Extra Extra read all about it...Cleetus takes the fall!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

They thought the same with blacks....

---

Race and sexual preference are not the same thing BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

Finally, I knew you had it in you, I just needed to tickle you enough.

Ordering a man not to have sex in the barracks isn’t a cut and dry order. Put this in perspective, if you were to room a man and a women together, do you really think she’s going to feel comfortable with him, and expect him to respect her wishes behind close doors? You can’t, and congress won’t hear of it. Same thing will apply for homosexual billeting.

You speak of billeting as though it's something we can afford to accommodate. Every barracks on the planet is over populated. When you add Women to the mix in itself puts more strain on availability for those rooms. Now you want to segregate all the gays, sorry if you put the gay man with the gay man, that’s like putting the hetero man with the hetero women. This will never pass one congressional hearing on the matter either. So in essence, we now have to create individual rooms for homo’s, which constitutes favoritism, as usually only those with seniority in the ranks room by themselves. So now you have to accommodate ALL military personnel with their own rooms, which consequently takes away from the brotherhood, camaraderie and teamwork which has delivered the backbone of the military branches (directly impacts moral, although I bet they will be thankful for their own rooms). The bottom line, you just doubled the defense budget for the next 10 years to accommodate new land and construction, plus the upkeep of those buildings will be a residual cost surpassing those 10 years.

Now, to Boot camp and squad bay living. There are still many units that live in squad bays. Boot camp will never be the same if you have admitted homosexuals in the ranks, now we have a problem with training, because we can’t segregate the gays here. A very large portion of the training involves the squad bay, and 5 minute showers, or head calls that last 60 seconds…let me tell you, the comfort level will be completely compromised if you add homosexuals to that environment. Anyone that ever went to boot camp has this perspective, you do not. Nothing against you, you simply can’t fathom how critical this problem becomes in that environment. It just can’t be managed!

There, that’s the argument I handed you, and you were too much of a pu$$y to take it…

---

Effective 1992 with "don't ask, don't tell" ending the ban, you have had gays in the military performing the exact same job living next to people. The arguement is moot, it has been performed perfectly. Homosexuality is a difference in sexual orientation of what you want to stick your dick into. It has nothing to do with any of the other things. And yes, your arguements are the exact same that they used against women and blacks.

I mean really, are the gay soldiers just going to run around with hardons sticking their dicks in any exposed ***? Are they going to be forcing blowjobs of the new guy in the unit, when it isn't an accepted practice? Your entire arguement is based on an irrational fear that the gays are either going to attack everyone or need the protection.

If you need to segregate because of the fear that some one will impose their "preference" on another, then put the gay men with the women.... :p

Oh and what about gay women? Are you two assuming that there are no gay women in the military?

As to the showers 5 minutes and heads for 60 seconds.... In some mental institutions mixed washrooms and open showers are the norm.

Let me tell you about Germany. If you go to a health spa, no one wears swimming costumes, no one looks at you sexually. It extends to hospitals - the doctors thought I was being stupid refusing a pelvic exam with no curtains just because others in my ward had visitors (male and female).

When I went for pre natal checks, the door was not locked and twice a complete stranger (male) stuck his head round the door looking for someone while I was in the stirrups unable to cover my blushes... oh yah, the stirrups faced the door.

Was I uncomfortable? Hell yes.. but then that was my upbringing... nudity means sex. In Germany nudity is just a body. Sex is something else entirely.

Well, I don't know about all that, but, does anyone else here see something homoerotic about teh relationship between teh cleet and teh Yak?https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
And teh Iceman? Is he like a voyeur, or what? https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

Well, I don't know about all that, but, does anyone else here see something homoerotic about teh relationship between teh cleet and teh Yak?https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
And teh Iceman? Is he like a voyeur, or what? https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif

---

Iceman is definiltly a sick bastard :thumbs2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Effective 1992 with "don't ask, don't tell" ending the ban, you have had gays in the military performing the exact same job living next to people. The arguement is moot, it has been performed perfectly. Homosexuality is a difference in sexual orientation of what you want to stick your dick into. It has nothing to do with any of the other things. And yes, your arguements are the exact same that they used against women and blacks.

I mean really, are the gay soldiers just going to run around with hardons sticking their dicks in any exposed ***? Are they going to be forcing blowjobs of the new guy in the unit, when it isn't an accepted practice? Your entire arguement is based on an irrational fear that the gays are either going to attack everyone or need the protection.

---

The argument is not the same as the one used for women or blacks; again, we are talking about sexual preference, not race or gender. And yes noonoo, I didn't forget our gay sisters, I just didn't feel like illustrating additionally how the need for individual billeting would arise, as I thought I illustrated that point quite clearly. As far as rooming the gay men with the women, that wont fly past congress even for a second…

Going back to Clinton’s folly; DADT didn’t accomplish anything other than that the pursuit of homosexuals would be less invasive initially. However that doesn’t change the fact that admitted homosexuals are NOT permitted in the service, and are typically ALWAYS kicked out when the truth is known, or an event is witnessed. DADT was a farce. The reason Clinton conceded there was because he couldn’t deliver what he had promised before the election, which was to openly allow gays into the military, but at least with some sort of million dollar policy it looks like he accomplished something. Your point about gays performing their tasks in secrete, nothing has changed with DADT that didn’t exist long before. We are to assume that all men are the same among the ranks, and if you can keep a secrete, you go about your business and noone will be the wiser.

NooNoo, you’re story about Germany doesn’t change the face of our nation, we will continue to be more sensitive to sex as a society, and nudity is all a part of that. As far as Cleetus’s analogy about queers filling holes at every turn, that’s just a pot shot and you know it Cleet. It’s a very lame discussion theme, as it only takes shots at your opponents implying I am “insensitive, or phobic”. Turns out, that’s your only argument, and it’s not gaining you any ground at all in this debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Iceman is definiltly a sick bastard :thumbs2:

---

He's my b!tch... :eek2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

The argument is not the same as the one used for women or blacks; again, we are talking about sexual preference, not race or gender. And yes noonoo, I didn't forget our gay sisters, I just didn't feel like illustrating additionally how the need for individual billeting would arise, as I thought I illustrated that point quite clearly. As far as rooming the gay men with the women, that wont fly past congress even for a second…

Going back to Clinton’s folly; DADT didn’t accomplish anything other than that the pursuit of homosexuals would be less invasive initially. However that doesn’t change the fact that admitted homosexuals are NOT permitted in the service, and are typically ALWAYS kicked out when the truth is known, or an event is witnessed. DADT was a farce. The reason Clinton conceded there was because he couldn’t deliver what he had promised before the election, which was to openly allow gays into the military, but at least with some sort of million dollar policy it looks like he accomplished something. Your point about gays performing their tasks in secrete, nothing has changed with DADT that didn’t exist long before. We are to assume that all men are the same among the ranks, and if you can keep a secrete, you go about your business and noone will be the wiser.

NooNoo, you’re story about Germany doesn’t change the face of our nation, we will continue to be more sensitive to sex as a society, and nudity is all a part of that. As far as Cleetus’s analogy about queers filling holes at every turn, that’s just a pot shot and you know it Cleet. It’s a very lame discussion theme, as it only takes shots at your opponents implying I am “insensitive, or phobic”. Turns out, that’s your only argument, and it’s not gaining you any ground at all in this debate.

---

But you see, your entire arguement is based on the reasoning that gay men/women are going to be openly having sex in front of everyone at inoportune times. If you get rid of that arguement, that simple line of reasoning, you no longer have an arguement as it is only based on the notion of sex.

Remember, you yourself said the entire arguement is based only on sex. At that point, we do then have to look at whether or not the gay population can handle sex just like the hetero population. If so, like I said, your arguement totally falls apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

He's my b!tch... :eek2:

---

What the...????? :uke:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

But you see, your entire arguement is based on the reasoning that gay men/women are going to be openly having sex in front of everyone at inoportune times. If you get rid of that arguement, that simple line of reasoning, you no longer have an arguement as it is only based on the notion of sex.

Remember, you yourself said the entire arguement is based only on sex. At that point, we do then have to look at whether or not the gay population can handle sex just like the hetero population. If so, like I said, your arguement totally falls apart.

---

The argument does not fall apart. The point is, the preference now known, the relationship between all the men in the barracks has change. It doesn’t mean a thing if the homo is still a gay virgin, he’s now a man that likes men.

It’s no different then putting a man with a bunch of women. All the women know he’s got sights on sex, even if he’s a virgin. They wont undress near him, they wont want to shower with him, unless they are sexually attracted, then of course the shower would be just fine. However the obligation of the military billeting is to provide a comfortable sex free environment for the troops to reside. Who they invite in the rooms on their own is their own business, but they will not be required to bunk with anyone that has a known potential sexual attraction to them. That’s just wrong, and that’s not going to fly past congress. Notice how I keep bringing them up, you may have a liberal or two willing to push the envelope, but overall, there is no way they will ever knowingly force sexual integration on the troops, that’s where the line has been drawn. Not at performing their duties, but billeting.

Cleetus put this in perspective; you are a man, most of the time anyway. You look at women, all women, and size them up. You have attractions to them all, until you reach a deal breaker, like for me, no teeth, ugly, warts on the face, which I presume are all qualities you look for, but I digress…anyway, there isn’t a women on the planet that is safe from your oggoling eyes, am I correct? A chick has a low cut dress, you stand over her to work on her PC, wait for her to look away, and you’re six inches inside her cleavage just like that! Nothing is sacred, right? Now, take that same sex crazed man, make him a homo, and put him in a room full of the countries finest showering together. Not one man is safe…for the same reasons. Gay or straight, a man is a man, and he has needs…

So then orders and the rules can't be followed, is that what you are saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

So then orders and the rules can't be followed, is that what you are saying?

---

We're talking about sex, and the integrations of sexual behavior. Orders, what orders? Are you trying to use my suggestion from before? That was when I was on your side of the fence, I am back on this side, and I KNOW orders don’t mean squat when it comes to something like this. Ok, so what you suggest is that we order the homos not to display any attraction or attempt to have sex with other service men. Ok, why? Service men and women are allowed to fornicate. There are no rules preventing it obviously, even though I know there are command directives stressing abstinence when on ship or on deployment so we don’t have to keep sending pregnant women home…which indecently, happens all too often.

And here’s the twist you missed, if we show equality with integration, we can’t stop gay sex, that wouldn’t be fair, now would it? If straight men and women can fornicate in the barracks, well so should the gays be allowed.

So put that in perspective again, you’re in a branch that has integrated gays. You bunk up in an three man room with two confirmed gays, there isn’t an order in the world that will take away the discomfort the lone hetero will feel…I don’t care what liberal ship you sail on, that’s just not right, and I will protest that day from coming for the rest of my life.

That's a slam-dunk Cleetus, you had better come back with a new argument all together, I just polished this one off.

So it is all about sex happening and you being scared that you might like it? Or is it the convenience factor?

Your whole entire arguement is built around sex and you feeling icky about gay guys having it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

So it is all about sex happening and you being scared that you might like it? Or is it the convenience factor?

Your whole entire arguement is built around sex and you feeling icky about gay guys having it.

---

No, you're whole argument is one liners and cheep shots. My arguments are all well thought out, insightful, and reveal a very clear point. Again, yours is a useless retort, where mine is a formulated argument.

I win, you lose. Unless you have some real points you'd like to make...