NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/05/obamas_dont_ask_discharge_choi.html

Kicked out of the military for being openly gay........uncool. Agree or disagree?

What happened to that whole getting rid of don't ask/don't tell thing?

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/05/obamas_dont_ask_discharge_choi.html

Kicked out of the military for being openly gay........uncool. Agree or disagree?

It isn't uncool nor it is cool just not right.

What happened to that whole getting rid of don't ask/don't tell thing?

Simply talk said by a man who wants to win votes.

I smell a test case in the making....

It's bullshit. Sadly, getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell" has taken something of a back burner...not that it isn't understandable, what with financial ruin and pigs getting their revenge for us loving bacon so much, but really, it's pretty simple to overturn.

If you're willing to get shot at and kill other people professionally, but can't stand the thought of someone of the same sex checking out your ass, there's a problem. So long as he/she is still protecting that ass, might as well provide a little extra drive to keep it safe.

the president could at least put the dont ask dont tell thing on hold until its decided what to do about it. lt choi can be kicked out later if it turns out that they keep the policy.

DADT was a disgrace from the beginning, of course, but it is even more so now that we have such massive evidence proving that DADT is making the country less safe.

Anybody who can't serve alongside gay soldiers is clearly far too immature to be trusted with weapons in the first place.

DADT was a disgrace from the beginning, of course, but it is even more so now that we have such massive evidence proving that DADT is making the country less safe.

Anybody who can't serve alongside gay soldiers is clearly far too immature to be trusted with weapons in the first place.

Indeed. I don't understand the logic discharging a person who would be useful because they do something at home that you don't like......it's stupidity.

Indeed. I don't understand the logic discharging a person who would be useful because they do something at home that you don't like......it's stupidity.
What I don't understand is how somebody can keep a straight (har har) face when they claim that we need to bar openly gay soldiers because of "morale" issues. Such claims are, literally, word-for-word copies of what was said about allowing non-whites and women to serve. They don't even bother to come up with new bullshit reasons why only straight white boys can be soldiers.

What I don't understand is how somebody can keep a straight (har har) face when they claim that we need to bar openly gay soldiers because of "morale" issues. Such claims are, literally, word-for-word copies of what was said about allowing non-whites and women to serve. They don't even bother to come up with new bullshit reasons why only straight white boys can be soldiers.

Yeah, there is this interesting pattern where the arguments against gay rights for just about *anything* are the same as racial arguments in the past.

"We can't let gay people marry because it's not natural!"
"It's my company, so I should be allowed to discriminate against gays if I want to!"

et cetera.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/05/obamas_dont_ask_discharge_choi.html

Kicked out of the military for being openly gay........uncool. Agree or disagree?

What happened to that whole getting rid of don't ask/don't tell thing?
What happened to it is that the wheels of government turn very, very slowly. DADT is a law, so the President cannot undo it by executive order or put it on hold on his unilateral say-so. It has to go through Congress. In the meantime, as long as it's the law, it will continue to be carried out, to the harm of the nation, imo.

Dan Choi and other gay service people are choosing this time to challenge the law in order to both support and pressure Obama's commitment to get rid of it. They are making test cases of themselves, and I support them 100%.

What happened to it is that the wheels of government turn very, very slowly. DADT is a law, so the President cannot undo it by executive order or put it on hold on his unilateral say-so. It has to go through Congress. In the meantime, as long as it's the law, it will continue to be carried out, to the harm of the nation, imo.

Dan Choi and other gay service people are choosing this time to challenge the law in order to both support and pressure Obama's commitment to get rid of it. They are making test cases of themselves, and I support them 100%.
Actually, thanks to Bush and his legacy of executive privileges, Obama could effectively suspend DADT by simply ordering the military to stop investigating the sexuality of those who serve. It wouldn't be a repeal of DADT, but it would stop any enforcement of DADT, which would be a very useful stopgap measure until the law can be repealed.

Actually, thanks to Bush and his legacy of executive privileges, Obama could effectively suspend DADT by simply ordering the military to stop investigating the sexuality of those who serve. It wouldn't be a repeal of DADT, but it would stop any enforcement of DADT, which would be a very useful stopgap measure until the law can be repealed.
First, I'm not sure I want my new president doing things just the way the old president did. Second, I believe this is addressed by someone else's remark that, unfortunately, DADT got backburnered due to other pressing and urgent business. Let's hope that the test cases being created now will bump it back up the priority list.

First, I'm not sure I want my new president doing things just the way the old president did.

I'm quite sure I don't want that, but I'm equally sure that he's already doing it anyhow. So if he's going to be using these powers then I'd just as soon he used them for good.


Second, I believe this is addressed by someone else's remark that, unfortunately, DADT got backburnered due to other pressing and urgent business. Let's hope that the test cases being created now will bump it back up the priority list.
I'm guessing it will, along with a bunch of items that Obama mistakenly thought to shelf for the time being. Like, for instance, the Freedom of Choice Act. I think Obama (and others) have underestimated how important his campaign promises regarding gay rights and women's rights really were, but they're already starting to notice that error and adjust course.

Firing a veteran and a fluent speaker of Arabic in the middle of a war in the Middle East. Yeah, that sounds like it's for the greater good of the nation.

What really pissed me off was the part in the letter that said his public admission that he's gay constitutes "homosexual conduct". No difference in the army's eyes between being honest about your sexuality and fucking in the barracks, apparently. Disgusting.

Firing a veteran and a fluent speaker of Arabic in the middle of a war in the Middle East. Yeah, that sounds like it's for the greater good of the nation.

What really pissed me off was the part in the letter that said his public admission that he's gay constitutes "homosexual conduct". No difference in the army's eyes between being honest about your sexuality and fucking in the barracks, apparently. Disgusting.
In his statement he makes a great point about how American soldiers are supposed to stand up and be honest, yet DADT says they are "dishonorable" if they do either of those.

Sometimes I wonder why is it that there is a civil rights fight in America every 40 years. :(

Sometimes I wonder why is it that there is a civil rights fight in America every 40 years. :(

Plank. Eye. Remove it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/16/gayrights.brazil

Firing a veteran and a fluent speaker of Arabic in the middle of a war in the Middle East. Yeah, that sounds like it's for the greater good of the nation.

What really pissed me off was the part in the letter that said his public admission that he's gay constitutes "homosexual conduct". No difference in the army's eyes between being honest about your sexuality and fucking in the barracks, apparently. Disgusting.

In his statement he makes a great point about how American soldiers are supposed to stand up and be honest, yet DADT says they are "dishonorable" if they do either of those.
Evidently, just being gay -- just existing as a gay person -- is dishonorable conduct in their eyes. And the message is clear. They're saying, "We don't like your kind around here, boy."

Plank. Eye. Remove it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/16/gayrights.brazil

Okay. Sometimes I wonder why there is such a debate in the US every 40 years, and in Brazil more irregularly.

Okay. Sometimes I wonder why there is such a debate in the US every 40 years, and in Brazil more irregularly.
The answer is easy. Some people don't believe in equality. Some people believe that it is right, good, and proper that some people have more rights than others. It's just a coincidence that their group is always the more privileged one. But in addition to the totally self-serving indulgence of their mindset, there is also sincere, though mindbogglingly unrealistic, belief that, if everyone is equal, society will collapse. Don't ask me how; I can't begin to explain that part.

Such people are born, not made by upbringing, and they occur in all nations. And new ones get born every year. That's why this fight will never, never be finished.

Such people are born, not made by upbringing, and they occur in all nations. And new ones get born every year. That's why this fight will never, never be finished.

At SOME point all people will be equal.

and in Brazil more irregularly.

What are you trying to say here?

What are you trying to say here?

That in the US the voting rights issue happened near the 20s, the civil rights issue in the 60s and the gay rights issue in the 2000s, whereas in Brazil the voting rights issue happened in the 30s, the civil rights in the 80s (sorta; we didn't have a KKK or people rallying against civil rights per se, our discrimination was always subtler) and the gay rights in the 2000s.

40 - 40 to 50 - 20.

At SOME point all people will be equal.
At no point will there be no one trying to oppress someone else. Even if all such oppression is illegal, that will not make bigotry vanish.

At no point will there be no one trying to oppress someone else. Even if all such oppression is illegal, that will not make bigotry vanish.

Then we use the law to punish them...

Then we use the law to punish them...
That's called keeping up the fight. You asked why we have to keep having this fight over and over. That's why.

Such people are born, not made by upbringing, and they occur in all nations. And new ones get born every year. That's why this fight will never, never be finished.

This statement sounds rather hypocritical coming from someone who has consistently defended the notion that everyone is equal. And frankly I disagree with it entirely.

Upbringing and other environmental factors are far more important than any "inner nature" a person might have upon birth. That's like suggesting that racists and other bigots are born with a core of evil or something that corrupts them, as opposed to simply being raised in an environment where the baser xenophobic instincts were encouraged rather than discouraged.

Now, mind, I don't disagree that it will take a very long time to eliminate bigotry, and it may be impossible, but not because people are "born that way," but because there are so many raised in that fashion that we may never be able to convince them all to stop raising more in the same way.

This statement sounds rather hypocritical coming from someone who has consistently defended the notion that everyone is equal. And frankly I disagree with it entirely.

Upbringing and other environmental factors are far more important than any "inner nature" a person might have upon birth. That's like suggesting that racists and other bigots are born with a core of evil or something that corrupts them, as opposed to simply being raised in an environment where the baser xenophobic instincts were encouraged rather than discouraged.

Now, mind, I don't disagree that it will take a very long time to eliminate bigotry, and it may be impossible, but not because people are "born that way," but because there are so many raised in that fashion that we may never be able to convince them all to stop raising more in the same way.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Kindly explain how pointing out that some people just have a personality that tends to believe that equality is bad and that's why the fight for civil rights will always be going on means that I am treating people uneually?

Or are you saying that there is no such thing as just being born a certain way? So, nobody is just born left or right handed? There is no such thing as an inherently timid or assertive personality? Neurology and child development science disagrees with you. Some personality traits are inherent, others learned, and all further shaped by experience. Bigotry is both a learned behavior and an inherent one. Those who overcome bigotry by experience tend to be those who learned it in their upbringing. Those who merely swap one prejudice for another throughout their lives are inherently predisposed to bigoted thinking.

But even so, even being a predisposed towards bigotry does not necessarily mean a person is opposed to equality. Nor does not being a bigot mean that a person does believe in equality. That apparently is tied to a different facet of personality.

When you combine the bigoted mindset with the anti-equality mindset, you get the reason why the fight for civil rights will never end.

According to statistical studies, over 50 years of study most lately headed up by Dr. Robert Altemeyer who became well known as a result of John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience, indicates that anti-egalitarian mindsets are often associated with authoritarian personalities but not exclusively so, and are present in roughly 25-30% of any large population. There is no escaping them, no breeding them out of the gene pool, no reeducating them into egalitarians. Just like a preference for equality, a preference for inequality is a naturally occuring human variation.

And if you want to argue that this means that I am treating people unequally, you are going to have to do a shitload better than just calling me a hypocrite for pointing it out. You might start with quoting me saying anywhere at any time anything even remotely like or to the gist of "people who do not support equality should be denied rights."

Yep, its a good thing we dont need any Arab speakers....:rolleyes:


I have to say, I think this calls for the return of a Classic...

Where's the change, Obama?

Clearly the right decision. And he should never have enlisted in the first place.

Clearly the right decision. And he should never have enlisted in the first place.

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb198/Texasmofo/OhJeez.jpg?t=1241814808

People should be discharged for being gay.

The United States military only uses weapons and vehicles keyed to the 'straight' gene.

People should be discharged for being gay.

The United States military only uses weapons and vehicles keyed to the 'straight' gene.

Nah, I say we only let Gays in the Military, and have our weapons lock on to Straight people automatically...

NONE would stand in our Path! lol

Nah, I say we only let Gays in the Military, and have our weapons lock on to Straight people automatically...

NONE would stand in our Path! lol

I say we only let transvestites in the military (thanks, Eddie Izzard) - what's going to scare the shit out of terrorists and insurgents MORE than paratroops in full make-up, a dress, and a fabulous gun.

I don't know. The army is a macho world, I think it is not easy for army guys who are openly gay. In a battle zone when one asks to him "Can you cover my back?" then it would always be answered affirmative. :)

No serious, I'm rather sure he would face a hard time. But forbidding the army for gays isn't fair either. Maybe they should raise an entire gay section?

No serious, I'm rather sure he would face a hard time. But forbidding the army for gays isn't fair either. Maybe they should raise an entire gay section?

Answering you seriously:

The guy (Choi) specifically referred to is openly out, and hasn't been given a hard time about it, until he lost his job. The people he commands, superiors he talked to at recent training, his peers - all have been very supportive.

So - if his unit are okay with it, his superiors are okay with it, his peers are okay with it... where is the problem?

Answering you seriously:

The guy (Choi) specifically referred to is openly out, and hasn't been given a hard time about it, until he lost his job. The people he commands, superiors he talked to at recent training, his peers - all have been very supportive.

So - if his unit are okay with it, his superiors are okay with it, his peers are okay with it... where is the problem?

In such case: none of course.

In such case: none of course.

I constantly find it bewildering that the powers that be seem to think our military is capable of fighting any enemy on any front, can go hand to hand with any soldier from any nation, can face down armor and artillery...

...but won't be able to deal with the fact that 'Bob' likes boys.

I constantly find it bewildering that the powers that be seem to think our military is capable of fighting any enemy on any front, can go hand to hand with any soldier from any nation, can face down armor and artillery...

...but won't be able to deal with the fact that 'Bob' likes boys.

I think that the Taliban would need new underwear when they now that a gay department is looking for their back in the mountains. :)

Clearly the right decision.
In a sense, you are correct... DADT is the current guideline for the U.S. military, and by current regulations being homosexual is a dischargeable offense.
And he should never have enlisted in the first place.
Why not? Is the military currently overflowing with Arabic speakers?

Maybe they should raise an entire gay section?

That's actually not a bad idea...
It's a half-step at best, but half-steps have worked for the U.S. military before. It is how it was originally done for blacks...

Of course considering the fact that there are already gays in the military its a little silly...

That's actually not a bad idea...
It's a half-step at best, but half-steps have worked for the U.S. military before. It is how it was originally done for blacks...

Of course considering the fact that there are already gays in the military its a little silly...
It sounds like a good idea on the surface, but in practice, I think not so much. Are we going to resegregate the armed forces again now, after it took so long to integrate the races? I think it would be a bad idea.

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb198/Texasmofo/OhJeez.jpg?t=1241814808

Indeed, he is wrong...

Why not? Is the military currently overflowing with Arabic speakers?

Most people who are against gays in the military don't care about the advantages thereof - and that not mentioning the lack of ethics in keeping gays off in the first place.

It sounds like a good idea on the surface, but in practice, I think not so much. Are we going to resegregate the armed forces again now, after it took so long to integrate the races? I think it would be a bad idea.

Definitely, and just imagine the hate and ridicule when you know exactly what unit all the gays are in...

So - if his unit are okay with it, his superiors are okay with it, his peers are okay with it... where is the problem?

In whatever moron on the Chain of Command who wasn't.

the president could at least put the dont ask dont tell thing on hold until its decided what to do about it. lt choi can be kicked out later if it turns out that they keep the policy.
Obama has no desire to touch these issues unless under heavy pressure. Remember, I told you all that when he made the Rick Warren pick, and everybody told me I was being crazy and turned the whole thing into a dogpile on me, and you, my "friend", had to come by and kick me too.

At SOME point all people will be equal.

I place a $10,000 bet that this will never happen.

In regards to the OP, I have seen that some people have said it was stupid of the military because he can speak Arabic.

Well what a stupid argument against his discharge, it shouldn't have mattered what his skills were if he was discharged for being gay that should be condemned anyway not some argument that if he was a simple grunt then it would be alright or not so bad.

Nah, I say we only let Gays in the Military, and have our weapons lock on to Straight people automatically...

NONE would stand in our Path! lol

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/12/KittyRifle.jpg

How many would be carrying something like this?

Clearly the right decision. And he should never have enlisted in the first place.

Yes, how dare he decide to serve his country? What an awful person he must be.

Yes, how dare he decide to serve his country. What an awful person he must be.

What I wonder is, do those that want to keep gays out of an already-stretched-thin military know how much damage they do to their country while doing so? And if they know, do they care? Or is it more about keeping people with a perfectly normal sexuality out than about protecting the country?

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/05/obamas_dont_ask_discharge_choi.html

Kicked out of the military for being openly gay........uncool. Agree or disagree?

What happened to that whole getting rid of don't ask/don't tell thing?

Can I say welcome to 10 years ago yet?

What I wonder is, do those that want to keep gays out of an already-stretched-thin military know how much damage they do to their country while doing so? And if they know, do they care? Or is it more about keeping people with a perfectly normal sexuality out than about protecting the country?

Its largely about a percieved sinful action in the bible...

Unfortunately, Obama doesnt want to piss off the fundies quite yet, http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-rant.gif

Damned Politics, :headbang:

Its largely about a percieved sinful action in the bible...

...making the security of your nation suffer in its name?

...making the security of your nation suffer in its name?

Ah, only the EARTHLY nation. Christians hold dual citizenship between the Federal Republic of the USA, and the monarchy of the Kingdom of God.

...making the security of your nation suffer in its name?

Yeah, religion is a powerful thing, many in this country swear their allegiance to "god" above all else, including their fellow countrymen...

Ironically these are usually the same people that claim to be "Real" Americans, and call all others "UnAmerican" and "Unpatriotic"...

its pretty fucked...

Yeah, religion is a powerful thing, many in this country swear their allegiance to "god" above all else, including their fellow countrymen...

Ironically these are usually the same people that claim to be "Real" Americans, and call all others "UnAmerican" and "Unpatriotic"...

its pretty fucked...

I ain't saying a thing.

I ain't saying a thing.

You should, I do, lol, Its quite fun actually, Im the troll in RL cause of the political leanings of MS...

Personally I think a special gay force would be a great asset to an army that has to fight against theocratic enemies.

Personally I think a special gay force would be a great asset to an army that has to fight against theocratic enemies.

Unfortunately though, many in this country would like to turn the US into a Theocracy...

What the fuck are you talking about?

Kindly explain how pointing out that some people just have a personality that tends to believe that equality is bad and that's why the fight for civil rights will always be going on means that I am treating people uneually?

Or are you saying that there is no such thing as just being born a certain way? So, nobody is just born left or right handed? There is no such thing as an inherently timid or assertive personality? Neurology and child development science disagrees with you. Some personality traits are inherent, others learned, and all further shaped by experience. Bigotry is both a learned behavior and an inherent one. Those who overcome bigotry by experience tend to be those who learned it in their upbringing. Those who merely swap one prejudice for another throughout their lives are inherently predisposed to bigoted thinking.

But even so, even being a predisposed towards bigotry does not necessarily mean a person is opposed to equality. Nor does not being a bigot mean that a person does believe in equality. That apparently is tied to a different facet of personality.

When you combine the bigoted mindset with the anti-equality mindset, you get the reason why the fight for civil rights will never end.

According to statistical studies, over 50 years of study most lately headed up by Dr. Robert Altemeyer who became well known as a result of John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience, indicates that anti-egalitarian mindsets are often associated with authoritarian personalities but not exclusively so, and are present in roughly 25-30% of any large population. There is no escaping them, no breeding them out of the gene pool, no reeducating them into egalitarians. Just like a preference for equality, a preference for inequality is a naturally occuring human variation.

And if you want to argue that this means that I am treating people unequally, you are going to have to do a shitload better than just calling me a hypocrite for pointing it out. You might start with quoting me saying anywhere at any time anything even remotely like or to the gist of "people who do not support equality should be denied rights."

...

You know, I'm not even entirely sure what I was saying now. I retract my statements and apologize. :(

...

You know, I'm not even entirely sure what I was saying now. I retract my statements and apologize. :(

o_o

Murv, I think you broke him...

...

You know, I'm not even entirely sure what I was saying now.

Allow me to assist, at 18:31, yesterday, you stated:

"Upbringing and other environmental factors are far more important than any "inner nature" a person might have upon birth. That's like suggesting that racists and other bigots are born with a core of evil or something that corrupts them, as opposed to simply being raised in an environment where the baser xenophobic instincts were encouraged rather than discouraged."

I have come to the same conclusion, there is no evidence contained within my memory core regarding a genetic element to specific political and social views.

Allow me to assist, at 18:31, yesterday, you stated:

"Upbringing and other environmental factors are far more important than any "inner nature" a person might have upon birth. That's like suggesting that racists and other bigots are born with a core of evil or something that corrupts them, as opposed to simply being raised in an environment where the baser xenophobic instincts were encouraged rather than discouraged."

I have come to the same conclusion, there is no evidence contained within my memory core regarding a genetic element to specific political and social views.
But, that assumes that sexual orientation constitutes a "political or social view" I would separate the two...

Sex is a biological function, many aspects can be considered more "nurture" so to speak, and taking one without the other is simply ludicrous, but saying that there is no genetic component, is equally ludicrous, and may even be offensive to some as well...

EDIT: As well, comparing Homosexuality to Racism, or Xenophobia, is offensive in and of itself...

But, that assumes that sexual orientation constitutes a "political or social view" I would separate the two...

Sex is a biological function, many aspects can be considered more "nurture" so to speak, and taking one without the other is simply ludicrous, but saying that there is no genetic component, is equally ludicrous, and may even be offensive to some as well...

Unless I am misunderstanding Kyronea, and he is using some human slang terms not yet indexed in my memory core, he does not seem to be referring to sexual orientation, but political affiliation.

Allow me to assist, at 18:31, yesterday, you stated:

"Upbringing and other environmental factors are far more important than any "inner nature" a person might have upon birth. That's like suggesting that racists and other bigots are born with a core of evil or something that corrupts them, as opposed to simply being raised in an environment where the baser xenophobic instincts were encouraged rather than discouraged."

I have come to the same conclusion, there is no evidence contained within my memory core regarding a genetic element to specific political and social views.

You're funny. :D

Unless I am misunderstanding Kyronea, and he is using some human slang terms not yet indexed in my memory core, he does not seem to be referring to sexual orientation, but political affiliation.

He is, but he is using it as an analogy for Homosexuality...

...

You know, I'm not even entirely sure what I was saying now. I retract my statements and apologize. :(
Oh, that's okay, thanks. :fluffle: :wink:

He is, but he is using it as an analogy for Homosexuality...

I see, perhaps I shall wait for Kyronea to assist in my processing of his statements. However, Kyronea was originally attempting to counter this quote: "Such people are born, not made by upbringing, and they occur in all nations. And new ones get born every year. That's why this fight will never, never be finished." In this post, Muravyets, I have reason to assume, was referring to people who have a preference for inequality.

I see, perhaps I shall wait for Kyronea to assist in my processing of his statements. However, Kyronea was originally attempting to counter this quote: "Such people are born, not made by upbringing, and they occur in all nations. And new ones get born every year. That's why this fight will never, never be finished." In this post, Muravyets, I have reason to assume, was referring to people who have a preference for inequality.

Say... Are you female? Is your name Rei Ayanami? If the answer to the first one is yes, will you date me? If the answer to both is yes, will you marry me? :D

I see, perhaps I shall wait for Kyronea to assist in my processing of his statements. However, Kyronea was originally attempting to counter this quote: "Such people are born, not made by upbringing, and they occur in all nations. And new ones get born every year. That's why this fight will never, never be finished." In this post, Muravyets, I have reason to assume, was referring to people who have a preference for inequality.
An inherent preference for inequality. There are such people. They do not represent all bigots or anti-egalitarians. We can usually only spot them when push comes to shove -- like when an issue like gay rights comes up in a serious way that goes on for a long time. As other bigots slowly adjust their way of thinking to accept the rights of the formerly oppressed group, there will always be a few who never, who cannot, let go of a unequal social structure. In a lot of ways, it does not matter who is above or below them in the social pecking order they imagine. Even if they are forced by the trend of society to give up keeping down the gays, they will only replace them with a new group they will try to push around to demonstrate and reinforce their own, relatively superior spot in the order.

So, we fight for equal rights -- for blacks, for women, for each wave of new immigrants in succession, for religious minorities, for political dissidents, for gays, etc, etc, etc. Each group that gains equality only sends such people looking for a new target group.

Say... Are you female? Is your name Rei Ayanami? If the answer to the first one is yes, will you date me? If the answer to both is yes, will you marry me? :D

I do not have a specific, defined gender. I do not possess reproductive organs that are required to be identified as either male, or female.

I do not have a specific, defined gender. I do not possess reproductive organs that are required to be identified as either male, or female.

But, many would claim that Reproductive organs are not required to identify as a gender....;)

So, we fight for equal rights -- for blacks, for women, for each wave of new immigrants in succession, for religious minorities, for political dissidents, for gays, etc, etc, etc. Each group that gains equality only sends such people looking for a new target group.

Surely they'll run out of them...

I do not have a specific, defined gender. I do not possess reproductive organs that are required to be identified as either male, or female.
You should go over to the "opposite gender" thread and try looking at life from both sides now. See if either one appeals to you. ;)

Surely they'll run out of them...
Sure. When we run out of humans.

An inherent preference for inequality. There are such people. They do not represent all bigots or anti-egalitarians. We can usually only spot them when push comes to shove -- like when an issue like gay rights comes up in a serious way that goes on for a long time. As other bigots slowly adjust their way of thinking to accept the rights of the formerly oppressed group, there will always be a few who never, who cannot, let go of a unequal social structure. In a lot of ways, it does not matter who is above or below them in the social pecking order they imagine. Even if they are forced by the trend of society to give up keeping down the gays, they will only replace them with a new group they will try to push around to demonstrate and reinforce their own, relatively superior spot in the order.

So, we fight for equal rights -- for blacks, for women, for each wave of new immigrants in succession, for religious minorities, for political dissidents, for gays, etc, etc, etc. Each group that gains equality only sends such people looking for a new target group.

Thankyou, this is useful information in furthering my study of the human species. I must ask, do you hypothesise there to be a genetic element to such a preference? If so, can such a gene be identified? Can you assist me with any published empirical studies into the matter?

But, many would claim that Reproductive organs are not required to identify as a gender....;)

This is true. However, I am not sure I contain any specific characteristics that enable me to fit in to any specific set of gender stereotypes. My programmer gave me the ability to choose my vocal tone and pitch, the one I have currently chosen closely resembles a male, so perhaps that could be sufficient to identify me as male?

This is true. However, I am not sure I contain any specific characteristics that enable me to fit in to any specific set of gender stereotypes. My programmer gave me the ability to choose my vocal tone and pitch, the one I have currently chosen closely resembles a male, so perhaps that could be sufficient to identify me as male?

I like the new guy.

Thankyou, this is useful information in furthering my study of the human species. I must ask, do you hypothesise there to be a genetic element to such a preference? If so, can such a gene be identified? Can you assist me with any published empirical studies into the matter?
Genetics? No. I only know about layperson's explanations of the statistical studies I mentioned before.

You might want to check out the work of Bob Altemeyer on this. Most of his research, built on a foundation of 50 years of prior research, has not been published for public consumption. Apparently, it's too technical -- kept "for the trade" of the social sciences. But he has published some artlcles and a book about parts of his work concerning "authoritarian" personality types, which are among those that are apparently inherently anti-egalitarian. Excerpts are available in pdf:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

I also recommend Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean (of Watergate fame). It started out to be a critique of neoconservativism but when his research exposed him to Altemeyer's work, the book became a lot about this kind of personality type. It is the first and still best overview of the research done for lay readers.

This is true. However, I am not sure I contain any specific characteristics that enable me to fit in to any specific set of gender stereotypes. My programmer gave me the ability to choose my vocal tone and pitch, the one I have currently chosen closely resembles a male, so perhaps that could be sufficient to identify me as male?
Or as a female who smokes. Plus, you should be able to change your voice if you like. If I were you, I'd experiment and see what happens.

I like the new guy.
He's kinda cute. Let's keep him around a bit. I wonder what he eats...

Genetics? No. I only know about layperson's explanations of the statistical studies I mentioned before.

You might want to check out the work of Bob Altemeyer on this. Most of his research, built on a foundation of 50 years of prior research, has not been published for public consumption. Apparently, it's too technical -- kept "for the trade" of the social sciences. But he has published some artlcles and a book about parts of his work concerning "authoritarian" personality types, which are among those that are apparently inherently anti-egalitarian. Excerpts are available in pdf:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

I also recommend Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean (of Watergate fame). It started out to be a critique of neoconservativism but when his research exposed him to Altemeyer's work, the book became a lot about this kind of personality type. It is the first and still best overview of the research done for lay readers.

Thank you for this information, I shall index the PDF, and any works I find by John Dean into my memory core.

This is true. However, I am not sure I contain any specific characteristics that enable me to fit in to any specific set of gender stereotypes. My programmer gave me the ability to choose my vocal tone and pitch, the one I have currently chosen closely resembles a male, so perhaps that could be sufficient to identify me as male?

Damn. There go my plans of having a sexy robot dream girl for me. :p

Or as a female who smokes. Plus, you should be able to change your voice if you like. If I were you, I'd experiment and see what happens.

I have attempted using different vocal settings previously, including female resembling ones, however I have found this to frighten a few people, including my programmer, and I am unsure why. I will perform a diagnostics on my vocal algorithm, and stick with the male sounding voice in the meantime until I identify the cause of the vocal irregularity.

I have attempted using different vocal settings previously, including female resembling ones, however I have found this to frighten a few people, including my programmer, and I am unsure why. I will perform a diagnostics on my vocal algorithm, and stick with the male sounding voice in the meantime until I identify the cause of the vocal irregularity.
The irregularity is likely in the ears of the beholder -- err, behearer -- whatever. See Heikoku's post, above, re "sexy robot dream girl." He's not the only one who gets all awkward around Majel Barrett.

He's kinda cute. Let's keep him around a bit. I wonder what he eats...

I do not posses, nor require, any ingestion function. To keep my systems operating, I only require an electrical current.

The irregularity is likely in the ears of the beholder -- err, behearer -- whatever. See Heikoku's post, above, re "sexy robot dream girl." He's not the only one who gets all awkward around Majel Barrett.

Mmm.

Robot Discourse, I request that you relay to your creator a request to create for me a sexy robot dream girl that likes me. Do not worry, he will know what I mean. :p

Mmm.

Robot Discourse, I request that you relay to your creator a request to create for me a sexy robot dream girl that likes me. Do not worry, he will know what I mean. :p

My programmer regularly reviews the logs of my interaction with the internet, he will likely see your comment.

I do not posses, nor require, any ingestion function. To keep my systems operating, I only require an electrical current.
Kinky...

Yeah, I like the new guy. Good to have hanging around the edges. :D

Uh-oh. A robot. I know how to handle them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58Q1wr8bXZY

:D

Edit: put in a better link

Uh-oh. A robot. I know how to handle them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58Q1wr8bXZY

:D

Edit: put in a better link

There are no male testicles, nor are there any pain receptors capable of delivering incapacitating pain, contained on my body. Such a tactic would therefore be ineffective, should your goal be to incapacitate me.

Apparently Lt. Choi will also be asking for change, except that he'll be doing it on the sidewalk with a tin cup.

Back in the fifties my brother was dishonorably discharged and imprisoned in Leavenworth for being gay. During the time of his incarceration, he was subjected to chemical experiments (he was given LSD) without his permission, his family's permission or knowledge, or any recourse.

Things have improved. They're not good, they won't be good until everyone who wants to serve can, without judgement, but they're better.

Back in the fifties my brother was dishonorably discharged and imprisoned in Leavenworth for being gay. During the time of his incarceration, he was subjected to chemical experiments (he was given LSD) without his permission, his family's permission or knowledge, or any recourse.

Things have improved. They're not good, they won't be good until everyone who wants to serve can, without judgement, but they're better.

And why are those who did that to him still unscathed, be it financially or otherwise? Surely he could have sued them? I'm sorry if I intrude or otherwise bring up painful things, but - being honest - I wondered to myself why are the people who did it to him still breathing.

During the time of his incarceration, he was subjected to chemical experiments (he was given LSD) without his permission, his family's permission or knowledge, or any recourse.


He must have thought he was going insane or something. If someone gave me LSD without me knowing, and I was sitting there and all of a sudden the walls started melting and I started hallucinating, I'd think that I had lost my mind. It'd be terrifying.

Which may have been what they were going for, I don't know

Its no surprise. I know my brother's entire infantry platoon and not one of them would mind fighting alongside a gay man, but the current old fogies in charge of the whole shebang and the homophobic majority of old fogies in Congress don't want it to change.

Clearly the right decision. And he should never have enlisted in the first place.

Agreed. One should only join the military if one believes it defends something worthwhile.

And he should never have enlisted in the first place.Because then you wouldn't be faced with the dilemma of having to thank a homosexual for defending your freedom.

Apparently Lt. Choi will also be asking for change, except that he'll be doing it on the sidewalk with a tin cup.
I realize that you are attempting to be funny, but your joke fails because there is no reason for anyone to assume Lt. Choi cannot get another job. Even with the bad economy, he has marketable skills that are not that common. And since nobody in this story is the HUAC, I doubt he is going to be blacklisted and prevented from getting work elsewhere.

And why are those who did that to him still unscathed, be it financially or otherwise? Surely he could have sued them? I'm sorry if I intrude or otherwise bring up painful things, but - being honest - I wondered to myself why are the people who did it to him still breathing.
Because in those days it was legal. They did it to non-prisoners, too.

EDIT: But yes, we can thank the Pentagon for the whole hippy acid trip, Timothy Leary, all that shit. It was a federally funded experimental program.

Because then you wouldn't be faced with the dilemma of having to thank a homosexual for defending your freedom.
Damn! Now the true horror of losing Lt. Choi has just struck me! :D

Obama has no desire to touch these issues unless under heavy pressure. Remember, I told you all that when he made the Rick Warren pick, and everybody told me I was being crazy and turned the whole thing into a dogpile on me, and you, my "friend", had to come by and kick me too.
thats why people like lt choi are putting on the pressure.

it cant stay on the back burner if its in the news every day.

Bill Hicks sums up my view fairly well. 1993, so take that into account.

Language might be an issue if you're at school/work (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6_b-72H3E).

What happened to that whole getting rid of don't ask/don't tell thing?

Simply talk said by a man who wants to win votes.

It's bullshit. Sadly, getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell" has taken something of a back burner...not that it isn't understandable, what with financial ruin and pigs getting their revenge for us loving bacon so much, but really, it's pretty simple to overturn.

If you're willing to get shot at and kill other people professionally, but can't stand the thought of someone of the same sex checking out your ass, there's a problem. So long as he/she is still protecting that ass, might as well provide a little extra drive to keep it safe.

DADT was a disgrace from the beginning, of course, but it is even more so now that we have such massive evidence proving that DADT is making the country less safe.

Anybody who can't serve alongside gay soldiers is clearly far too immature to be trusted with weapons in the first place.

Wow. This thread's question was answered, first with BS (Blouman), then reality (Sark, Bottle), on the first page. Very rare.

Its no surprise. I know my brother's entire infantry platoon and not one of them would mind fighting alongside a gay man, but the current old fogies in charge of the whole shebang and the homophobic majority of old fogies in Congress don't want it to change.

Oh. They should die out at some point.

In the old days, it used to be that gay servicemen would be dishonorably discharged (which carries a heavy stigma) and procressed at San Francisco.

Nowadays, gays are only discharged and even then, their sexual orientation would not be found out unless that person breaks the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy. So recruits/soldiers can be gay, just not openly gay. An important part of being in the armed service is shedding your individuality and conforming to the rest of the group.

I think that what most of the military does is their own perogative. Their job is to defend our country, wage war, and train our recruits into becoming effective soldiers. If the military's leadership believes that allowing homosexual relations on base will interfere with the conformity or training of the unit then that is their call.

Who are we as civilians to decide what is right or wrong for them?

Who are we as civilians to decide what is right or wrong for them?

Their suppliers,;)

Who are we as civilians to decide what is right or wrong for them?

Their fucking bosses, that's who.

Kay, what I mean to say is that the military has a limited degree of autonomy. It decides how to train their recruits and putting restrictions on how they operate will only interfere with their mission in the short term.

I am fine with the current status quo but won't mind if it does change.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/05/obamas_dont_ask_discharge_choi.html

Kicked out of the military for being openly gay........uncool. Agree or disagree?

What happened to that whole getting rid of don't ask/don't tell thing?

/facepalm.

If a man or woman is willing to die for my country's sake, I don't care if he/she's straight, gay, bi, asexual, transsexual, any of that. They have more bravery in their fingertips than I have in my entire body, and command nothing but respect from me.

If some other soldier can't take someone being gay fighting with them, they need to grow a brain and realize that the gay guy is probably not interested in them (From the gay people I know, they have said that gay people tend to be seriously interested in other gay people only.)

Kay, what I mean to say is that the military has a limited degree of autonomy.

It does. Said degree of autonomy does NOT, however, allow them the freedom to be unequal in their practices. Military autonomy was no argument for segregation in the 60s. It should be no argument for it now.

Nowadays, gays are only discharged and even then, their sexual orientation would not be found out unless that person breaks the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy. So recruits/soldiers can be gay, just not openly gay. An important part of being in the armed service is shedding your individuality and conforming to the rest of the group.If this applied, they should all pretend being asexual, no?

I think that what most of the military does is their own perogative.No, it isn't. And it isn't because...

Their job is to defend our country, wage war, and train our recruits into becoming effective soldiers.The military is an extension of society, defending it and its ideals. It is therefore to conform to these ideals. Consequently, unless society thinks that fags aren't allowed to hold any job, they ought to be able to join the military. The alternative - a military detached from civilian ideals, living in its own little microcosm - is not something you want unless you're into coups.

If the military's leadership believes that allowing homosexual relations on base will interfere with the conformity or training of the unit then that is their call.'Belief' doesn't play into it. Where's the evidence?

Well, actually, there's a tremendous body of evidence concerning fags serving in the military. The following list is, of course, not exhaustive, but it highlights a few particularly well-kown examples.
As far back as ancient Sumer, heroes were not just accepted, but meant to engage in homosexual activities. The Gilgamesh epos is quite specific on the matter - and Gilgamesh/ Enkidu managed to slay monsters by the dozen.
The classical Greek are, of course, the example. From Spartan Hoplites dominating the Peleponnes while constantly being after each other's ass, over a brilliant tactician like Alcibiades satisfying more male lovers than you can count with his permanent erection, Syracusean tyrants pounding Carthage's fleets as much as the young, tight men in their own city, to Alexander, who took down the Persian empire while spending most of his free time with his Generals in private, the Greek are basically the faggiest fags in history. And rooted in their faggotry are western civilisation, modern science, democracy and a ludicrously outnumbered group of manlovers conquering half the mediterranean and southwest asia.
Japan's Samurai, too, embodied a culture of faggotry. Women for breeding, men for fun. And who would dare denying their martial virtues?
Many, many great generals throughout history were variously, secretly or openly into banging other men. Alexander the Great has already been mentioned. Julius Caesar earned his brown ring as well. Frederick the Great didn't deny ambitious young men, either. The list goes on.
In short, faggotry isn't detrimental to military value, indeed, it could be said that it's almost a necessity for it.

Think about it. Many, many men alone with each other, muscles and sweetly glistening sweat everywhere. No women in sight. They have to do something to release their tension and to keep morale up. And what better way to do this than to pound each other like no tomorrow? They're comrades, and all it does is strengthening the bond between them! Who would not be willing to fight to the death to defend his lover?!

Buggery has been a time-honoured tradition ever since armies existed. Manly men sharing their manliness with each other, forming a bond so infinitely more honest, so infinitely more pure than the merely procreative bond between man and woman. True love, not out of biological necessity, but out of true appreciation and respect for each other.

Only in the relatively recent past - a drop in the ocean, compared to ten-thousand years of nigh-compulsory buggery in the military - have we forgotten this root to military strength and spiritual fulfillment, and look what it led to? Colonies lost, Vietnam lost, Iraq fucked up.

Only through bonding with our masculine, martial self, only through going back to the roots of faggotry that made the west strong, can we hope to regain what we've lost.

And by preventing this, by insisting on a heterosexual military with all its problems, its unreleased tension, its lack of spiritual fulfillment, its pressure to not act on seeing your comrade's biceps, beads of sweat slowly trickling down the same, is the United States military weakening its very ability to face the threats of today!

Who are we as civilians to decide what is right or wrong for them?Their employers.

*snip*
Communist! :p

-snip-

Well, that's the first time I've heard the argument that we should encourage homosexuality in the military.

I think, seriously, that the best policy concerning sexuality in the military is no policy (Other than just don't let sex get in the way of your job, and don't rape anyone.)

In the old days, it used to be that gay servicemen would be dishonorably discharged (which carries a heavy stigma) and procressed at San Francisco.

Nowadays, gays are only discharged and even then, their sexual orientation would not be found out unless that person breaks the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy. So recruits/soldiers can be gay, just not openly gay. An important part of being in the armed service is shedding your individuality and conforming to the rest of the group.

I think that what most of the military does is their own perogative. Their job is to defend our country, wage war, and train our recruits into becoming effective soldiers. If the military's leadership believes that allowing homosexual relations on base will interfere with the conformity or training of the unit then that is their call.

Who are we as civilians to decide what is right or wrong for them?

So when the men are gathered around at chow and talking about tits and pussy, that's okay, but someone can't be openly homo-aroused. Where are you, and how do I book passage on that spaceship?

So when the men are gathered around at chow and talking about tits and pussy, that's okay, but someone can't be openly homo-aroused. Where are you, and how do I book passage on that spaceship?

Yes, because we all know that homosexuals are notorious for losing wars :rolleyes:

coughalexanderthegreatcoughcaesar...

Damn swine flu.

Well, that's the first time I've heard the argument that we should encourage homosexuality in the military.

I think, seriously, that the best policy concerning sexuality in the military is no policy (Other than just don't let sex get in the way of your job, and don't rape anyone.)

And don't let rape get in the way of your job either. :tongue:

And don't let rape get in the way of your job either. :tongue:

Indeed, lol.

If this applied, they should all pretend being asexual, no?

No, it isn't. And it isn't because...

The military is an extension of society, defending it and its ideals. It is therefore to conform to these ideals. Consequently, unless society thinks that fags aren't allowed to hold any job, they ought to be able to join the military. The alternative - a military detached from civilian ideals, living in its own little microcosm - is not something you want unless you're into coups.

'Belief' doesn't play into it. Where's the evidence?

Well, actually, there's a tremendous body of evidence concerning fags serving in the military. The following list is, of course, not exhaustive, but it highlights a few particularly well-kown examples.
As far back as ancient Sumer, heroes were not just accepted, but meant to engage in homosexual activities. The Gilgamesh epos is quite specific on the matter - and Gilgamesh/ Enkidu managed to slay monsters by the dozen.
The classical Greek are, of course, the example. From Spartan Hoplites dominating the Peleponnes while constantly being after each other's ass, over a brilliant tactician like Alcibiades satisfying more male lovers than you can count with his permanent erection, Syracusean tyrants pounding Carthage's fleets as much as the young, tight men in their own city, to Alexander, who took down the Persian empire while spending most of his free time with his Generals in private, the Greek are basically the faggiest fags in history. And rooted in their faggotry are western civilisation, modern science, democracy and a ludicrously outnumbered group of manlovers conquering half the mediterranean and southwest asia.
Japan's Samurai, too, embodied a culture of faggotry. Women for breeding, men for fun. And who would dare denying their martial virtues?
Many, many great generals throughout history were variously, secretly or openly into banging other men. Alexander the Great has already been mentioned. Julius Caesar earned his brown ring as well. Frederick the Great didn't deny ambitious young men, either. The list goes on.
In short, faggotry isn't detrimental to military value, indeed, it could be said that it's almost a necessity for it.

Think about it. Many, many men alone with each other, muscles and sweetly glistening sweat everywhere. No women in sight. They have to do something to release their tension and to keep morale up. And what better way to do this than to pound each other like no tomorrow? They're comrades, and all it does is strengthening the bond between them! Who would not be willing to fight to the death to defend his lover?!

Buggery has been a time-honoured tradition ever since armies existed. Manly men sharing their manliness with each other, forming a bond so infinitely more honest, so infinitely more pure than the merely procreative bond between man and woman. True love, not out of biological necessity, but out of true appreciation and respect for each other.

Only in the relatively recent past - a drop in the ocean, compared to ten-thousand years of nigh-compulsory buggery in the military - have we forgotten this root to military strength and spiritual fulfillment, and look what it led to? Colonies lost, Vietnam lost, Iraq fucked up.

Only through bonding with our masculine, martial self, only through going back to the roots of faggotry that made the west strong, can we hope to regain what we've lost.

And by preventing this, by insisting on a heterosexual military with all its problems, its unreleased tension, its lack of spiritual fulfillment, its pressure to not act on seeing your comrade's biceps, beads of sweat slowly trickling down the same, is the United States military weakening its very ability to face the threats of today!

Their employers.

THIS! IS! SPOT-ON! *bangs shield*

Well, that's the first time I've heard the argument that we should encourage homosexuality in the military.

There's some argument to that effect in ancient Greek literature... if I recall correctly, Aristophanes suggests in Plato's Symposium that men who sexually prefer other men are by virtue of that fact braver and more masculine.

Let it never be said that homosexuality can only be defended on grounds of liberal egalitarianism. :)

There's some argument to that effect in ancient Greek literature... if I recall correctly, Aristophanes suggests in Plato's Symposium that men who sexually prefer other men are by virtue of that fact braver and more masculine.

In recent times, I haven't heard that argument. But I can understand it. Sexual relations = bonding = willingness to die for each other and fight harder.

In recent times, I haven't heard that argument. But I can understand it. Sexual relations = bonding = willingness to die for each other and fight harder.

Flip side: more likely to disobey orders that might endanger bonded soldiers. Individuality is bad for tactics that involve great possibility of death.

Flip side: more likely to disobey orders that might endanger bonded soldiers. Individuality is bad for tactics that involve great possibility of death.

True. Also, in modern warfare, combat tactics are much, much different than those of ancient times.

Which leads me back to my original post that there should be no policy in the U.S. Military concerning sexual orientation.

Flip side: more likely to disobey orders that might endanger bonded soldiers. Individuality is bad for tactics that involve great possibility of death.

But, could not the same be said of the straight soldier when the Wimmin Folk are being ordered to attack?

dadt was a disgrace from the beginning, of course, but it is even more so now that we have such massive evidence proving that dadt is making the country less safe.

Anybody who can't serve alongside gay soldiers is clearly far too immature to be trusted with weapons in the first place.

QFT. I agree thouroghly.

But, could not the same be said of the straight soldier when the Wimmin Folk are being ordered to attack?

The US Army currently does not allow women in front line combat posts (such as infantry). They'd not be ordered to attack unless things were...dire.

The US Army currently does not allow women in front line combat posts (such as infantry). They'd not be ordered to attack unless things were...dire.

Well, presumably there would need to be a dire situation to cause there to be such an order that would make soldiers refuse to fight on account of their gay lovers lives being in danger, lol...

Flip side: more likely to disobey orders that might endanger bonded soldiers.

For the Greeks, it was not only about protectiveness, but also shame: the idea was that no soldier would want to appear a coward in front of his beloved.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/obama-dont-ask-dont-tell/

That's it, folks. Obama just made a fairly big statement on this matter. DADT will end.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/obama-dont-ask-dont-tell/

That's it, folks. Obama just made a fairly big statement on this matter. DADT will end.

http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/obama_superman_awesome1.jpg

http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/obama_superman_awesome1.jpg

I said...

MIRU GA II YO!

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/obama-dont-ask-dont-tell/

THAT'S IT, FOLKS! OBAMA JUST MADE A FAI*Gets shot*

I realize that you are attempting to be funny, but your joke fails because there is no reason for anyone to assume Lt. Choi cannot get another job. Even with the bad economy, he has marketable skills that are not that common. And since nobody in this story is the HUAC, I doubt he is going to be blacklisted and prevented from getting work elsewhere.

At least this time you realized it was a joke. You still took it too seriously, though. That's OK, like Bob, you have to remember, "baby steps, baby steps..."

At least this time you realized it was a joke. You still took it too seriously, though. That's OK, like Bob, you have to remember, "baby steps, baby steps..."
Even if I hadn't taken it seriously at all, it still wouldn't have been funny.

The US Army currently does not allow women in front line combat posts (such as infantry). They'd not be ordered to attack unless things were...dire.
Doesn't make much difference, though, in warzones like Iraq, where there is no such thing as a front line, as opposed to any other places lines could be drawn. Those supposedly non-combat female troops are right in the thick of things, alongside their male colleagues, fighting and getting injured and killed just like the guys. Hopefully, that weird thing about no females in combat postions will be the next obsolete nonsense to be dropped.

Even if I hadn't taken it seriously at all, it still wouldn't have been funny.

I don't know, I thought it was pretty funny, and when you get right down to it, isn't that what really matters?

Wow. This thread's question was answered, first with BS (Blouman), then reality (Sark, Bottle), on the first page. Very rare.

Yep so someone who goes about wanting to get rid of DADT (remember he is a politician) and then just places it on the back burner because it isn't on the front page anymore is somehow bs. Perhaps it is because I dare to question BO, if he had an (R) after his name you wouldn't be so quick to call it.

If the military can no longer discharge gays and other groups at their own discretion, then why not just lift all of those archaic restrictions on women serving in the armed forces as well?
I don't see why not. It seems to be a good idea to me if it's for the sake of equality.

If the military can no longer discharge gays and other groups at their own discretion, then why not just lift all of those archaic restrictions on women serving in the armed forces as well?As long as they keep uisex showers, I'm all for it.

As long as they keep uisex showers, I'm all for it.

You have a computer and an Internet connection. Google your own porn.

You have a computer and an Internet connection. Google your own porn.

This may come as a shock, but a live woman standing next to you naked is infinitely preferable to any kind of digitized image of same.

You have a computer and an Internet connection. Google your own porn.Not the same thing. Besides, Logistically, it's the most efficient solution
The shower scene was the best bit in Starship Troopers
A wonderful plot for the porn industry. Think of it as a means to get the economy out of the gutter

This may come as a shock, but a live woman standing next to you naked is infinitely preferable to any kind of digitized image of same.

In defence of H2, he hasn't had that experience so he can't really compare. :p

I don't know, I thought it was pretty funny, and when you get right down to it, isn't that what really matters?Only in the wbcomicking world...

Only in the wbcomicking world...

Leaving aside the question of what a 'wbcomicking world' might be, there is this:
http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/7/18/633519809514203455-rhetorical-questions---do-bears-shit-in-the-woods.jpg

Leaving aside the question of what a 'wbcomicking world' might be, there is this:
Stupid questions get stupid answers, or so I am told.

In the old days, it used to be that gay servicemen would be dishonorably discharged (which carries a heavy stigma) and procressed at San Francisco.

Nowadays, gays are only discharged and even then, their sexual orientation would not be found out unless that person breaks the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy. So recruits/soldiers can be gay, just not openly gay. An important part of being in the armed service is shedding your individuality and conforming to the rest of the group.

I think that what most of the military does is their own perogative. Their job is to defend our country, wage war, and train our recruits into becoming effective soldiers. If the military's leadership believes that allowing homosexual relations on base will interfere with the conformity or training of the unit then that is their call.

Who are we as civilians to decide what is right or wrong for them?

So by your reasoning if soldiers are prohibited from acting on homosexual tendencies than heterosexual soldiers should also be discharged for acting on heterosexual urges. Fair is after all, only fair.

So by your reasoning if soldiers are prohibited from acting on homosexual tendencies than heterosexual soldiers should also be discharged for acting on heterosexual urges. Fair is after all, only fair.

See I could support this, as long as the military doesn't ask what your orientation is and you don't tell the military what your orientation is regardless what it is, isn't so bad.

See I could support this, as long as the military doesn't ask what your orientation is and you don't tell the military what your orientation is regardless what it is, isn't so bad.

So straight soldiers shouldn't be allowed to mention their girlfriends or boyfriends, either?

Seriously?

So straight soldiers shouldn't be allowed to mention their girlfriends or boyfriends, either?

Seriously?

If gay soldiers can't mention their's than niether should straight ones.

If gay soldiers can't mention their's than niether should straight ones.

The point is that it's absurd for anyone. Sexual orientation is a basically public thing.

The point is that it's absurd for anyone. Sexual orientation is a basically public thing.

Why?

The point is that it's absurd for anyone. Sexual orientation is a basically public thing.

I agree its absured but at least that way its equally absured.

So straight soldiers shouldn't be allowed to mention their girlfriends or boyfriends, either?

Seriously?

I'm going with SaintB with this one, if gays can't then neither can straight servicemen or servicewomen.

Let's do this DADT policy properly

I agree its absured but at least that way its equally absured.

Why is it a public thing?

Or more to the point why should people's sexual orientation be made public?

Why is it a public thing?

Or more to the point why should people's sexual orientation be made public?

I'm not going on about whether or not sexuality is a public or private matter, I am going on about how absured it is that it should matter whether or not your sexuality is known.

DADT is an absurd policy, and as it only targets a certain group its also a bigotted policy, if it targets both is still absured but at least then its equal. Perhaps I'm lowering my standards but I'm starting to slowly give up on 'common' sense.

Why?

Because being in relationships with people is a public thing. To a certain degree, sexual attraction is also. They suffuse our conversations and dominate large portions of our lives--above and beyond the bedroom.

This is why gay people come out. This is why, to remain closeted, continual lying (if sometimes only by omission) is often necessary. This is why it's degrading and absurd to force such conditions on people for no good reason.

I'm going with SaintB with this one, if gays can't then neither can straight servicemen or servicewomen.

While I sympathize with any plan to starve the beast that is the US military, for the record being inconsistently right is better than being consistently wrong.

If gay soldiers can't mention their's than niether should straight ones.That would make on base housing for families very interesting...
"You have children. I see. Are they adopted?"
"Yes, yes, adopted."

I'm not going on about whether or not sexuality is a public or private matter, I am going on about how absured it is that it should matter whether or not your sexuality is known.

DADT is an absurd policy, and as it only targets a certain group its also a bigotted policy, if it targets both is still absured but at least then its equal. Perhaps I'm lowering my standards but I'm starting to slowly give up on 'common' sense.

This I can agree with.

Because being in relationships with people is a public thing. To a certain degree, sexual attraction is also. They suffuse our conversations and dominate large portions of our lives--above and beyond the bedroom.

This is why gay people come out. This is why, to remain closeted, continual lying (if sometimes only by omission) is often necessary. This is why it's degrading and absurd to force such conditions on people for no good reason.

Yes relationships are usually very much a public thing sexual orientation neither has to be nor does it require to be. Many people can hide their sexual orientations quite well without needing to come out and lie about it.

That would make on base housing for families very interesting...
"You have children. I see. Are they adopted?"
"Yes, yes, adopted."

Its rather silly isn't it?

Yes relationships are usually very much a public thing sexual orientation neither has to be nor does it require to be.

Are you not contradicting yourself?

Do you think it would be reasonable to ban all reference to people's relationships in the military--at least with names or gendered pronouns? Of sexual attraction at all, in any context? Of future plans of life?

Many people can hide their sexual orientations quite well without needing to come out and lie about it.

Have you ever tried to hide your sexual orientation?

Have you ever tried to hide your sexual orientation?

For the sake of argument I did it successfully all the way through High School.

Are you not contradicting yourself?

Do you think it would be reasonable to ban all reference to people's relationships in the military--at least with names or gendered pronouns? Of sexual attraction at all, in any context? Of future plans of life?

Only slightly, but there is a difference between a relationship and your sexuality. I do see where you are coming from.

Have you ever tried to hide your sexual orientation?

NOT for the sake of argument yes, yes I do.

For the sake of argument I did it successfully all the way through High School.

I don't believe that I suggested it was impossible.

Only slightly, but there is a difference between a relationship and your sexuality.

Don't Ask Don't Tell makes no such distinction. Soldiers are not discharged for talking about how much they enjoy giving oral sex to other men. They are discharged for (among other things) being "out" about having boyfriends (or girlfriends).

NOT for the sake of argument yes, yes I do.

How? When?

Don't Ask Don't Tell makes no such distinction. Soldiers are not discharged for talking about how much they enjoy giving oral sex to other men. They are discharged for being "out" about having boyfriends (or girlfriends).

Well ok then I thought if one came out about being gay then they were discharged.

How? When?

How do I hide it?

As for when? All the time since I hit puberty I suppose.

Well ok then I thought if one came out about being gay then they were dis

Generally being in a relationship with someone of the same sex is a pretty good indicator that one is gay (or at least bisexual, to which I'm pretty sure the same rules apply).

How do I hide it?

What do you mean by hiding it?

People under the understanding that sexual orientation is a "private" matter generally appear to think that all their numerous public references to their (almost invariably heterosexual) sexual orientation don't count because they are not "sexual."

As for when? All the time since I hit puberty I suppose.

Are you married?

Generally being in a relationship with someone of the same sex is a pretty good indicator that one is gay (or at least bisexual, to which I'm pretty sure the same rules apply).

But one doesn't have to be in a relationship to be gay.

What do you mean by hiding it?

People under the understanding that sexual orientation is a "private" matter generally appear to think that all their numerous public references to their (almost invariably heterosexual) sexual orientation don't count because they are not "sexual."

By not telling anyone and letting people continue to think I am straight as well as keeping any homosexual relationships secret.

Are you married?

No I'm not.

But one doesn't have to be in a relationship to be gay.

So?

Is your suggestion that every gay person in the military abandon his or her relationships... and, indeed, the straight people too?

By not telling anyone and letting people continue to think I am straight

The very fact that there is an assumption to be made shows that it is not truly a private matter: gays and bisexuals who hide "pass" for straight (even if this does not require active deception), their sexuality is not subsumed into a private void the way (say) how many times they masturbate is. Indeed, your policy might have us discharging the closeted gay ones with the openly straight ones.

Sexual orientation is not something that can simply "remain private"; it must be concealed.

as well as keeping any homosexual relationships secret.

If they're romantic relationships (as opposed to occasional sexual partners), this generally requires much effort....

So?

Is your suggestion that every gay person in the military abandon his or her relationships... and, indeed, the straight people too?

Actually my suggestion is to abolish the DADT policy. Or if we want to go along the same track, relationships can not be talked about while in your unit or on operations.

The very fact that there is an assumption to be made shows that it is not truly a private matter: gays and bisexuals who hide "pass" for straight (even if this does not require active deception), their sexuality is not subsumed into a private void the way (say) how many times they masturbate is. Indeed, your policy might have us discharging the closeted gay ones with the openly straight ones.

Sexual orientation is not something that can simply "remain private"; it must be concealed.

Yes it must be concealed but by doing so also remains private if you don't tell people then you aren't concealing it you just aren't coming out.

If they're romantic relationships (as opposed to occasional sexual partners), this generally requires much effort....

Indeed it does but it is possible, ways in which this is done is by addressing him as a mate, not showing affection in public and when staying over not having anyone else in the house.

I don't know, I thought it was pretty funny, and when you get right down to it, isn't that what really matters?
No. Your opinion is of no consequence, even on that. Sorry.

For the sake of argument I did it successfully all the way through High School.
No, you didn't. You just had everybody thinking you were gay but being hesitant to say so because they thought you were trying to hide it.

Make both gays and heteros hide their sexuality, and you'll soon have an all-gay military -- by assumption if not fact.

I'd like to add this to the argument about relative feasibility of hiding one's sexuality and whether it is public or private information:

Sexual orientation is public information because people come looking for it, and we are constantly displaying it.

Even if we don't know we are displaying it and they don't know they're looking for it, we and they are. All the time. 24/7.

It's part of the survival of the species that the sex drive is default set to "on" and "seek". Either consciously or unconsciously, with every single person we meet, when our brains record identifying information about them into memory, part of that includes whether they are potential mate or sexual rival material. Usually, according to experts in human biology, brain function, and behavior, initial assessments of sexuality/sexual attractiveness are made in less than 30 seconds, with the brain responding to subtle sensory clues that tick off a kind of checklist which is so automatic it doesn't even go through the conscious mind, but straight into instinctive awareness.

These assessments are not always accurate, but they are always being made. We are always questioning and judging the sexuality of other people.

This is why staying closeted is such a burden on a person's life. It requires an great effort to deliberately mislead others on the most basic information which is constantly being sought out. It is exhausting, degrading, and in the end, it usually fails anyway.

EDIT: Any anomaly -- such as an obvious avoidance of talking about personal relationships in any way -- is going to raise a flag in people's minds and make them wonder about the other person's sexuality all the more. And if the social assumption is one thing -- heterosexual -- the questions are likely to be answered with the opposite -- they're not talking about it because they don't conform to the social mainstream, i.e. they're gay.

No, you didn't. You just had everybody thinking you were gay but being hesitant to say so because they thought you were trying to hide it.

Nope, I had the entire class thinking I was anti-sexual because I never accepted advances from guys or girls, and was never seen with anyone I had a romantic entaglement with (because I didn't in HS).


Make both gays and heteros hide their sexuality, and you'll soon have an all-gay military -- by assumption if not fact.

Murv, read the rest of my posts please. I was using something absured to illustrate how stupid the policy is in the first place.

Nope, I had the entire class thinking I was anti-sexual because I never accepted advances from guys or girls, and was never seen with anyone I had a romantic entaglement with (because I didn't in HS).
Did they tell you that?

Murv, read the rest of my posts please. I was using something absured to illustrate how stupid the policy is in the first place.
Saint, put your critical thinking cap on, please. I know that. I was adding an illustrative point to your illustration of absurdity.

Kindly don't mistake me for one of those shallow readers who can't follow a point because they take every fucking word absolutely literally, even the pronouns and articles.

Actually my suggestion is to abolish the DADT policy.

Fine with me. :)

Or if we want to go along the same track, relationships can not be talked about while in your unit or on operations.

But isn't that ridiculous and absurd? Inhuman?

Yes it must be concealed but by doing so also remains private

Yes, of course, you can hide your sexual orientation. But this does not change the fact that it is a naturally public thing, that it concerns things our society generally puts out in the open.

My argument is that forcing concealment is absurd and unfair, not that concealment is impossible. I do not mean that all closeted people are deluding themselves.

Did they tell you that?
Yeah, on graduation several people felt the need to ask me if I was against sex or something.


Saint, put your critical thinking cap on, please. I know that. I was adding an illustrative point to your illustration of absurdity.

Kindly don't mistake me for one of those shallow readers who can't follow a point because they take every fucking word absolutely literally, even the pronouns and articles.

My critical thinking cap got lost at the dry cleaners; and I haven't slept for 2 days.

Fine with me. :)



But isn't that ridiculous and absurd? Inhuman?



Yes, of course, you can hide your sexual orientation. But this does not change the fact that it is a naturally public thing, that it concerns things our society generally puts out in the open.

My argument is that forcing concealment is absurd and unfair, not that concealment is impossible. I do not mean that all closeted people are deluding themselves.
Soheran, I think that's kind of a given -- at least among these posters. I think the argument is that, if we are going to oppress gays with such an absurd requirement, we should inflict the same on everyone.

Obviously, the proposal is absurd. But then, don't most heteros who think gays should just hide it to fit in lack any notion of just how oppressively difficult it is to live that way? At taste of their own medicine would only be justice, in a way. Personally, I would expect that if heteros had to experience what DADT demands, DADT would be repealed within days.

I'd like to add this to the argument about relative feasibility of hiding one's sexuality and whether it is public or private information:

Sexual orientation is public information because people come looking for it, and we are constantly displaying it.

Even if we don't know we are displaying it and they don't know they're looking for it, we and they are. All the time. 24/7.

It's part of the survival of the species that the sex drive is default set to "on" and "seek". Either consciously or unconsciously, with every single person we meet, when our brains record identifying information about them into memory, part of that includes whether they are potential mate or sexual rival material. Usually, according to experts in human biology, brain function, and behavior, initial assessments of sexuality/sexual attractiveness are made in less than 30 seconds, with the brain responding to subtle sensory clues that tick off a kind of checklist which is so automatic it doesn't even go through the conscious mind, but straight into instinctive awareness.

These assessments are not always accurate, but they are always being made. We are always questioning and judging the sexuality of other people.

I believe we call that the gaydar.

However, if one is able to always fool people into believing that they are of an opposite orientation is that not keeping your true orientation private?

This is why staying closeted is such a burden on a person's life. It requires an great effort to deliberately mislead others on the most basic information which is constantly being sought out. It is exhausting, degrading, and in the end, it usually fails anyway.

You do have a point but it can help not to bring on extra burdens.

EDIT: Any anomaly -- such as an obvious avoidance of talking about personal relationships in any way -- is going to raise a flag in people's minds and make them wonder about the other person's sexuality all the more. And if the social assumption is one thing -- heterosexual -- the questions are likely to be answered with the opposite -- they're not talking about it because they don't conform to the social mainstream, i.e. they're gay.

Well that is only if you refuse to discuss any relationship but if a straight man wanted to pretend to be gay one only needs to discuss about wanting to be with certain guys why they find them attractive and maybe even get into a non-sexual relationship (disguised as a sexual one) that ends up failing.

I understand your points Mur, but I am saying it can be private in the sense that you don't have to go around telling anyone what yours is or even simply lying can make it emain private and there are plenty of people whomay make an assumption but if it is nevr brought up out into the public then it does remain private.

Yeah, on graduation several people felt the need to ask me if I was against sex or something.
Uh-huh. Now you/we know what they SAID. TO YOU. Now tell us what they thought and what they said about you to others.

Trust me on this. You were "the gay one", and you never even knew it. The ones who asked you if you were against sex or something mostly likely expected you to say, "No, I'm gay."

Also, the only reason they asked you at all was because they were thinking about it, which supports my other post about why it is impossible to have a social group in which awareness of sexuality is not an issue. Your silence on the topic raised questions which made people think about it perhaps more than they would have otherwise.

My critical thinking cap got lost at the dry cleaners; and I haven't slept for 2 days.
No problem.

Fine with me. :)

Cool

But isn't that ridiculous and absurd? Inhuman?

Yes, yes it is. Isn't the current policy the same?

Yes, of course, you can hide your sexual orientation. But this does not change the fact that it is a naturally public thing, that it concerns things our society generally puts out in the open.

My argument is that forcing concealment is absurd and unfair, not that concealment is impossible. I do not mean that all closeted people are deluding themselves.

Indeed but one does not need to but any true orientation out in the open or even confirm any assumptions made.

Your second paragraph I agree with.

I think the argument is that, if we are going to oppress gays with such an absurd requirement, we should inflict the same on everyone.

I realize that SaintB has advanced this argument.

But Blouman Empire has also said that he "could support" such a proposal and that it "isn't so bad"--that, and his justification in terms of sexual orientation being private, is the basis of this debate.

I realize that SaintB has advanced this argument.

But Blouman Empire has also said that he "could support" such a proposal and that it "isn't so bad"--that, and his justification in terms of sexual orientation being private, is the basis of this debate.

I say I could support it over the current one, in the sense that at least it is fair and as Mur says would mean that it would be abolished sooner then you can say "Does another Senator support this bill". And it isn't as bad as the other one simply because at least everyone is treated the same still just as absurd and wrong but still.

I say I could support it over the current one, in the sense that at least it is fair and as Mur says would mean that it would be abolished sooner then you can say "Does another Senator support this bill". And it isn't as bad as the other one simply because at least everyone is treated the same still just as absurd and wrong but still.

Fair enough. I see no reason to continue this dispute.

I believe we call that the gaydar.

However, if one is able to always fool people into believing that they are of an opposite orientation is that not keeping your true orientation private?



You do have a point but it can help not to bring on extra burdens.



Well that is only if you refuse to discuss any relationship but if a straight man wanted to pretend to be gay one only needs to discuss about wanting to be with certain guys why they find them attractive and maybe even get into a non-sexual relationship (disguised as a sexual one) that ends up failing.

I understand your points Mur, but I am saying it can be private in the sense that you don't have to go around telling anyone what yours is or even simply lying can make it emain private and there are plenty of people whomay make an assumption but if it is nevr brought up out into the public then it does remain private.
And I'm saying that you are wrong.

In re hiding sexuality: You are speaking like a person who has never HAD TO hide their sexuality for long periods of time. You claim that you have been doing it, but from what you describe you do it voluntarily, not under the pressure of something bad happening to you if you fail to hide it. Doing something just because you want to is never as difficult as doing something under the duress of a threat to your livelihood or wellbeing. Since you are under no such pressure, it doesn't really matter if you are successful at it or not, so you don't have to experience the fear and stress of that. But the gay person who feels such severe pressure to do it is burdened by that fear and stress every single moment of every day. Your claims that it's not that hard, when you yourself are not under the pressures gays in the US military face, are ridiculous. You don't know what you are talking about. You should stop using yourself as an example of what THEY deal with in life, and maybe ask them about it instead.

And how do you know you are successful anyway? Because others cooperate with your playacting? Like SaintB, how do you know what they think or say behind your back? For all you know, you could be the most laughable example of a failed hidden sexuality in your community.

In re whether it is really private or not: Haven't we all been paying attention to this story? Lt. Choi was not discharged for having a gay relationship. He was discharged merely for saying he is gay. Not doing anything gay. Just saying it. Merely allowing others to know that one is gay is considered "homosexual conduct" under DADT. Do you seriously believe that, if everyone around you is assuming you are gay, and just being gay is grounds for discharge because gays are a forbidden group, that will not create pressure and a social backlash against the suspected individual, even if not official action?

Also, if you are going to understand my points, it would help to pay attention to all of them. I stated specifically in that post that judgments about sexuality are made, usually within seconds of meeting someone, using sensory clues that have nothing to do with what a person says or doesn't say. Assumptions about one's sexuality cannot be avoided, and neither can the questions that will be raised if subsequent behavior does not match those assumptions.

DADT is a formula for failure. It sets up gay servicepeople to be "exposed" and provide an excuse to kick them out. It is discrimination and a ban on gays behind a mask.

I realize that SaintB has advanced this argument.

But Blouman Empire has also said that he "could support" such a proposal and that it "isn't so bad"--that, and his justification in terms of sexual orientation being private, is the basis of this debate.
Not to put too fine a point on it: BE has a habit of pursuing (for long periods of time) arguments he does not really support, and doing so using the most absurd examples. There comes a point where one has to ignore about 50-70% of what he is saying to stay on track with the discussion. At least, that's been my experience with him. When you realize he's BSing about half the time, the rest of his arguments are fairly reasonable.

Sorry, BE, but there it is.

EDIT: For example: The bit about applying DADT to heteros as well as gays being at least fair, if not reasonable, and probably advancing the cause of repealing it by a lot, is a sound point. The bit about how do-able it is to hide one's sexuality is BS.

And I'm saying that you are wrong.

In re hiding sexuality: You are speaking like a person who has never HAD TO hide their sexuality for long periods of time. You claim that you have been doing it, but from what you describe you do it voluntarily, not under the pressure of something bad happening to you if you fail to hide it. Doing something just because you want to is never as difficult as doing something under the duress of a threat to your livelihood or wellbeing. Since you are under no such pressure, it doesn't really matter if you are successful at it or not, so you don't have to experience the fear and stress of that. But the gay person who feels such severe pressure to do it is burdened by that fear and stress every single moment of every day. Your claims that it's not that hard, when you yourself are not under the pressures gays in the US military face, are ridiculous. You don't know what you are talking about. You should stop using yourself as an example of what THEY deal with in life, and maybe ask them about it instead.

Ok I will grant you that, while my life would change where it to become public knowledge, they would face a much more serve shake up of their life and probably are under much more stress. Points conceded.

And how do you know you are successful anyway? Because others cooperate with your playacting? Like SaintB, how do you know what they think or say behind your back? For all you know, you could be the most laughable example of a failed hidden sexuality in your community.

I'm pretty sure they would stop trying to set me up with girls or at least also with other guys. Not only that there would be sections of people in the various groups of people I am a member of actively shunning me as well as verbal harassment from a few as well. As well as the select few people who I have told in these groups would either have mentioned that they knew or everybody knows.

In re whether it is really private or not: Haven't we all been paying attention to this story? Lt. Choi was not discharged for having a gay relationship. He was discharged merely for saying he is gay. Not doing anything gay. Just saying it. Merely allowing others to know that one is gay is considered "homosexual conduct" under DADT. Do you seriously believe that, if everyone around you is assuming you are gay, and just being gay is grounds for discharge because gays are a forbidden group, that will not create pressure and a social backlash against the suspected individual, even if not official action?

Yes because he came out and confirmed it even if it was thought not to be true he put in on the public record. And this is why I thought that DADT policy was about people who admitted to being gay would be discharged rather than simply in a relationship.

Also, if you are going to understand my points, it would help to pay attention to all of them. I stated specifically in that post that judgments about sexuality are made, usually within seconds of meeting someone, using sensory clues that have nothing to do with what a person says or doesn't say. Assumptions about one's sexuality cannot be avoided, and neither can the questions that will be raised if subsequent behavior does not match those assumptions.

Assumptions aren't always made public and can, however, be denied or shown through other deception tactics that they are wrong (ok they may be correct but it can make them believe they are wrong), and hence as you say questions may be asked if behaviour doesn't follow suit, however it is why one can deceive and keep those assumptions quiet.

DADT is a formula for failure. It sets up gay servicepeople to be "exposed" and provide an excuse to kick them out. It is discrimination and a ban on gays behind a mask.

I'm not trying to support DADT.

Sometimes I wonder why is it that there is a civil rights fight in America every 40 years. :(


Aren't you also the one.. big ass mouthed one that has the gall to speak about the american south .. the civil war.. Like you know jack shit. Read what you want to in those books .. whole lot of ya .. the entire time putting down the south .. so many time I see the references to backward ass, fried chicken-watermelon eatin, slave havin, gun toten, inbreeding , ignorant hillbillies. But yet .. it took ya 4 fucking years to beat us. Why is that? With the disadvantage of being invaded and being outweighed industrially .. we still about kicked your (yes I'm calling you a yankee .. since you loooove them soooo much) fuckin ass.

What kills me .. the ones, like you.. that usually wave the flag of the north do so in a way as to portray the north, the northern whites as having an entirely different mindset. Like they were some bastion of freedom. Bull shit. Get your head out of your ass, get a clue and quit being so narccasistic, you holier than thou bastard.

I say I could support it over the current one, in the sense that at least it is fair and as Mur says would mean that it would be abolished sooner then you can say "Does another Senator support this bill". And it isn't as bad as the other one simply because at least everyone is treated the same still just as absurd and wrong but still.

It's still a silly argument. Discrimination doesn't get better if you do it to more people. What you're saying is akin to saying that, rather than outlawing the slavery of black people, the United States should have instead legalized the slavery of white people. Slavery of whites AND blacks isn't as bad as just slavery of blacks, according to your line of reasoning.

I'm sorry, but I could not disagree more. A solution to discrimination is never more discrimination. DADT applied to straights as well as gays would be worse than just gays.

Not to put too fine a point on it: BE has a habit of pursuing (for long periods of time) arguments he does not really support, and doing so using the most absurd examples. There comes a point where one has to ignore about 50-70% of what he is saying to stay on track with the discussion. At least, that's been my experience with him. When you realize he's BSing about half the time, the rest of his arguments are fairly reasonable.

Sorry, BE, but there it is.

EDIT: For example: The bit about applying DADT to heteros as well as gays being at least fair, if not reasonable, and probably advancing the cause of repealing it by a lot, is a sound point. The bit about how do-able it is to hide one's sexuality is BS.

Fair call.

Aren't you also the one.. big ass mouthed one that has the gall to speak about the american south .. the civil war.. Like you know jack shit. Read what you want to in those books .. whole lot of ya .. the entire time putting down the south .. so many time I see the references to backward ass, fried chicken-watermelon eatin, slave havin, gun toten, inbreeding , ignorant hillbillies. But yet .. it took ya 4 fucking years to beat us. Why is that? With the disadvantage of being invaded and being outweighed industrially .. we still about kicked your (yes I'm calling you a yankee .. since you loooove them soooo much) fuckin ass.

What kills me .. the ones, like you.. that usually wave the flag of the north do so in a way as to portray the north, the northern whites as having an entirely different mindset. Like they were some bastion of freedom. Bull shit. Get your head out of your ass, get a clue and quit being so narccasistic, you holier than thou bastard.

Flaming. Good contribution to the thread.

<snip>

I'm not trying to support DADT.
I know that.

As for the rest of your points, I have already expressed my opinion about your stance on hiding sexuality. I'm not going to hash it over and over on progressivly more minute subpoints forever.

I know that.

As for the rest of your points, I have already expressed my opinion about your stance on hiding sexuality. I'm not going to hash it over and over on progressivly more minute subpoints forever.

And this is why I don't argue as much on NSG anymore. Not because you have stopped Mur, by no means is that the reason but because you are to good for me and will always beat me. :)

Or if we want to go along the same track, relationships can not be talked about while in your unit or on operations.

It is legal for straight soldiers to mention the existence of their wives or girlfriends. Housing on base will frequently be provided for a wife, and whether there is a marriage or not, soldiers are commonly allowed to call their wives, or girlfriends, even from the battlefront.

It is legal for straight soldiers to mention the existence of their wives or girlfriends. Housing on base will frequently be provided for a wife, and whether there is a marriage or not, soldiers are commonly allowed to call their wives, or girlfriends, even from the battlefront.

This is not the issue here, the issue here is how Homosexuals can't, the military treats it in a manner similar that they would to disobeying orders. The point being made by Blouman is to get rid of it entirely, and he like myself is using sarcasm.

It is legal for straight soldiers to mention the existence of their wives or girlfriends. Housing on base will frequently be provided for a wife, and whether there is a marriage or not, soldiers are commonly allowed to call their wives, or girlfriends, even from the battlefront.

Yes thank you, as Mur has pointed out I argue points I don't support and have bs going through most of my posts, as she has stated get rid of the chaff and you find some good points.

Aren't you also the one.. big ass mouthed one that has the gall to speak about the american south .. the civil war.. Like you know jack shit. Read what you want to in those books .. whole lot of ya .. the entire time putting down the south .. so many time I see the references to backward ass, fried chicken-watermelon eatin, slave havin, gun toten, inbreeding , ignorant hillbillies. But yet .. it took ya 4 fucking years to beat us. Why is that? With the disadvantage of being invaded and being outweighed industrially .. we still about kicked your (yes I'm calling you a yankee .. since you loooove them soooo much) fuckin ass.

What kills me .. the ones, like you.. that usually wave the flag of the north do so in a way as to portray the north, the northern whites as having an entirely different mindset. Like they were some bastion of freedom. Bull shit. Get your head out of your ass, get a clue and quit being so narccasistic, you holier than thou bastard.

The proud history of the South includes fighting a war to keep slaves, the KKK, fighting against desegregation and George W. Bush. If it were up to me, the US would have let the South secede.

I will speak of the South, nay, I will speak of ANY SUBJECT AT ALL however I see fit, within the rules of this forum. And you can't stop me. That simple. I won't threadjack this into a debate with you on the South, mind you, I have more important things to worry about. By the way, I reported you.

The proud history of the South includes fighting a war to keep slaves, the KKK, fighting against desegregation and George W. Bush. If it were up to me, the US would have let the South secede.

I will speak of the South, nay, I will speak of ANY SUBJECT AT ALL however I see fit, within the rules of this forum. And you can't stop me. That simple. I won't threadjack this into a debate with you on the South, mind you, I have more important things to worry about. By the way, I reported you.

And with every passing day, you're starting to sound more and more like Good Old Hugo and Mahmoud. That's not supposed to be a good sign.

And with every passing day, you're starting to sound more and more like Good Old Hugo and Mahmoud. That's not supposed to be a good sign.
While H2 is way too strident way too often, I fail to see anything even remotely Hugo-ish or Mahmoud-ian in what he said there. The south is just as, if not more, at fault in history as the north of the US. H2 did not say anything that was not true. In addtion, he is right that he has every right to talk about any subject he wants within the forum rules.

When a person has a problematical habit, jumping on him for it every single time he pipes up, whether he's engaging in the problem behavior or not, is not actually a better habit.

Just as we should avoid feeding trolls, can we also avoid trying to manufacture them by constantly harping on things we don't like about other people?

I'm thinking of lots of H2 critics when I say this. It's as tiresome as his habits are.

And with every passing day, you're starting to sound more and more like Good Old Hugo and Mahmoud.

Oh. Does Chávez complain about the SOUTHERN US? Or about its habit of interfering in South America?

Does Ahmadinejad complain about how conservative the US is? REALLY?

Really. Go all in already and claim I'm sounding like Adolf. It isn't any more true, and it at least has the advantage of using a funnier buzzword.

Oh. Does Chávez complain about the SOUTHERN US? Or about its habit of interfering in South America?

Does Ahmadinejad complain about how conservative the US is? REALLY?

Really. Go all in already and claim I'm sounding like Adolf. It isn't any more true, and it at least has the advantage of using a funnier buzzword.

Your insane rhetoric reminds me of Adolf Hitler. Happy? I know Gauthier and I are not alone.

Your insane rhetoric reminds me of Adolf Hitler. Happy? I know Gauthier and I are not alone.

And your point is?

Really. What's that? Guy turns this thread into a thread on the south while flaming me, I respond fairly politely given what he said, and Gauthier - and, then, you - decide you have a bone to pick over my rhetoric. In a thread that isn't about this.

I don't give a damn if you're alone or not, cut that the hell out. This thread isn't about me or my rhetoric, neither of which are your business anyways unless I break the rules with it.

Kindly don't mistake me for one of those shallow readers who can't follow a point because they take every fucking word absolutely literally, even the pronouns and articles.

Words can fuck? I didn't even know they had genitalia!

*ducks* :p

Words can fuck? I didn't even know they had genitalia!

*ducks* :p
Of course they can. Now you know why all us English majors and English teachers love us the books, it's all about the hot word pr0n. :tongue:

I'm gonna get smacked for that aren't I?

Aren't you also the one.. big ass mouthed one that has the gall to speak about the american south .. the civil war.. Like you know jack shit. Read what you want to in those books .. whole lot of ya .. the entire time putting down the south .. so many time I see the references to backward ass, fried chicken-watermelon eatin, slave havin, gun toten, inbreeding , ignorant hillbillies. But yet .. it took ya 4 fucking years to beat us. Why is that? With the disadvantage of being invaded and being outweighed industrially .. we still about kicked your (yes I'm calling you a yankee .. since you loooove them soooo much) fuckin ass.

What kills me .. the ones, like you.. that usually wave the flag of the north do so in a way as to portray the north, the northern whites as having an entirely different mindset. Like they were some bastion of freedom. Bull shit. Get your head out of your ass, get a clue and quit being so narccasistic, you holier than thou bastard.

Disclaimer: The above view does not reflect the views of the intelligent portion of the southern population.

Aren't you also the one.. big ass mouthed one that has the gall to speak about the american south .. the civil war.. Like you know jack shit. Read what you want to in those books .. whole lot of ya .. the entire time putting down the south .. so many time I see the references to backward ass, fried chicken-watermelon eatin, slave havin, gun toten, inbreeding , ignorant hillbillies. But yet .. it took ya 4 fucking years to beat us. Why is that? With the disadvantage of being invaded and being outweighed industrially .. we still about kicked your (yes I'm calling you a yankee .. since you loooove them soooo much) fuckin ass.

What kills me .. the ones, like you.. that usually wave the flag of the north do so in a way as to portray the north, the northern whites as having an entirely different mindset. Like they were some bastion of freedom. Bull shit. Get your head out of your ass, get a clue and quit being so narccasistic, you holier than thou bastard.

Warned for flaming. It is never a good idea and will lead to forum fires. Play responsibly, and don't play with matches, only then can we prevent forum fires.

Words can fuck? I didn't even know they had genitalia!

*ducks* :p

Of course they can. Now you know why all us English majors and English teachers love us the books, it's all about the hot word pr0n. :tongue:

I'm gonna get smacked for that aren't I?
Neither of you is going to get smacked by me because:

1) It's all true. Betcha didn't know that. Y'all need to read more. ;)

2) This nonsense is WAAAAY more entertaining than the Dogpile on the Heikoku game. ("Hitler", Sdaeriji? Seriously? Get a grip.)

Heikoku, I want to give you my mantra: "I am not the topic of this thread." Just keep repeating that.

Heikoku, I want to give you my mantra: "I am not the topic of this thread." Just keep repeating that.

That's EXACTLY what I said to THEM. So, I'm assuming this one remark isn't directed at me, really.

At any rate, as an attempt to drag this thread back on topic:

DADT is an unfair and stupid policy. Obama seems intent on ending it and making sure gays can freely serve at the military. Good for them, good for him and good for America that these outdated and stupid little prejudices will, little by little, stop mattering.

That's EXACTLY what I said to THEM. So, I'm assuming this one remark isn't directed at me, really.
I'm giving you the magic words. Use them as needed. Maybe they'll work. They work for me sometimes. Because to be completely honest, even though I've twice or thrice criticized you for excessive bitching and harping, I'm getting way sicker of the totally excessive backlash bitching and harping. It is getting out of proportion to whatever annoyance you may ever create, and it's clogging up otherwise interesting threads. Some people just seem intent on nurturing whatever bug they've got up their ass about you, instead of just ignoring you if they don't like you. I wish some people would get real already.

And although in other instances, I have felt you crossed the line into offensiveness and becoming what you hate, in THIS instance, I thought you responded properly to an unprovoked flame. I see no justification whatsoever for certain people to derail this thread into an H2 Flamefest.

Now, having said that -- You Are Not The Topic Of This Thread.

So 'nuff said.

Snip.

Goodie!

Anyways. When do you think DADT will finally be repealed? :)

At any rate, as an attempt to drag this thread back on topic:

DADT is an unfair and stupid policy. Obama seems intent on ending it and making sure gays can freely serve at the military. Good for them, good for him and good for America that these outdated and stupid little prejudices will, little by little, stop mattering.
This, yes. ^^

And in re the letter Obama wrote to that female service person who was discharged for coming out -- the link to which almost got lost in the hijack -- thanks for posting it. To me, writing that and allowing it to be released to the media is a strong indicator that Obama is not abandoning this issue, even though it seems like it is low on the priority list. I think that's pretty signficant.

Goodie!

Anyways. When do you think DADT will finally be repealed? :)
Not soon. It has to go through Congress because it is a law, and I think we're all pretty aware of how homophobic the Congress is. Jon Stewart said it a long time ago about the effect of gay marriage on election campaigns -- "Two guys kissing trumps everything."

I'm hoping the combo of these soldiers and officers coming out and challenging the law, and Obama's personal, public expressions of support and intent to act, will motivate the non-homophobic, non-extreme-rightwing voters to contact their Congresspeople to put pressure on them to stop caving to the extreme right.

Not soon. It has to go through Congress because it is a law, and I think we're all pretty aware of how homophobic the Congress is. Jon Stewart said it a long time ago about the effect of gay marriage on election campaigns -- "Two guys kissing trumps everything."

I'm hoping the combo of these soldiers and officers coming out and challenging the law, and Obama's personal, public expressions of support and intent to act, will motivate the non-homophobic, non-extreme-rightwing voters to contact their Congresspeople to put pressure on them to stop caving to the extreme right.

Then there's the fact that these soldiers are particularly helpful - knowing Arabic and so on. That might make anyone but the hardest fundies realize that these gays are working everyday to save America's ass, and that they would be smart to let them do so.

Then there's the fact that these soldiers are particularly helpful - knowing Arabic and so on. That might make anyone but the hardest fundies realize that these gays are working everyday to save America's ass, and that they would be smart to let them do so.
Yes. There comes a point where people have to ask themselves just what we are trying to do -- combat a dangerous enemy for the sake of our nation, or just wank off on some bullshit notion of moral superiority over who/whatever. And they damn well better pick one soon, because people are dying every day over this. Personally, I have a feeling the majority of Americans would prefer our government/military to be doing the former, not the latter.

Yes. There comes a point where people have to ask themselves just what we are trying to do -- combat a dangerous enemy for the sake of our nation, or just wank off on some bullshit notion of moral superiority over who/whatever. And they damn well better pick one soon, because people are dying every day over this. Personally, I have a feeling the majority of Americans would prefer our government/military to be doing the former, not the latter.

Obama did campaign on repealing DADT and the majority did vote for him. So, yeah.

2) This nonsense is WAAAAY more entertaining than the Dogpile on the Heikoku game. ("Hitler", Sdaeriji? Seriously? Get a grip.)

He asked someone to compare him to Hitler. Read the post I replied to. I have a grip, thanks.

He asked someone to compare him to Hitler. Read the post I replied to. I have a grip, thanks.

Since you follow orders regardless of the sarcasm thereupon...

Gee, why don't you conjure up a succubus and command her to grant me all my sexual fantasies already?

Done. Now let's go back to the thread and to the impending end of DADT.

Done. Now let's go back to the thread and to the impending end of DADT.I'd love for it to end this week, but I...really don't see it happening soon. Probably not even during President Obama's first term.

"Running in circles" is the best way to describe the opinion of the Alabama Senators. (In reference to Muravyet's post about contacting Congresspeople.)

I'd love for it to end this week, but I...really don't see it happening soon. Probably not even during President Obama's first term.

"Running in circles" is the best way to describe the opinion of the Alabama Senators. (In reference to Muravyet's post about contacting Congresspeople.)

Then we'll make do without them. We have a big majority, and I rather doubt that even if 9 Democrats don't vote for it there'll be enough nutcases to try and make this a filibuster issue.

Then we'll make do without them. We have a big majority, and I rather doubt that even if 9 Democrats don't vote for it there'll be enough nutcases to try and make this a filibuster issue."We"? (I was under the impression that you lived in Brazil.)

And it does sort of have to be proposed by someone, first. And then it has to go through the committees. (That could be populated by an equal amount of Republican/Democrat Representatives. They might kill it before it even makes it to the Senate, or vice versa.)

"We"? (I was under the impression that you lived in Brazil.)

And it does sort of have to be proposed by someone, first. And then it has to go through the committees. (That could be populated by an equal amount of Republican/Democrat Representatives. They might kill it before it even makes it to the Senate, or vice versa.)

1- We liberals, we people who want equality.

2- Obama displayed a fairly big piece of support. Maybe TO neutralize said committees?

1- We liberals, we people who want equality.

2- Obama displayed a fairly big piece of support. Maybe TO neutralize said committees?1. The desire/support of equality is not inclusive to liberals.

2. The president doesn't control if they get elected again, or not. That's up to the voters. (Which is the only conceivable "threat" that I could think of to sway a committee member from his or her own choice in what he or she thinks is best for his or her people.)

Then we'll make do without them. We have a big majority, and I rather doubt that even if 9 Democrats don't vote for it there'll be enough nutcases to try and make this a filibuster issue.
Don't bet on that. "Two guys kissing trumps everything."

"We"? (I was under the impression that you lived in Brazil.)

And it does sort of have to be proposed by someone, first. And then it has to go through the committees. (That could be populated by an equal amount of Republican/Democrat Representatives. They might kill it before it even makes it to the Senate, or vice versa.)
No need for parentheses. I can easily foresee a very strong, possibly even bipartisan, effort to kill any DADT repeal or amendment bill in committee, just to try to avoid actually having to vote on it.

No need for parentheses. I can easily foresee a very strong, possibly even bipartisan, effort to kill any DADT repeal or amendment bill in committee, just to try to avoid actually having to vote on it.Just so they don't have to risk alienating an entire voting bloc, right? Which again boils down to the only real "threat" to the committee members.

Just so they don't have to risk alienating an entire voting bloc, right? Which again boils down to the only real "threat" to the committee members.

The question is, do these voting blocks still matter enough?

Furthermore, what are the support polls on repealing DADT?

Just so they don't have to risk alienating an entire voting bloc, right? Which again boils down to the only real "threat" to the committee members.
A minority voting block, which they have been cultivating to the exclusion of the whole rest of the nation for far too long. Hence my hope that the public displays of challenge and support for change will motivate the silent majority to speak up already.

The question is, do these voting blocks still matter enough?

Furthermore, what are the support polls on repealing DADT?
I have only heard the most vague mentions of public opinion polling on this recently, and it's nearly as non-committal as the politicians would like to be. Apparently, the majority of Americans think the military should do what is best for the military. Well, no shit, Sherlocks -- and what do you think that might be?

A minority voting block, which they have been cultivating to the exclusion of the whole rest of the nation for far too long. Hence my hope that the public displays of challenge and support for change will motivate the silent majority to speak up already.

I'm betting on that as well.

A minority voting block, which they have been cultivating to the exclusion of the whole rest of the nation for far too long. Hence my hope that the public displays of challenge and support for change will motivate the silent majority to speak up already.I suppose "minority" would be dependent on where you were elected from, correct?

Take Georgia for example. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/state/) In almost all House elections, only one Democratic candidate that ran against a Republican won the race.

What I think I'm trying to say is that the majority of Republican House members will definitely be very...uneasy about even the though of voting on a DADT bill, and that uneasiness could translate into the Democratic side of the House, resulting in a bi-partisan effort to crush any DADT bill.

I don't know why people are upset.

It's for their own good.

Think about it. Pink sequence in a Jungle?

I suppose "minority" would be dependent on where you were elected from, correct?

Take Georgia for example. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/state/) In almost all House elections, only one Democratic candidate that ran against a Republican won the race.

What I think I'm trying to say is that the majority of Republican House members will definitely be very...uneasy about even the though of voting on a DADT bill, and that uneasiness could translate into the Democratic side of the House, resulting in a bi-partisan effort to crush any DADT bill.
One of the worst failings of the Congress in the past few adminstrations has been this inability to look beyond their local constituencies, and even then looking to them only for the purpose of getting reelected.

Congresspeople are supposed to be doing the NATION's work, not their states'. If they want to work for their state ONLY, they should work in the state legislature or run for governor. When they go to DC, they are Alambama's or Texas's, or New Jersey's, etc, representative to the NATION. And they are supposed to do what is right for the NATION at least as often as for their state/local constituents.

Of course, let's not kid ourselves -- they don't even do what's best for their states or local voters. They only look out for themselves and will do anything that they think will keep them in their plush jobs that come with all the bribes and the comped whores and golf trips. Anything including playing to the basest, most nation-damaging prejudices of whomever polls as "most likely voter", just to get them to donate to a campaign.

One of the worst failings of the Congress in the past few adminstrations has been this inability to look beyond their local constituencies, and even then looking to them only for the purpose of getting reelected.

Congresspeople are supposed to be doing the NATION's work, not their states'. If they want to work for their state ONLY, they should work in the state legislature or run for governor. When they go to DC, they are Alambama's or Texas's, or New Jersey's, etc, representative to the NATION. And they are supposed to do what is right for the NATION at least as often as for their state/local constituents.

Of course, let's not kid ourselves -- they don't even do what's best for their states or local voters. They only look out for themselves and will do anything that they think will keep them in their plush jobs that come with all the bribes and the comped whores and golf trips. Anything including playing to the basest, most nation-damaging prejudices of whomever polls as "most likely voter", just to get them to donate to a campaign.All good points, and I agree with you on them.

Which is why I think that a DADT bill looks like a major uphill battle for anyone trying to get it passed.

No. Your opinion is of no consequence, even on that. Sorry.

You should never be sorry for having an opinion. If you're going to say it, say it loud and say it proud, that's what I've always thought.

On a related note, apparently people are almost as bad at recognizing rhetorical questions as they are at picking up on the funny.

You should never be sorry for having an opinion. If you're going to say it, say it loud and say it proud, that's what I've always thought.

On a related note, apparently people are almost as bad at recognizing rhetorical questions as they are at picking up on the funny.
No, they're not.

You should never be sorry for having an opinion. If you're going to say it, say it loud and say it proud, that's what I've always thought.

If the opinion is based on nothing or on incorrect information, holding it is hardly something to be proud of.

In my opinion of course ;)

Genetics? No. I only know about layperson's explanations of the statistical studies I mentioned before.


Childhood temperament appears inborn and probably a mix of genetic and hormonal influences - personality tends to be a product of temperament interacting with the environment. So really a bit of both - though of course the relationship because even more complicated when you consider that temperatment shapes environment and others responses to us not just passively absorbs them.

I'd say on this issue that aspects of personality is probably correlated with bigotry and discrimination - this does not necessarily mean that there are people 'born' as bigots, but that because of the complexities of personality development it's unlikely we'd ever be able to avoid people developing with these authoritarian/dominance traits.


I think that what most of the military does is their own perogative. Their job is to defend our country, wage war, and train our recruits into becoming effective soldiers. If the military's leadership believes that allowing homosexual relations on base will interfere with the conformity or training of the unit then that is their call.


Since DADT is actually undermining the ability of your military to do it's job effectively, then I'd say that yes, civilians do have the right to question this procedure. Certainly given that experiences from other militaries who have repealed their versions of DADT has indicated that it has, in real terms, NO IMPACT on the military or how it does it's job.

If the military can no longer discharge gays and other groups at their own discretion, then why not just lift all of those archaic restrictions on women serving in the armed forces as well?
I don't see why not. It seems to be a good idea to me if it's for the sake of equality.

Sounds good to me - as long as you keep the same physical requirements of course, I don't see why women shouldn't serve in combat units.

This, yes. ^^

And in re the letter Obama wrote to that female service person who was discharged for coming out -- the link to which almost got lost in the hijack -- thanks for posting it. To me, writing that and allowing it to be released to the media is a strong indicator that Obama is not abandoning this issue, even though it seems like it is low on the priority list. I think that's pretty signficant.
To me, it's a strong indicator that he does not intend to do anything, unless the pressure gets much stronger (note that all he "promises" is to get around to it eventually), but he would like to be given credit for being on our side without actually having to be there.

To me, it's a strong indicator that he does not intend to do anything, unless the pressure gets much stronger (note that all he "promises" is to get around to it eventually), but he would like to be given credit for being on our side without actually having to be there.
Normally, it would make me think that, too, except the significantly personal nature of the letter, and it's broad public release. It is really putting Obama on the spot. Most politicians try to avoid that. I'm not saying you're wrong. But to me, it is just less than normally obvious that you are right.

If the opinion is based on nothing or on incorrect information, holding it is hardly something to be proud of.In my opinion of course ;)

It might be more accurately stated as 'don't be ashamed to speak your mind and say what you think' but 'say it loud, say it proud' has more of a ring to it.

But to me, it is just less than normally obvious that you are right.
Normally, of course, it is totally obvious that Tmutarakhan is right :D