment of the population and calling it righteous. It's not shocking to me that you would associate with fellow minded bigots and homophobes. The lesser minds always run in packs.

 

And in my (extensive) experience working with, living with, and socializing with active military personnel, I can say without a doubt that your focus group is in the VAST minority of active military personnel. The majority feel the way ND described it in his post -- if they can shoot straight, who cares about the rest.

 

So, how do you feel about transgenders in the military?

[Jim in Anchorage]

Then, please explain to me how you justify excluding all gay men because some have STDs when you're willing to let straight men WITH STDs serve this very day? How can you rationalize that inherent contradiction without falling back on the fact that you just don't like gays?

 

I'm willing to listen.

 

 

And yet, the diseases you're objecting to are STDs. STDs are not just prone to gay men. And you've admitted you're fine with straight men with STDs standing a post -- just so long as they got their STDs the 'murcian way on putting his penis inside a vagina.

 

Do you see the problem with your argument? Do you see why it can come across as ignorant, homophobic rationalization of your own fear of "catching the gay" disease?

 

 

I never said we should celebrate anything. I believe a person is not defined by their sexuality alone, just as they aren't defined by their race or religion alone. The only person I'm judging in this thread is you, whereas you are judging an entire segment of the population and calling it righteous. It's not shocking to me that you would associate with fellow minded bigots and homophobes. The lesser minds always run in packs.

 

And in my (extensive) experience working with, living with, and socializing with active military personnel, I can say without a doubt that your focus group is in the VAST minority of active military personnel. The majority feel the way ND described it in his post -- if they can shoot straight, who cares about the rest.

Maybe you could read all of ND's post, not just the first sentence, and get back to me.

[Deranged Rhino]

Maybe you could read all of ND's post, not just the first sentence, and get back to me.

Unlike you, I can read and understand what it is I'm reading. You are such a coward, man (nope, can't even call you a man. a man has the courage of his convictions). Just be a man and admit you hate gays and I'll leave you alone. Otherwise, you're just full of shiiit and everything you say is pretty much irrelevant by definition.

Edited March 21, 2014 by GreggyT

[Jim in Anchorage]

Unlike you, I can read and understand what it is I'm reading. You are such a coward, man (nope, can't even call you a man. a man has the courage of his convictions). Just be a man and admit you hate gays and I'll leave you alone. Otherwise, you're just full of shiiit and everything you say is pretty much irrelevant by definition.

Fine, OK I hate gays. Now will you get back on your medication? thioridazine I would imagine. You are one angry SOB.

[NDBUFFCUSEFAN]

I don't want to see equality brought to the military because all I care about is mission accomplishment and not dying. If a person is causing distractions I do not want them there, if this is caused by some members disagreeing about his lifestyle then I am sorry but GTFO. The gays I served with were "out" in a sense but they kept it to themselves and were both model Marines. The military is the last place to force this upon because it is life and death for the people on the frontline, politicians sitting on Capitol Hill for the most part have no idea what it is like to serve in these hell holes. As a leader the last thing I want to do is try to play Mr. PC so DC can have a circlejerk about how our military is super accepting of all lifestyles.

 

All I am saying is that military's job is to not emphasize getting along but to kill our enemies, if your lifestyle lowers the capability to complete the mission then there is an issue.

 

Thanks to all those who served as well and a WTF to the guy who couldn't get rounds in Kuwait. When I was in school after my service I met a Navy guy who was in Iraq the same time I was, he never carried a weapon, it blows me away that while we were doing our thing in Al Anbar there were places safe enough to not be armed, and we had to take a loaded rifle just to take a piss and couldn't go alone.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I don't want to see equality brought to the military because all I care about is mission accomplishment and not dying. If a person is causing distractions I do not want them there, if this is caused by some members disagreeing about his lifestyle then I am sorry but GTFO. The gays I served with were "out" in a sense but they kept it to themselves and were both model Marines. The military is the last place to force this upon because it is life and death for the people on the frontline, politicians sitting on Capitol Hill for the most part have no idea what it is like to serve in these hell holes. As a leader the last thing I want to do is try to play Mr. PC so DC can have a circlejerk about how our military is super accepting of all lifestyles.

 

All I am saying is that military's job is to not emphasize getting along but to kill our enemies, if your lifestyle lowers the capability to complete the mission then there is an issue.

 

Thanks to all those who served as well and a WTF to the guy who couldn't get rounds in Kuwait. When I was in school after my service I met a Navy guy who was in Iraq the same time I was, he never carried a weapon, it blows me away that while we were doing our thing in Al Anbar there were places safe enough to not be armed, and we had to take a loaded rifle just to take a piss and couldn't go alone.

 

I always assumed the lack of rounds was meant to be a sign of non provocation but considering you could see Iraqi positions from where I was based it was an uncomfortable feeling. I asked my CO what I was supposed to do if the Iraqis rolled out, "club them with my rifle butt?" Lol ah, the Clinton era military.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Were you ever in the military? People are rejected from joining the military for many reasons. Poor eyesight, height, various health and mental issues, blah, blah, blah.

Any military experience I have is irrelevant, and are you catagorizing homosexuality or transgenderment as a disease?

 

So far you've thrown out two logical fallacies, so if you don't have a better argument than that, stop making them.

 

There is nothing inherent about sexuality that prevents an individual from being a good soldier; and other soldiers bigotry or discomfort is not reason enough to exclude an otherwise capable and fit American from service. If the individuals they are serving with don't like it they can go AWOL, and take a dishonorable discharge.

[3rdnlng]

Any military experience I have is irrelevant, and are you catagorizing homosexuality or transgenderment as a disease?

 

So far you've thrown out two logical fallacies, so if you don't have a better argument than that, stop making them.

 

There is nothing inherent about sexuality that prevents an individual from being a good soldier; and other soldiers bigotry or discomfort is not reason enough to exclude an otherwise capable and fit American from service. If the individuals they are serving with don't like it they can go AWOL, and take a dishonorable discharge.

 

You sound like a bleeding heart liberal. Experience doesn't count. Practicality doesn't count. Purpose doesn't count. It would appear that the only thing that counts in your book is insuring that our military is part of some social engineering experiment. Up until now I haven't indicated where I stood on the issues of gays or transgenders in the military. I had hoped to moderate what I had expected to be a lively thread. I guess that is not happening, so I'll actually state where I stand. I am against transgenders in the military for the simple reason that I can't trust them to "have my back". (no pun intended) I don't want to be in a foxhole with someone who has a proclivity for suicide. As far as gays go, I'm undecided but concerned for the tremendous increase in sexual assault in the military. I need to know more.

 

Remember what the purpose of our military is. Anything that distracts from that is wrong.

Edited March 21, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[TakeYouToTasker]

You sound like a bleeding heart liberal. Experience doesn't count. Practicality doesn't count. Purpose doesn't count. It would appear that the only thing that counts in your book is insuring that our military is part of some social engineering experiment.

I'm not the one who sounds liberal here, you are. The conservative argument against activist government is that it doesn't treat all individuals equally. Further, the conservative argument is that individuals should be treated as individuals, rather than being marginalized by being thrust into a group-think catagory, which is exactly what you're doing.

 

Up until now I haven't indicated where I stood on the issues of gays or transgenders in the military. I had hoped to moderate what I had expected to be a lively thread. I guess that is not happening, so I'll actually state where I stand. I am against transgenders in the military for the simple reason that I can't trust them to "have my back". (no pun intended) I don't want to be in a foxhole with someone who has a proclivity for suicide.

Jesus Christ. Corrolation is not causation. Simply because a high percentage of transgendered individuals commit suicide does not mean that they are commiting suicide because they are transgendered.

 

As far as gays go, I'm undecided but concerned for the tremendous increase in sexual assault in the military. I need to know more.

Sexual assaults haven't increased tremendously. The reporting of sexual assaults has increased tremendously. It follows logically that having the fear of being discharged from service for being involved in homosexual activity removed would lead to an increase in the reporting of homosexual activity, even if that homosexual activity is sexual assault. By "decriminalizing" the activity the sunlight has exposed an existing problem.

 

Remember what the purpose of our military is. Anything that distracts from that is wrong.

More liberal tag lines there. The ends do not justify the means.

 

A similar argument was made about blacks serving, but that worked out just fine.

Edited March 21, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Azalin]

Further, the conservative argument is that individuals should be treated as individuals, rather than being marginalized by being thrust into a group-think catagory, which is exactly what you're doing.

 

isn't the goal of military training to supress individual tendencies in favor of a controlled, reactive response from all soldiers in like manner? maybe this isn't what you meant, but I would imagine that 'group think' is exactly what the military is looking to accomplish with the enlisted.

[Tiberius]

 

Remember what the purpose of our military is. Anything that distracts from that is wrong.

The younger generation really isn't much distracted by things that scare you. They are so much more tolerant than people use to be

 

isn't the goal of military training to supress individual tendencies in favor of a controlled, reactive response from all soldiers in like manner? maybe this isn't what you meant, but I would imagine that 'group think' is exactly what the military is looking to accomplish with the enlisted.

Yup, first thing we learned was team work and we all had our heads shaved and were put in ugly green uniforms, lol. Everyone was equal... blah!

[3rdnlng]

I'm not the one who sounds liberal here, you are. The conservative argument against activist government is that it doesn't treat all individuals equally. Further, the conservative argument is that individuals should be treated as individuals, rather than being marginalized by being thrust into a group-think catagory, which is exactly what you're doing.

 

 

Jesus Christ. Corrolation is not causation. Simply because a high percentage of transgendered individuals commit scuicide does not mean that they are commiting scuicide because they are transgendered.

 

 

Sexual assaults haven't increased tremendously. The reporting of sexual assaults has increased tremendously. It follows logically that having the fear of being discharged from service for being involved in homosexual activity removed would lead to an increase in the reporting of homosexual activity, even if that homosexual activity is sexual assault. By "decriminalizing" the activity the sunlight has exposed an existing problem.

 

 

More liberal tag lines there. The ends do not justify the means.

 

A similar argument was made about blacks serving, but that worked out just fine.

 

The military excludes people for a lot of reasons. Joining the military is not a "right". If a group of people have a high rate of suicide and an even higher rate of psychological problems then they should be excluded just like people who are too tall or too short. We ask a lot of our military. Doubting the person next to them in a battlefield situation shouldn't be one of them.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The military excludes people for a lot of reasons. Joining the military is not a "right". If a group of people have a high rate of suicide and an even higher rate of psychological problems then they should be excluded just like people who are too tall or too short. We ask a lot of our military. Doubting the person next to them in a battlefield situation shouldn't be one of them.

So you were against black American's being allowed to serve? The same exact argument was made then.

[3rdnlng]

So you were against black American's being allowed to serve? The same exact argument was made then.

 

That's plain horseshit and you know it. Blacks have served admirably in our military since the Civil War. Quit trying to muddy the waters. We're talking about a group of people with a near 50/50 chance of a mental disease and a proclivity for suicide serving in possible combat situations alongside others. I know I for one, wouldn't be as confident with Klinger covering my flank. It would be interesting to see what the active military and vets have to say on this subject. Before you say it doesn't matter, consider that it is/was their lives at stake.

[TakeYouToTasker]

That's plain horseshit and you know it. Blacks have served admirably in our military since the Civil War. Quit trying to muddy the waters. We're talking about a group of people with a near 50/50 chance of a mental disease and a proclivity for suicide serving in possible combat situations alongside others. I know I for one, wouldn't be as confident with Klinger covering my flank. It would be interesting to see what the active military and vets have to say on this subject. Before you say it doesn't matter, consider that it is/was their lives at stake.

I'd imagine that transgendered individuals have served admirably in our military as well, and likely further back than the Civil War. And you know well that I'm speaking about the intergration of black Americans into general units rather than segregated units, where the exact same arguments against were made.

 

And again, corrolation is not causation. Just because a larger percentage of transgendered individuals have commited suicide does not mean they commited suicide because they were transgendered. You'll have to prove to me otherwise, unless you want your argument on these lines dismissed for the exact same reason HIGW gets dismissed.

 

And I'm not at all concerned with what active military or veterans think. Their opinion doesn't matter any more than anyone else's. That you're introducing that to the argument just adds to your stack of logical fallacies (this most recent being an appeal to authority), making it a trifecta.

Edited March 21, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

I'd imagine that transgendered individuals have served admirably in our military as well, and likely further back than the Civil War. And you know well that I'm speaking about the intergration of black Americans into general units rather than segregated units, where the exact same arguments against were made.

 

Why do you keep trying to relate transgendered individuals with blacks? They are apples and oranges.

 

And again, corrolation is not causation. Just because a larger percentage of transgendered individuals have commited suicide does not mean they commited suicide because they were transgendered. You'll have to prove to me otherwise, unless you want your argument on these lines dismissed for the exact same reason HIGW gets dismissed.

 

They may have committed suicide because they are conflicted about their sexuality and thus had their lopodichtomy or they may not have had any surgery. Regardless, it's a dangerous group to be around.

 

And I'm not at all concerned with what active military or veterans think. Their opinion doesn't matter any more than anyone else's. That you're introducing that to the argument just adds to your stack of logical fallacies (this most recent being an appeal to authority), making it a trifecta.

 

You'd better care what they think. We've asked them to put their lives on the line for us, not be a part of some social engineering project.

 

 

 

 

Your absolute thinking may make you think you are being admirable, but it isn't practical. It's sort of like when you stated that since Romney wasn't a true libertarian you were going to vote for Obama because you didn't have a true libertarian to vote for.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Why do you keep trying to relate transgendered individuals with blacks? They are apples and oranges.

I'm doing it because the exact same argument was made, and since I'm comparing arguments against service, it's an exact apples to apples comparison. You may not like it, but I have documented history on my side.

 

They may have committed suicide because they are conflicted about their sexuality and thus had their lopodichtomy or they may not have had any surgery. Regardless, it's a dangerous group to be around.

I have highlighted the key word of you statement. It's inclusion is an admission that you're approaching your decision from a place not based in known facts or knowledge, but rather from feelings. Stop trying to feel your way through difficult problems. As I said, show me proof of causation rather that corrolation, and your argument then becomes a a strong one, until that time, it's no different that HIGW.

 

You'd better care what they think. We've asked them to put their lives on the line for us, not be a part of some social engineering project.

Horse ****. We've asked them to do nothing. They've volunteered for service, and they've volunteered to protect equal access to government for all of America's citizens. I'm grateful for what they've vonunteered to do, but that doesn't mean they get to make the rules, or do away with equality under their government because they think something is icky. Further, anyone who takes that stance is anti-heroic, in my eyes, and our military is better off without them.

 

Your absolute thinking may make you think you are being admirable, but it isn't practical. It's sort of like when you stated that since Romney wasn't a true libertarian you were going to vote for Obama because you didn't have a true libertarian to vote for.

Right, right... your new stance is that logic isn't practical.

 

You've doubled down by saying that I should feel obligated to engage in your false choice argument, and vote for your candidate, even though he doesn't represent me; rather than protesting the behavior of the less liberal of the two liberal parties, and working to force them to elect candidates I feel represent me.

 

Did you bump your head this morning?

[3rdnlng]

I'm doing it because the exact same argument was made, and since I'm comparing arguments against service, it's an exact apples to apples comparison. You may not like it, but I have documented history on my side.

 

 

I have highlighted the key word of you statement. It's inclusion is an admission that you're approaching your decision from a place not based in known facts or knowledge, but rather from feelings. Stop trying to feel your way through difficult problems. As I said, show me proof of causation rather that corrolation, and your argument then becomes a a strong one, until that time, it's no different that HIGW.

 

 

Horse ****. We've asked them to do nothing. They've volunteered for service, and they've volunteered to protect equal access to government for all of America's citizens. I'm grateful for what they've vonunteered to do, but that doesn't mean they get to make the rules, or do away with equality under their government because they think something is icky. Further, anyone who takes that stance is anti-heroic, in my eyes, and our military is better off without them.

 

 

Right, right... your new stance is that logic isn't practical.

 

You've doubled down by saying that I should feel obligated to engage in your false choice argument, and vote for your candidate, even though he doesn't represent me; rather than protesting the behavior of the less liberal of the two liberal parties, and working to force them to elect candidates I feel represent me.

 

Did you bump your head this morning?

 

Did blacks have a near 50/50 chance of attempting suicide?

 

Would you agree that people who attempt suicide have mental problems and that there is a correlation between transgenderism and suicide? That the mental problem's caused the suicide? That transgenderism is a good place to look for people with mental problems?

 

It isn't about other servicemen feeling that transgenders are "icky" but that their high degree of suicide attempts put their fellow servicemen at risk. I've mentioned this several times but you prefer to ignore that and make it about "icky".

 

I don't want to hijack my own thread, but would you rather have Romney or Obama sitting in the Oval Office today?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Did blacks have a near 50/50 chance of attempting suicide?

I'm sure that many individual black Americans had an even greater chance than that, just as I'm sure that many individual transgendered Americans have a zero percent chance of commiting suicide. Stop group-thinking.

 

Would you agree that people who attempt suicide have mental problems

As a blanket statement, no; though I would think it likely that a higher percentage of those individuals who have commited suicide had mental problems than those who have not commited suicide.

 

and that there is a correlation between transgenderism and suicide?

Again, corrolation is not causation. Again, HIGW.

 

That the mental problem's caused the suicide?

Unknowable leap of faith.

 

That transgenderism is a good place to look for people with mental problems?

If that's a concern, look, and screen; but you've shown no data demonstrating this.

 

It isn't about other servicemen feeling that transgenders are "icky" but that their high degree of suicide attempts put their fellow servicemen at risk. I've mentioned this several times but you prefer to ignore that and make it about "icky".

Individuals commit suicide, groups do not. I say "icky" because the larger argument against homosexuals serving openly has been about it making staright service members uncomfortable.

 

I don't want to hijack my own thread, but would you rather have Romney or Obama sitting in the Oval Office today?

Again, this is a false choice argument. What I want are candidates that represent me, and Republicans will not get my vote unless they give me one. I could care less about your candidate, I want my candidate; and libertarians like myself will work to make sure that you are stuck with the Obama's of the world until you give us one. The question, in my mind, is would you rather have President Obama, or a candidate I could support?

[3rdnlng]

I'm sure that many individual black Americans had an even greater chance than that, just as I'm sure that many individual transgendered Americans have a zero percent chance of commiting suicide. Stop group-thinking.

 

 

As a blanket statement, no; though I would think it likely that a higher percentage of those individuals who have commited suicide had mental problems than those who have not commited suicide.

 

 

Again, corrolation is not causation. Again, HIGW.

 

 

Unknowable leap of faith.

 

 

If that's a concern, look, and screen; but you've shown no data demonstrating this.

 

 

Individuals commit suicide, groups do not. I say "icky" because the larger argument against homosexuals serving openly has been about it making staright service members uncomfortable.

 

 

Again, this is a false choice argument. What I want are candidates that represent me, and Republicans will not get my vote unless they give me one. I could care less about your candidate, I want my candidate; and libertarians like myself will work to make sure that you are stuck with the Obama's of the world until you give us one. The question, in my mind, is would you rather have President Obama, or a candidate I could support?

 

I would say that there is a causation between mental problems and suicide. Can there be exceptions? I suppose so. I would also say that there is a correlation between transgenders and mental problems. While transgenderism didn't cause the suicide the mental problems that caused the transgenderism was the causation of the suicide. I have shown that 40% of transgenders have attempted suicide. An even higher percentage have mental problems. I don't think we should expect the average serviceman to go into combat with someone who has a good chance of having mental problems.

Edited March 21, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[DC Tom]

I would say that there is a causation between mental problems and suicide.

 

Very few psychologists would disagree. The incidence of mental illness in attempted or successful suicide is somewhere between 95-100%, depending on the study you choose to read.

 

It shouldn't even be a topic for debate.

 

And the military's still free to discriminate against the mentally ill. Most people and organizations are, in fact, no matter what the ADA says.

[GG]

Very few psychologists would disagree. The incidence of mental illness in attempted or successful suicide is somewhere between 95-100%, depending on the study you choose to read.

 

It shouldn't even be a topic for debate.

 

And the military's still free to discriminate against the mentally ill. Most people and organizations are, in fact, no matter what the ADA says.

 

But are the mental problems caused by being LGTB or the other way around?

 

Gay baiting aside, the debate is not about societal norms of greater acceptance of LGB. The real debate should be whether the military is altering recruiting standards to have a more diverse participation. In that sense, is it fair to treat LGBT as a separate gender and have a similar discussion as to allowing women in combat. T Allowing more women in the military has certainly raised the number of reported sexual assault incidents, but that should not have been a surprise to anyone who thought that putting 18-22 year old is close quarters wouldn't spark sexual impulses in humans. The military is the epitome of the boys club. It should discriminate. But it should discriminate on a consistent standard of physical and mental toughness. If you can pass the physical and mental tests, then your gender and sexual orientation shouldn't matter.

[3rdnlng]

But are the mental problems caused by being LGTB or the other way around?

 

Gay baiting aside, the debate is not about societal norms of greater acceptance of LGB. The real debate should be whether the military is altering recruiting standards to have a more diverse participation. In that sense, is it fair to treat LGBT as a separate gender and have a similar discussion as to allowing women in combat. T Allowing more women in the military has certainly raised the number of reported sexual assault incidents, but that should not have been a surprise to anyone who thought that putting 18-22 year old is close quarters wouldn't spark sexual impulses in humans. The military is the epitome of the boys club. It should discriminate. But it should discriminate on a consistent standard of physical and mental toughness. If you can pass the physical and mental tests, then your gender and sexual orientation shouldn't matter.

 

Where do you house Private Klinger who still has his dick but identifies as a woman?

 

There have been many more sexual assault complaints over the last few years. Assaults against males are more common place than against females.