Today at 1pm Cleetus 'teh Cleet' went down in flames as a Ya_Know laid down the smack. The defeat heard round the world as the 'Redneck Wannbe' hit the mat with such force that Donald Trump's hair briefly was out of place....
Printable View
Today at 1pm Cleetus 'teh Cleet' went down in flames as a Ya_Know laid down the smack. The defeat heard round the world as the 'Redneck Wannbe' hit the mat with such force that Donald Trump's hair briefly was out of place....
Because he called me a zero?Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
Get real, he has never one an arguement with me evar, he just decides he wins before he ever starts, and now simpletons like yourself get a hardon because he called me a zero
And remember you are sticking up for a guy who wears the dress in his family.
I mean really ya_know, are you even allowed to wear pants inside your wifes house?
Oooooh, Cleetus casts "Emasculate!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
I have never worn a dress. I've worn salad dressing before, but that's a different storry all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
Ok Cleetus, Shall we have a go? I can't argue religion, because I don't have any, I mostly listen or tune out. My topic, Gay's in the military. You want to argue, give you're boot straps a tug, cause this like every other topic, you will lose! How about this for a twist, we argue our opposites. I argue for, you argue against? Can you handle that?
Honestly, while I feel that they could perform valiantly along with females as well, the pc world should not interfere with the reality that these men are working together to keep each other alive. 100% trust is need in the man next to you, I don't think you can get that with women or gay men in the front combat lines. Distaste of the gay man, or the desire to prove yourself to the woman, either way will detract from the effectiveness of the group as a whole in a situation where trust and the ability to act is needed to be able to walk out alive.
There are women in combat now. Not in front line direct fighting, but they work in hostile support environments that require them to stand watch, engage enemy combatants, and get wounded. Men and women fighting side by side, and it's already proving itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
You claim that moral will be down, or uncontrolled with the introduction of homosexuals, but military branches are designed by the simple concept of immediate response to orders. If orders are given to cohabitate and function with homosexuals, and the orders will be followed as would any other orders that are directed from the highest command, there should be no problem. As far as moral being low, it’s all undereducated bias causing the problems. Sensitivity training has been going on for years to educate against inappropriate sexual harassment; homosexual understanding can be trained as well.
That’s just a start, let’s talk about the specific logistics of living quarters next…
Honestly, I don't want to, I don't see a full problem with it, as it is just the same arguements as was used against the blacks or women and they have all been proven wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Sounds to me like if you can make it work in the military, it can work anywhere and you are just starting to understand the problems with your reasoning throught the years and are finding a way where you can show how you are becoming a more understanding person without losing any face.
Damn you give up quick. You are such a pu$$y!!! Consider this another "smack down" baby, you lose again!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
And Cleetus casts " Confusion ".https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/02/1.gifhttps://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/02/1.gif
Dude, how can one honestly debate on the side of a topic with more holes then a Micheal Moore movie?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
I was wincing in pain when I wrote the first thing, as it is just about the only thing that makes any sense in the senseless argument.
You throw me on a losing side of a tired, worthless debate and proclaim yourself the winner, when in fact you are just proving that your debate of the past were all wrong and in fact I had some truth in what I was saying???
Not true at all. In fact it proves that I can openly argue both sides, with a full and credited argument. I don't need an emotional attachment to the argument to win, and you can’t! That's what this proves!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
What, you want to reverse roles and have me kick your a$$ on both sides??? Hell, I handed you billeting, that's the easiest argument against gay's in the military, HANDS DOWN. Because it's not about giving a patriotic American the chance to serve his country regardless of his sexual preference, but where all these people are supposed to sleep, shower, and otherwise spend 24-7 with each other. You can’t bunk a hetero with a homo. You just can’t
They thought the same with blacks...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Dude, I sat there and thought about it, I couldn't find any arguement that I didn't instantly come up with a retort against. I even started with my arguements for having gays and looked to your side. The only halfway decent one I could come up with I threw up there, and it is a bull**** one itself.
Living arrangements?
Easy, you have several options. You can go with segregation like with women, making a third sexual orientation. Or, you say no ****ing in the barracks or you are out, if someone ****s in the mens barracks, you kick them out. Back to your orders arguement. Or even full out segregation like we had with the blacks.
Gays have been in the military, you probably served with several yourself and never knew. This isn't like black or white, you won't tell a gay guy unless he tells you or you walk in.
Heck, you can't use the same arguements for keeping women out, as gay men are just as strong and able as straight men. So that arguement is right out.
So you are only left with the sexual aspect of the person, something that if it isn't genetic, then they should have the same restrictions as if a straight couple formed in the military. Now, if you are saying that they are genetically different and that is your basis for keeping them out, then you are opening up lawsuit after lawsuit and walss being broken down all over by openly acknowledging that it is no longer a choice.
At the end of the day, all you have left is the idea of trust, can you sit back and trust that they guy/girl next to you will do there job and have your back and will do their job so that you both get out alive. The problem there is that it is a matter of prejudice that has to be tackled and taken out by those in command, forcing all the soldiers to simply follow orders. Let the person in and let them show what they can do, regardless of race, sex or desire for anal play.
And Cleet knows all to well why.https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/02/1.gifhttps://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/02/1.gifQuote:
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…
Race and sexual preference are not the same thing BTW.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
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
Iceman is definiltly a sick bastard :thumbs2:Quote:
Originally Posted by TripleRLtd
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…Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
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.
He's my b!tch... :eek2: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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
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.
What the...????? :uke:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
I win, you lose. Unless you have some real points you'd like to make...
So you'd have no problems with the above mentioned senario, you a heterosexual, bunking with two confirmed homo's....do tell...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
What slam dunk?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
You are just getting the willies that two guys might, I repeat MIGHT, play with each others willies and that you MIGHT happen to walk in on them?
You have no arguement except for blatant discrimination based solely on a sexual lifestyle. Your arguement excludes people from serving because of what they do behind a closed door. You aren't basing it off of performance, ability, skin color, or whether they have tits or a dick, just what they may or may not do, and your preconcieved notion that all gays ever do is have sex.
Once again, you have no arguement at all past the act of sex.
I don't know Ya, common barracks, and showers works in the movies (Starship toopers) why would't it work in real life?
Seriously, this is all a problem with perception. In northamerica we seem to have a big problem with nudity. This seems to be where your focusing your attention, taht some guy will geta hard on while your takeing a shower the next time your on active duty. Thats what your realy affraid of isn't it, some guy checking you out.
I'll stick to dont ask dont tell and not even think about the possibility that that guy *might* consider it. Ignore it and it wont bother you, keep thinking about it and you'll turn it o howard hues locked up in your hut affraid the gay germs will get you.
No problem at all, just as I would have no problem with a woman thrown in the mix. If we work together in such an environment, I would hope that if I am going to fight, kill and potentially die with someone we would have more respect for each other and realize that ****ing on top of each other non-stop wouldn't happen. You are assuming that the gay guys are instantly going to become a couple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
And you are making the blatant assumption that there wont be any coupling. Who’s being naive here? You don’t see the sexuality of a man important in defining his relationship with other men, I think it’s a very important factor. If the guy doesn’t want sex, that’s one thing, but if he wants sex from other men, that’s a big problem. And a major issue in the armed services.
You keep falling on one simple point, the phobia. Well, I’ll do the same in reverse, there’s something wrong with the open acceptance of an erroneous lifestyle decision to be gay. You can decide to lace your shoes up left over right instead of right over left and that’s not a problem, but you choose to have same sex relationships, that’s a decision against the nature of our bodies. I stand by that reasoning as a part of my argument. You’re blatant acceptance is yours; hence again we are at a stale mate.
Going back to the argument style and content, not who is right or wrong, I won the argument. I may not be right in your eyes, or the rest of the liberals here, but I formulated the better argument, that I am certain of, and you agree…hence you wouldn’t be taking all the cheap shots, you would instead argue the merits of your position.
Dude, your whole arguement is sex and bigotry. Is sex going to become rampant and happen everywhere? And how could a gay person ever fit in?
A gay person can fit in by not being gay!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
I reemphasize this point, I think you missed it. And as always, I won this argument.
You don’t see the sexuality of a man important in defining his relationship with other men, I think it’s a very important factor.
You would have been better off by sticking with an arguement aligned to your belief on the central idea to your arguement. You pussyfooted around it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
You should have stuck with the fact that you believe that homosexuality is but a choice and a deviation from a societal norm. As much BS as I talk, homosexuality has not been proven as genetic, leaving it as a choice. This choice is a deviation and a sickness that is a constant threat to the lifestyle of the soldier. We screen to keep out others for mental sickness or deficincies, and homosexuality is no different. By being unable to perform properly in society, we can not expect them to perform with the heightened expectations of the military.
Or something like that.
Why didn't you do that in the begining when you were on the opposite pole. We could have had a lot of fun with this... :thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
Cause I didn't think of it then, never said my brain was the fastest on the block :thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know