Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[Timminz]

You still haven't answered snorri's question about how, exactly, what I wrote could be considered anecdotal.

You'd save me the trouble if you'd look in a dictionary...

And you would save yourself future embarrassment by doing the same.

I'm not looking for a definition. You obviously would be the wrong person to ask, if I were. I was simply wondering where you were seeing an anecdote, of any sort, in my earlier post.

Strawman argument: I never said you made an anecdote I said you were using anecdotal evidence

Comprehension fail.

I don't know why, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were referring to the, "there is doubt about its veracity" sense of the term. If that's the case, then you have just entirely debunked everything you have claimed so far in this thread.

Well done.

[Snorri1234]

Hey snorri, mind telling me exactly what is wrong with this instead of just blowing it off? You are in essence saying that you don't like what I'm saying, so you are ignoring it.

No I am actually saying that your post is so mindboggingly backwards in it's ideas about others that I simply see no point in responding to it. Your thoughts about homosexuality and race are simply retarded.

Right, so you are ignoring my post because you don't like what it says. That makes you a douche. I don't like much that you say, yet I still argue with you about it. Not everyone in the world will agree with you, and if you start/join a discussion about it, then say that the other viewpoint is "simply retarded" makes you a douchebag.

I am not saying you're simply in disagreement. Your views are actually retarded. They're not backed by evidence or experience or reason, and I can not attack them on those grounds. If you think I would ignore someone simply because I don't like what they say then you've obviously never read a thread on these forums.

[TeletubbyPrince]

you were referring to the, "there is doubt about its veracity" sense of the term.

Anecdotal evidence - evidence you drew from first hand accounts. I don't know what the hell you're talking about, but it's wrong.

Allow me to explain:
You're entire argument is that I haven't witnessed true gay people, or something. This is critisizing my lack of anecdotal evidence and it's implying that you're basing your argument on anecdotal evidence. Unless you can produce some graphs saying "only 1% of gays are flamboyant" you're simply going by your own first hand experience. That's no ground to base your argument on, so kindly stfu.

EDIT: Oh and I just checked to see where the hell you got your 'definition' of the word from, and apparantly it was wikipedia I SAID LOOK IN A DICTIONARY

[Simon Viavant]

Lol the irony

"gay people are flamboyant"

"no, flamboyant gay people don't join the military"

"ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE!!!!!!! YOU'RE RETARDED!!!!!!"

[Timminz]

You're entire argument is that I haven't witnessed true gay people, or something.

The bolded part is correct. My entire argument is something other than that. If you ask nicely, I might repeat it for you.

[TeletubbyPrince]

You're entire argument is that I haven't witnessed true gay people, or something.

The bolded part is correct. My entire argument is something other than that. If you ask nicely, I might repeat it for you.

The flamboyant ones tend not to be the ones joining the military.

Unless you can prove this, it's either pulled out of your ass or anecdotal.

I'll take that as your admission to having no real-world experience with gay people,

Here you critisize my lack of anecdotal evidence.

----------------------------------------------

Other than that, you haven't provided any counter "arguments"

[hecter]

You're entire argument is that I haven't witnessed true gay people, or something.

The bolded part is correct. My entire argument is something other than that. If you ask nicely, I might repeat it for you.

The flamboyant ones tend not to be the ones joining the military.

Unless you can prove this, it's either pulled out of your ass or anecdotal.

You're the one claiming that all gays are flamboyant. In actuality, I've never seen a flamboyant gay outside of a gay pride festival. So, I sense that you might be makings things up. Could you, perhaps, back up your claim that "all/most gays are flamboyant" with some facts and figures? If you can't, I'll assume you're just spewing bullshit, in which case your arguments have little merit.

[SultanOfSurreal]

hey how much do you weigh, 250 pounds? 300?

350?

6'2 and I weighed 180 last time I checked (which was a very long time ago). If you're trying to make a personal attack, you'll find that you're making it in an entirely wrong way, as I am incredibly handsome in appearance. That combined with my wit and sass makes me very savvy with the ladies (no guys for me)

lollllll

is it possible for you to be any more cripplingly insecure? evidence points to no

[Burrito]

What really makes a black man different from a white one? Skin tone? Definitely. Diction? Perhaps for some. Shared cultural past? Maybe. Living in a ghetto? Not every black family is poor. Jail time? That is an arguable point, although that me be more because of situation over predisposition. The only real difference here is that their skin is a different color, their hair grows differently, they sometimes talk and dress funny. There is nothing there to preclude them from working/living in close proximity with other races, or even producing a family with other races.

Now gay men on the other hand are wildly varying. The come from all walks of life, from all over the country, all leading very different lives. The only thing that ties them together is their wish to have sexual intercourse with other. Now this fundamental aspect is what separates them from normal men. This is the problem that many have with them solely because of this. They may be great people in other ways, or they may be terrible ones. But they do something that many view as immoral, unnatural, or just plain wrong. Because of this, a majority of men will at least dislike/mistrust gay men, based on this one fundamental aspect of their existence. There is nothing to get over, no stereotypes to overcome, no acceptance for this. The difference here is not a purely aesthetic one, or a perceived one. They are different on a level similar to how extreme liberals and conservatives are different. Sure, they are both human beings, but their beliefs are polar opposites, precluding any real dialogue between the two. The same is true for black integration and gay integration. Sure, they have both been discriminated against, but for entirely different reasons.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't support government saying whether or not you can have sex with whoever you want, as long as your partner(s) are consenting. I think that they are to involved with trying to make everyone treat everyone equally, which really just fosters more hate. If you want to get screwed from behind, go ahead. I won't like it, I will look down on you with disgust, but I won't try to get the government involved in making you stop. I disagree with what you are doing, but I accept that as long as no one gets hurt, then I have no right to stop you. That said, I oppose gays integration into the military for the same reasons that I previously stated. They would not get integrate smoothly with the rest of the men in the service because of this fundamental aspect of their differences with normal human society. there would be nothing to get over, no perceptions to change. They are simply different on a way no straight man can relate to.

Lets see-

First paragraph- Is there anything else that separates them from other races? Are you saying that their skin is no a different color, or that their hair doesn't grow different? I made the point that there is nothing other than aesthetic differences, as well as a few mannerisms that make black people different from white ones. Are you disagreeing with that?

Second paragraph- The common tie between gays is that they like members of the same sex. Am I wrong in saying that? Many people's argument against gays is that they view homosexuals as wrong/immoral, just as you probably view murder as wrong/immoral.
Elaboration- Yes, gays and blacks have both been discriminated against. However, gays have been discriminated against because they are viewed as immoral, because others are uncomfortable being around something that they view as an abomination. Blacks have been discriminated against for many reasons, not the least of which has been because they are seen as inferior to other races by some. There may have been a few who viewed blacks existence as somehow morally wrong, but the majority of discrimination came from other sources. Are you disagreeing with any of that?

Third paragraph- Republican/Libertarian views. Are you saying that these are simply retarded? My personal opinion. I don't like gays ( at least not guys or ugly girls. Hot lesbians are allright in my book ). And last, my opinion on why they shouldn't be allowed into the military, which this entire thread is about. MOST normal men (and women) would be extremely uncomfortable constantly living in close proximity to someone who is openly gay. This is less of a problem if they are still in the closet, because if others don't know, then they won't fell uncomfortable around that person. I'm not saying that gays shouldn't be allowed into the military (as long as they serve their country well), but I do think that allowing them to be open about will cause nothing but problems, as it is a fundamental aspect of who gays are that makes others dislike them, not a perceived difference in intelligence/ability/capability. Opinion- If you don't like it, then argue against it, tell me why you think it is wrong. Don't just say that I am retarded and ignore my arguments.

Now, what exactly in there is "simply retarded"?

[SultanOfSurreal]

I don't like gays ( at least not guys or ugly girls. Hot lesbians are allright in my book ).

you're a bad person

no joking, no elaboration. just straight up -- you are a waste of air and other resources. fucking shoot yourself already, you dumb piece of filth

[notyou2]

I'm pretty sure Tele is jimbob from North Dakota that learnt sum book smartz

[Burrito]

I don't like gays ( at least not guys or ugly girls. Hot lesbians are allright in my book ).

you're a bad person

no joking, no elaboration. just straight up -- you are a waste of air and other resources. fucking shoot yourself already, you dumb piece of filth

You see Snorri, this is an example of something that is "simply retarded"

[TeletubbyPrince]

[Mod Edit]Removed Bigoted Comments[/Mod Edit]

[SultanOfSurreal]

I don't like gays ( at least not guys or ugly girls. Hot lesbians are allright in my book ).

you're a bad person

no joking, no elaboration. just straight up -- you are a waste of air and other resources. fucking shoot yourself already, you dumb piece of filth

You see Snorri, this is an example of something that is "simply retarded"

haha, good one! but seriously though you are scum

[Burrito]

[Mod Edit]Removed Bigoted Comments[/Mod Edit]

Thank you Teletubby. I define blacks, as it relates to America, as those who have black skin. It is an arguable point that blacks are inferior to other races, but I didn't want to open up that argument in this forum. if you wish to discuss it further, please fell free to open up another thread about it. yes, this was a tangent, because one of the people arguing against my viewpoint said that not integrating those whom are openly gay likened it to not integrating those whom are black (by my previous definition). Yet, I still doubt that he would agree, or he would tell us that we are homophobes for not felling perfectly at ease with someone who likes taking it instead of giving it.

[Skittles!]

It is an arguable point that blacks are inferior to other races

lolwut?

[Burrito]

It is an arguable point that blacks are inferior to other races

lolwut?

I didn't say it was right, I didn't say that it was true, I didn't even try to start a discussion about it. However, it is a point that could be argued.

[Woodruff]

Ive read primarily what woodruff has posted and the some of the initial stuff and its quite clear he is flooding the thread with logic and common sense.

More like opinions and liberal propoganda.
A gay guy would cause discomfort for his comrades, end of story.

Who CARES if they cause discomfort? Are you seriously saying that the U.S. military is so pathetic and weak that they don't have the personal discipline to withstand a little discomfort when it increases the capabilities of the military by a significant amount? In all honestly, you are seriously insulting the membership of the U.S. military, end of story. Having served for 23 years myself, I feel confident in saying that your statement is utter hogwash.

Ive read primarily what woodruff has posted and the some of the initial stuff and its quite clear he is flooding the thread with logic and common sense.

More like opinions and liberal propoganda.

A gay guy would cause discomfort for his comrades, end of story.

Oh. Somebody should tell the actual members of the military here (like woodruff) that that's the case, they obviously aren't aware.

Nah, he's one of those Dems.

There's really no reason for you to insult me.

Anyways, this argument is way too serious. Companies don't have to tolerate flamboyantly gay behaviour, so the military shouldn't have to either. You can make the argument that not all gays are flamboyant, however you have to ask yourself how their sexuality would even come into question under those circumstances. It's better to have a broad policy that works, than to leave the judgement of "who's overly flamboyant" in the hands of potentially biased iindividuals.

If we actually had "a broad policy that works", I might even agree with you. The fact of the matter is that we don't - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" fails. It does no good for ANYONE, homosexual or not.

Anecdotal evidence. This is the problem with the debate; the gay side can only bring up flimsy arguments like this, while the non-gay side can actually support themselves with logic.

I wish someone on the anti-gay-in-the-military side would start doing so, then...because so far, I haven't seen it.

Though I find it funny that some random Canadian teenager is saying how people in the US armed forces would feel uncomfortable with gays and lesbians serving in the services openly, despite proofs against his arguments. Though, this does lead me to ask, Canadians, do gays and lesbians serve openly in the Canadian military forces?

I find it funny that the only proofs against my argument are anecdotal accounts from ANOTHER Canadian.

I am QUITE certain that I am not Canadian.

The flamboyant ones tend not to be the ones joining the military.

Unless you can prove this, it's either pulled out of your ass or anecdotal.

It's not that they won't join...it's that they would join and NO LONGER BE FLAMBOYANT OR THEY'D FACE THE PUNISHMENT OF SUCH ACTIONS. In other words, they would use self-discipline, like most heterosexual members of the military do.

I'm not looking for a definition. You obviously would be the wrong person to ask, if I were. I was simply wondering where you were seeing an anecdote, of any sort, in my earlier post.

Strawman argument: I never said you made an anecdote I said you were using anecdotal evidence

Comprehension fail.
I don't know why, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were referring to the, "there is doubt about its veracity" sense of the term. If that's the case, then you have just entirely debunked everything you have claimed so far in this thread.
Well done.

Dude...don't give benefits of the doubt to trolls...they don't deserve it.

MOST normal men (and women) would be extremely uncomfortable constantly living in close proximity to someone who is openly gay. This is less of a problem if they are still in the closet, because if others don't know, then they won't fell uncomfortable around that person.

I would disagree entirely with this. MOST normal men (and women) would feel MORE uncomfortable NOT KNOWING (in other words...having to "wonder if they are gay"). If I KNOW, then I know where I stand...that LEADS to being comfortable. It's just like having a boss who is so direct that they're an asshole. Sure they're an asshole, but you always know where you stand with them. You never have to "wonder".

I don't like gays ( at least not guys or ugly girls. Hot lesbians are allright in my book ).

you're a bad person
no joking, no elaboration. just straight up -- you are a waste of air and other resources. fucking shoot yourself already, you dumb piece of filth

As usual, SultanOfSurreal is unable to contain his complete sense of proportion and perspective. I'm just glad he's so willing to use it to make his arguments look good and to show how articulate his side of a discussion is. It's really a brilliant bit of craftsmanship. I am so utterly pleased to be lumped in with him so often in these arguments (because unfortunately, I happen to agree with viewpoints). Yes, I'm being thoroughly sarcastic.

It is an arguable point that blacks are inferior to other races

lolwut?

I didn't say it was right, I didn't say that it was true, I didn't even try to start a discussion about it. However, it is a point that could be argued.

No...it really can't be. Well, at least not with even a modicum of logic and experience included.

[spurgistan]

It is an arguable point that blacks are inferior to other races

lolwut?

I didn't say it was right, I didn't say that it was true, I didn't even try to start a discussion about it. However, it is a point that could be argued.

No. The inferiority of one race to another cannot be debated.

[TeletubbyPrince]

It is an arguable point that blacks are inferior to other races

lolwut?

I didn't say it was right, I didn't say that it was true, I didn't even try to start a discussion about it. However, it is a point that could be argued.

No. The inferiority of one race to another cannot be debated.

Then why are you trying to start a debate about it? Give it a rest

[john9blue]

No. The inferiority of one race to another cannot be debated.

Why is that? What is it about that topic that brings it outside the realm of discussion? Genuine question...

[jonesthecurl]

MOST normal men (and women) would be extremely uncomfortable constantly living in close proximity to someone who is openly gay.

I wouldn't, and wasn't. Someone wanna set up a poll?

[GabonX]

No. The inferiority of one race to another cannot be debated.

Why is that? What is it about that topic that brings it outside the realm of discussion? Genuine question...

The implications of such a discussion are too upsetting to too many people.

Say something demeaning about the members of a race in the context of race, and you offend everyone of that race. The hurtfulness is not limited to the number of people that it actually applies to.

Positive or negative, racial trends are not absolute.

[BigBallinStalin]

MOST normal men (and women) would be extremely uncomfortable constantly living in close proximity to someone who is openly gay.

I wouldn't, and wasn't. Someone wanna set up a poll?

...to lock the thread?

[GabonX]

ALRIGHT, so I'm a long-winded bastard...but if you're seriously interested in discussion of this thread, then read my responses below. Or talk less while I'm at work! <grin>

Say what you will about the don't ask don't tell debate, but the comparison between the civil rights movement regarding African Americans and the debate regarding homosexuals today is invalid.
One thing regards racial characteristics and the other a behavior. Unless you would assert that race is defined by behavior the comparison does not stand.

No sir, I disagree entirely...not only is the comparison VERY valid...frankly, the situations are almost IDENTICAL.

They would be, accept that race and behavior are two different things. Race is inherited while homosexuality, like all sexuality, is largely psychological. It's more akin to PST than race.

We have come to the point as a society where we don't consider homosexuality to be dehabilitative or even a disorder, but to claim that a behavior or lifestyle is the same as inherited genetics makes little sense.

Honestly homosexuality doesn't bother me. I think that they should be allowed to serve in the military and even have relationships (so long as they are not with others in the military).

Why not? Hetersexuals can be married to someone else in the military (though it's very hard on the marriage, because they won't guarantee common assignments).

Just for my own clarification, they can be married, but they have to be under different chain of command..correct?

A person should not be kicked out if they are "found out". Rather they should only be kicked out if they flaunt their sexuality openly.

I don't even mind them "flaunting", so long as they're not disrespecting my right not to be pressured by them. Hold hands...kiss...(not in uniform though, as that's against the regs)...even come on to me but respect my right to refuse. I may look away because it makes me uncomfortable, but it doesn't in any way make you "unable to serve as a professional".

There is some merit to the argument of unit cohesion. Why separate genders in shower and changing rooms if they're going to allow people ho are openly gay into them?

Also, if a person were to come on to you, wouldn't this be frowned upon as fraternization of something like that?

Part of this may be coming from my lack of understanding regarding military policy regarding these issues...

With that said, if people see this sort of thing in a public setting it is offensive as they (and potentially their children) are being subjected to an extreme form of homosexual perversion.

That isn't homosexual perversion...it's just the same thing as it is when a heterosexual wears a speedo (outside of a swim competition)...it's just plain ugly as hell.

Context is very relevant. Seeing a man at a swimming pool or at the beach in a speedo is different than seeing them with wigs and licking their lips at each other.

The attire is in one case specific to the situation while in the other it is a public display of wanting lust...