Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Black guys should keep their blackness to themselves too.

What about black puppets?

Get reupholstered.

Oh is afganistan not a war aestu? i must have missheard everything over the entire last near-decade.


"Troops are deployed in combat on a large scale" - substitute that for war in my post, and then reply.

Never did I say I didn't understand your post. You assumed that because you're an asshat with a superiority complex. I said your logic is stupid, and it is. You don't need to be omniscient, as you imply, in order to make a generalization. That's why it's a fucking generalization. If a man joins the military for the sole purpose of getting dick, he's the exception, not the rule-- and it is certainly not significant enough to invalidate Dek's generalization that gay soldiers enlist to serve the country, not get some ass. When that reverses you can go to town.

p.s. nice attacking my avatar you're a pretty tough guy.

Akiina - Priest - Royal Militia
Leeloo Minai Lekarariba-Laminai-Tchai Ekbat De Sebat

There's no worse feeling than that millisecond you're sure you are going to die after leaning your chair back a little too far.

Biggest non-issue ever. Should be overturned, probably won't be.

The current framework has worked and since before I left the military. It's not perfect, but it is better than the proposed alternative.

Being gay in no way equates with being black. Black people can't help being black, they're born that way. A sexual preference isn't the same as racial identity, and I know a few black guys who really don't like the analogy. Maybe if gay people had been forced to pick cotton and tobacco for free for a few hundred years, they'd let it slide. If you want to make arguments that it's wrong to discriminate against homosexuals, do so, but don't try to tie it to racism, because it's not the same thing despite any relation you draw between the two.

The parts of the report they're using to justify making this change now point to non-combat troops being apathetic about such a change at worst. However, the same report shows that roughly 60% of combat troops, particularly marines, oppose such a change. The big difference there, and I speak from experience here, is that non-combat troops live under conditions that are not that different from what you and I live in. Many of them go home to their own place of residence at the end of the day. Those that live in modern military barracks may have one roommate at most, and there is adequate privacy even that situation (while they share facilities, they don't use them while their fellows are using them). Combat troops, on the other hand, live in very intimate conditions, where there is little privacy.

This is going to go badly if it's passed. I give it six months at most before openly homosexual troops start seeing sexual harassment charges. "Bob got a boner looking at me in the shower and it made me uncomfortable," is probably not going to be an uncommon response to morning wood.

When the military integrated women into combat units and naval vessels, that was supposed to go swimmingly, as well. On the surface, it appears that it did. However, the public at large isn't well-informed, or at all informed, about the readiness issues related to ship-board pregnancies, women who purposely become pregnant to avoid deployment, the broken homes and morale impact that results from the natural inclination of two people of the opposite gender getting on when they've been away from their spouse for several months, the discipline problems that result when Sally decides she like Jimmy instead of Joey, Jack, and Jim. It's a goddamn cluster-fuck, but like a lot of embarrassing bullshit, the military keeps a lid on it to save face.

Erasing DA/DT is going to have a lot of consequences, some of them predictable, some of them unforeseeable. I personally thing it would be better if we would stop using the military as a laboratory for social experimentation. If you want to kill a commie for mommy, you should have a penis and love hair pie.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Legally speaking, it isn't a war because a declaration of war was never signed, which would require both houses of congress to pass a ruling as such. The reason no such declaration was signed was and is that it would be politically impossible - the American people don't want war, and the Constitution sets the bar for declaring war just that high for a damn good reason - it's not something to be taken on without a broad consensus that the war is just and necessary. No such consensus exists about the war in Afghanistan because it isn't.

In practical terms, it's not a war, because what's going on is a meaningless struggle, on the other side of the world, fought not by citizen-soldiers but professional soldiers (essentially mercenaries), over infinitesimal stakes. Whether we win or lose in Iraq or Afghanistan makes absolutely no difference to the interests of the United States as an entity nor to its citizens as individuals, just as the outcomes in Korea and Vietnam, although far less favorable than we hoped, made absolutely zero difference in the long run.

The whole fascist "we are at war, we have to act first and argue about what's right or legal later" spiel only has some degree of validity if there are real stakes - if the survival of the country is at stake. It's not. This isn't World War II. This isn't the Civil War. This isn't even the Mexican-American War or the War of 1812. This is a meaningless struggle far away against opponents who are no threat to us as a nation.

If we lose in Afghanistan we will simply do what the Soviets did 20 years ago...we will pack our bags and go home, and life will go on.

Regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center, no, it was not an earth-shattering event any more than Franz Ferdinand getting shot, and it wasn't an act of war any more than the Oklahoma City bombing. It was a criminal act by a band of outlaws and should have been treated as such - with armed police actions WACO-style rather than invading two countries at a cost of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars and getting no closer to the purported goal. So no, we are not at war in political terms, either.

Regarding the soldiers in the field, how are they undermined by having an argument stateside about gays in the military? Like I said, show me the guy who got killed because of this debate or anything that might come of it.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You can get shot at, limbs blown off, kill a man, rescue a child from a burning house, jump out of a fucking helicopter....but you can't let any silly fgts see your peepee?

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

It's the same issue as black soldiers in that bigotry and not any legitimate military concern is the driving force.

Military: We can't have black soldiers...
Truman: Too bad, you're getting black soldiers.
Military: If we have black soldiers, they will be disruptive, they'll diminish our combat readiness, and the Commies will invade New York...
Truman: Too bad, Constitution says I'm in charge. GRATS ON INTEGRATION LOLZ
Military: OMFG
Truman: Waiting on commie invasion...
*statue of Lenin falls over in background*

Military: We can't have gay soliders...
Obama: Hey, wait, I remember you! Didn't you-
Military: Yes, we know! But we, like, REALLY mean it this time! If we have gay soldiers, they will be disruptive, they'll diminish our combat readiness, and the Al Qaeda will blow up New York! Again!
Obama: Um, but don't the Israelis and EU have gay soldiers and get by just fine?
Military: Yeah...but, um, they're panzies!
Obama: Too bad, Constitution says I'm in charge. GRATS ON INTEGRATION LOLZ
Military: Oh yeah? Well, we'll just pretend we didn't hear you!
Obama: Waiting on homosexual radical Islam bomb...



All this is bullshit. Israel has gay soldiers and they're getting by just fine. The EU has gay soldiers and they're getting by just fine. Germany had a lot of gay soldiers during WWI (including probably their supreme commanders) and it wasn't why they lost the war. The greatest fighting unit in the history of the world was all-gay, and I doubt they'd have been defeated if half their unit happened to be straight.

All empirical evidence points to gay soldiers having zero impact on the military's ability to do its job.

The women you describe, if they weren't getting preggo, they'd be doing what men do, which is jumping off ledges ankle-first, taking dives on entrance exams, or getting their pediatricians to sign specious statements of medical unfitness.

No war or battle is being lost because some people in uniform happen to be gay.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

When does one choose to be gay, exactly?



lol seriously












everyone knows you join the navy if you're in it for the dick

Sodomy, rum and the lash: It totally ruled the world for 300 years, and couldn't have done it without the sodomy.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

When you see your grandmother naked.

A person's race isn't the same as identifying yourself by way of what activities you're inclined toward sexually. Just because you have an impulse to do something doesn't mean you should follow through with it. That's why it's socially unacceptable, not to mention illegal, to beat the living hell out of people just for being stupid. If you're going to make the argument that homosexuality is ok because "those people are born that way," you have to extend that argument to everyone else who is born with a preference for some type of deviant behavior. I have an urge to bed women, but just because I have that urge doesn't mean I have to give into my baser instincts and run around tossing the rod to any available strange, or breaking up marriages by screwing some guy's wife, or worse forcing my urges on others. Hell, Aestu seems to be heterosexual and he abstains completely from sex.

The bounds of tasteful behavior concerning homosexuality are ill-defined, mainly because the idea of it being an acceptable behavior in our society is very new, and we can't even have a rational discussion of what those bounds should be without some fucktard screaming "homophobe" when someone suggests that having parade where there are dozens of men in thongs walking down the street grabbing their own and/or each others junk and tongue-kissing each other goes a little beyond the realm of socially acceptable behavior. We don't have to have those conversations about heterosexual behavior because that is our traditional norm, and the boundaries of good taste are already well-defined.

My biggest problem with this is honestly the "you must embrace us" attitude. I'm really fucking tired of this "tolerance isn't enough, if you do not completely accept us you're a hater." If you wanna gay it up and toss a rainbow on your subaru and drive around with your 'partner' Reynaldo and his papillon fruiting it up all all over the place, that's your choice. No one cares, if we see it and don't like it, we can walk away from it. The minute the discussion turns to forcing interactions on people who have no interest in such interactions based on one party's behavior, I'm no longer sympathetic. To argue that the behavior should be excused because you believe the person in question is somehow compelled to engage in it doesn't hold water because there are people in our society that get medicated based on their compulsions.

If the sexual nature of people living with other people to whom they're sexually attracted creates no issues, and modesty and personal preferences don't matter, we should just go ahead and take it all the way and toss every soldier, regardless of gender and sexual preference, in together. The minute you try that, though, I guarantee that women (and probably a few men) will start a ruckus about having to share intimate conditions like communal bedding and hygiene facilities with people that are sexually attracted to them. If it's wrong for men and women to share facilities, then it's just as wrong to expect straight men to knowingly share a facility with someone they know is sexually attracted to their gender for all the same reasons. If you don't see that, it's only because you're blinded by your own personal preference for "advancing" homosexuals as a group, and you don't care at whom's expense that advancement comes. In fact, I detect an underlying, "well you deserve it anyway and the fact that you don't like it makes me happy" tone from many people arguing in favor of this. It's almost as if punishing people for having the temerity to disagree on this subject is as important as actually opening up the opportunity for homosexuals to serve openly.

I'm telling you that this isn't going to go smoothly, and there's going be negative consequences down the road if this change goes into effect. If you disagree, that's fine, but I'm going to remember and say I told you so.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Jubber, your argument boils down to "some people who are gay do things that they shouldn't, so I'm just going to assume that's what all gay people are like" Do you even know any gay people on more than a passing level?



No in fact they're not, they're the same as for straight people.




Straight people do this as well, and it is equally repugnant.



This is the point you invalidate your argument.



You let me know when tolerance starts in the military.



It won't go smoothly, and neither did de-segregation and the integration of women, nor anytime an oppressed minority gets a measure of equal footing.

p.s. I can guarantee you at least one straight dude was looking at your dick when you showered, and probably had a couple of gay thoughts.

Dvergar /
Quisling