Supreme Court upholds ban on gays in military

[RangerX]

what's really the difference in sexual orientation and ethicity?

Ethnicity is defined by a persons outward appearance

Sexual orientation is defined by who a person sleeps with

I would simplify it even more.

Behavior.

The primary issue is not the ethnicity or sexual orientation, but rather the individual's behavior, specifically whether they seem to go out of their way to reinforce the negative stereotypes associated with their particular cultural segment. The same thing applies to hard core rednecks, New York douche bags and Philly IROCs. I could go on for days. Whenever I get in to a "debate" with a PC moron and they accuse me of being sexist, racist, or some other -ist, I simply point out to them that I am a culturalist.

[Silverback]

Behavior.

The primary issue is not the ethnicity or sexual orientation, but rather the individual's behavior, specifically whether they seem to go out of their way to reinforce the negative stereotypes associated with their particular cultural segment.

Very astute observation!

[RangerX]

Behavior.

The primary issue is not the ethnicity or sexual orientation, but rather the individual's behavior, specifically whether they seem to go out of their way to reinforce the negative stereotypes associated with their particular cultural segment.

Very astute observation!

nothing gets me fired up faster than someone seemingly going out of their way to screw over their own by showing their ass.

My latest peeve is the revival of baggie assed pants. Wear a belt you stupid fuck, you walk like a penguin with hemorrhoids!!

[KW Driver]

what's really the difference in sexual orientation and ethicity?

Ethnicity is defined by a persons outward appearance

Sexual orientation is defined by who a person sleeps with

so who someone sleeps with, which theoretically is less obvious than a person's outward appearance, is reason enough to deny them full privileges that straight people enjoy?

to me it smacks of comfort levels. We aren't comfortable in their presence, so we'll make the rules that they can't live as honestly and openly as we do, because they make us uncomfortable. Gay's can't take their date of choice to the Army prom or an FRG function, because we would be uncomfortable facing that reality.

if they were allowed to openly serve, we already have all the policies in place to protect everyone from everyone else's unwelcome advances, or inappropriate behavior. us straight males would possibly only have to deal with a fraction of the same kind of unwelcome, inappropriate behavior that women in uniform do everyday.

I'm generally uncomfortable with them in my unit, and it's definitely easier on us, if they can't act as openly as we do. but I have yet to hear what I consider to be a valid argument to exclude allowing them to live their lives as openly and as honestly as anyone else.

[Silverback]

so who someone sleeps with, which theoretically is less obvious than a person's outward appearance, is reason enough to deny them full privileges that straight people enjoy?

to me it smacks of comfort levels. We aren't comfortable in their presence, so we'll make the rules that they can't live as honestly and openly as we do, because they make us uncomfortable. Gay's can't take their date of choice to the Army prom or an FRG function, because we would be uncomfortable facing that reality.

if they were allowed to openly serve, we already have all the policies in place to protect everyone from everyone else's unwelcome advances, or inappropriate behavior. us straight males would possibly only have to deal with a fraction of the same kind of unwelcome, inappropriate behavior that women in uniform do everyday.

I'm generally uncomfortable with them in my unit, and it's definitely easier on us, if they can't act as openly as we do. but I have yet to hear what I consider to be a valid argument to exclude allowing them to live their lives as openly and as honestly as anyone else.

The homosexual community does not want equality, the Homosexual community wants to be accepted into the main stream of America and they want to be accepted part and parcel rather than put up with. Maintaining status quo is not enough and the Homosexual community will continue to pursue legislation affording them acceptance without regard to their level of equality.

[Silverback]

And in case anyone wants to know...


I have always claimed to be a Retrosexual

[RangerX]

And in case anyone wants to know...


I have always claimed to be a Retrosexual

Silverback gets his freak on Stone Age style.....

[KW Driver]

do they have equality? have they even achieved that? marriage (or civil union, with equal legal privileges. a partner's civil "rights" to dictate/authorize medical care)? joint tax filing, etc.

separate but unequal is what they seem to have currently. and separate but equal was struck down awhile ago.

[Silverback]

do they have equality? have they even achieved that? marriage (or civil union, with equal legal privileges. a partner's civil "rights" to dictate/authorize medical care)? joint tax filing, etc.

separate but unequal is what they seem to have currently. and separate but equal was struck down awhile ago.

I have tried to concentrate on the constitutional arguments in the case, not my personal feelings about it.

[Ranger Bill]

My opinion is that it is a moral, ethical and behavioral issue. And the issue of a genetic link or a natural phenomena because animals often carry on that way holds no water with me. Dogs and other animals eat their own exrement. It does not make it right for men to do so. By nature, children would routinely lie, cheat, steal, wound and kill if they were not taught to control their behavior. I am not afraid of gays nor do they make me uncomfortable, but I find their behavior disgusting and beneath dignity.

[KW Driver]

do they have equality? have they even achieved that? marriage (or civil union, with equal legal privileges. a partner's civil "rights" to dictate/authorize medical care)? joint tax filing, etc.

separate but unequal is what they seem to have currently. and separate but equal was struck down awhile ago.

I have tried to concentrate on the constitutional arguments in the case, not my personal feelings about it.

and I'm trying to separate religious or personal feelings from it as I'm arguing it. why is it unconstitutional for a civil union between monogamous, committed partners to be granted, based on gender? doesn't pass the common sense test to me. I think the gay issue is still being decided emotionally, and not rationally. that's my real point. the majority in power are reasoning and reacting emotionally, to legally defend their opinions, to the infringement of liberties and privileges of a group of different acting individuals.

edit: and your argument of I'm just discussing the Constitutional aspect is a cop out. you are stating the status quo is good enough so I won't consider the justness of the Constitution as written today. The Constitution is a living document. Universal Suffrage wasn't "constitutional" until the 19th Amendment. but today, try to tell a women she's inferior, and unworthy of inclusion in the body politic. Separate but equal was constitutional, and then it wasn't. should it be reinstated?

Bill, I don't like it much either, and I damn sure don't want to see it, I damn sure don't want to attend a gay pride march, and think they often act inappropriately in public, but many other groups to too. there's a very long list of groups I don't agree with and don't want to see them acting out their beliefs, but they are protected to do so in various ways.

[RangerX]

The thing I don't understand is why the fuck do they want to be married in the first place? Marriage was reduced to contract law centuries ago by the church & governments. While it still means something to the individuals getting married (like me), from a legal standpoint it's contract law.

While there are some discrepancies such as healthcare benefits, taxes, survivor's rights etc. marriage is a huge pain in the ass, from a legal standpoint anyway. Judging by some of the other posts around here, it can tend to be from the personal standpoint as well.

[Silverback]

edit: and your argument of I'm just discussing the Constitutional aspect is a cop out. you are stating the status quo is good enough so I won't consider the justness of the Constitution as written today. The Constitution is a living document. Universal Suffrage wasn't "constitutional" until the 19th Amendment. but today, try to tell a women she's inferior, and unworthy of inclusion in the body politic. Separate but equal was constitutional, and then it wasn't. should it be reinstated?

Not intended to be a cop out. Personally I could not care less who is sleeping with who. The fact remains that until a compelling constitutional argument can be made nothing will change!

[RangerX]

Not intended to be a cop out. Personally I could not care less who is sleeping with who. The fact remains that until a compelling constitutional argument can be made nothing will change!

http://www.pinkpistols.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fags have guns too, better treat them equally. (OK not constitutional per se, but it does involve another amendment, does that count?)

[Caruthers]

Working in Austin gives me a front row seat in the "I am gay/lesbian, so I am special". They are treated as a "protected" class here. Should they............no. We (Americans) have fractured our society so much that every one has some "class" they are placed in. Veterans are not really considered a "protected" class. Why not?

I have worked with every thing under the sun.......as far as sexual orientation. I can say that MOST of the lesbians WILL pull the" I',m a chick" or " I'm a lesbian" VERY fast. The gays really don't give a fuck...........just the way I like it. Do the job, shoot smart ass remarks and take smart ass remarks for what they are......banter. Banter can help build trust and friendship in a team; and yes it can go to far.

When I think someone has "stepped" over the line.................guess what I do. I fucking tell them. I don't bury it and run up the chain of command. My experience is that the lesbians have an axe to grind and a few of the gays will even try to line them out...........then the gay guy will get slapped for it.

All the guys I work with KNOW I have one line..............family. Every thing else is game.

We: work, work out, eat, sleep..............it becomes a family surrounding. Getting a "gay or lesbian" on the crew REALLY changes the atmosphere.........especially a lesbian.

A normal crew will cut up all day...........get one lesbian on the crew............................crickets. We have all been through enough "sensitivity"(aka. hate the white male) training to keep our mouths shut. Because the lesbian might "perceive" it as hostile.

Most men can joke around about telling the other man to fuck off, suck my dick, soar ass jokes, look at the tits on that one............not the lesbians. NO humor at all. They in turn can say some of the same shit and not get called on the carpet.....I could write a book about this one here in Austin.

So. It is all the "protection" that a protected class seems to get that pisses me off........double standards.

I do not agree with the path they have CHOSEN; but I don't have to live their lives either.

I do believe that the gay life style is weakening the traditional family unit (just like high divorce rates). No one sticks to it anymore.

There should be no difference in pigmentation, plumbing, or preference when looking at a person for a job. Can they do the job? Can they be an assets to the team? Can they "hang" with the team?

Mentality is what brings us together or breaks us apart. If you don't mind it don't matter.