TeletubbyPrince wrote:got tonkaed wrote: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.
Frigidus wrote:spurgistan wrote:TeletubbyPrince wrote:got tonkaed wrote: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.
TeletubbyPrince wrote: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.
TeletubbyPrince wrote: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.
TeletubbyPrince wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote: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.
TeletubbyPrince wrote:Timminz wrote: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.
Timminz wrote:TeletubbyPrince wrote:Timminz wrote: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.
Burrito wrote: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".
SultanOfSurreal wrote:Burrito wrote: 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.
Burrito wrote:Skittles! wrote:Burrito wrote: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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.