Goodbye "Don't ask. Don't tell."

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Again, those who see injustice aren't saying a word about a civil union granting all rights to medical decisions, inheritance etc etc as a heterosexual marriage being a viable option or acceptable. It's all about demanding marriage, the union of a man and woman, as an equality for man/man or woman/woman. If I see someone being assaulted on the street I'm not going to play 20 questions to determine if they're homosexual or drunk or wealthy or any other condition. I'm going to put an end to the assault. That's equal rights to everyone. Rejection of civil union granting inheritance, medical decision making, joint property ownership, etc etc just because the M word isn't used means it's not about equality, it's not about the same rights as others, it's only about the M word. I haven't heard anything from the other side to suggest otherwise yet and this is the third time this has been brought up.
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
Again, those who see injustice aren't saying a word about a civil union granting all rights to medical decisions, inheritance etc etc as a heterosexual marriage being a viable option or acceptable. It's all about demanding marriage, the union of a man and woman, as an equality for man/man or woman/woman. If I see someone being assaulted on the street I'm not going to play 20 questions to determine if they're homosexual or drunk or wealthy or any other condition. I'm going to put an end to the assault. That's equal rights to everyone. Rejection of civil union granting inheritance, medical decision making, joint property ownership, etc etc just because the M word isn't used means it's not about equality, it's not about the same rights as others, it's only about the M word. I haven't heard anything from the other side to suggest otherwise yet and this is the third time this has been brought up.
They want to be able to marry, If they are able to finally get it through. Again I ask this to anyone against it,
If it is legalized, Why do you care and how does it affect you?
 

Iraqvet

Seasoned Expediter
I agree with arkjarhead...I am on the military and spent 1 year in Iraq miltary and 1 year civilian...I am still in the Army Reserves..This subject dosnt affect those not in the military.It should not be aloud..!!POINT BLANK!!!EVeryone should have the right to feel comfortable and SEXUALLY SAFE around the people they are with...Thats why girls have SEPERATE sleeping quaters and SHOWERS..With that being said,there is still sexual harrasment..And the military has a huge problem with males and females sleeping together..The sell condoms in the PX's in IRAQ..But again,everyone has to be able to trust each other..I think that the rate of same sex sexual harrasment would skyrocket..U would be opening the flood gates for it to happen.I know servicemembers from all branches would leave..You would need gay shower rooms and gay sleeping quaters...U dont need to be strait to be patriotic..I agree..But if you do not feel comfortable with these people,how can you fight with them?How can you be ok with your rights being violated?WHo is to say they wouldnt be checkin out everyone in the shower?No one can garruntee it without seperate ammenities..It should not be aloud..
 

iceroadtrucker

Veteran Expediter
Driver
i agree with arkjarhead...i am on the military and spent 1 year in iraq miltary and 1 year civilian...i am still in the army reserves..this subject dosnt affect those not in the military.it should not be aloud..!!point blank!!!everyone should have the right to feel comfortable and sexually safe around the people they are with...thats why girls have seperate sleeping quaters and showers..with that being said,there is still sexual harrasment..and the military has a huge problem with males and females sleeping together..the sell condoms in the px's in iraq..but again,everyone has to be able to trust each other..i think that the rate of same sex sexual harrasment would skyrocket..u would be opening the flood gates for it to happen.i know servicemembers from all branches would leave..you would need gay shower rooms and gay sleeping quaters...u dont need to be strait to be patriotic..i agree..but if you do not feel comfortable with these people,how can you fight with them?how can you be ok with your rights being violated?who is to say they wouldnt be checkin out everyone in the shower?no one can garruntee it without seperate ammenities..it should not be aloud..


yupper you drove the spike in with one smack
but there are those here that will disagree

THIS THREAD REMINDS ME OF THE MISS USA PAGENT

when the tail gate drops the bull roar stops.
 
Last edited:

cruzer

Not a Member
Iraqvet might be on to something here. If there were separate ammenities and this caught on in public restrooms you would have,Mens room,Womens room,Manly womens room,Womanly womens room,Girlymans room and a Manly girlymans room. Heck you would only need about 50 acres to build a rest area. While we're at it lets put in gay water fountains and gay parking and why not a gay lane on the highway.:rolleyes:
 

MrGautama

Not a Member
So you base your proof on me calling your bluff?, is that a joke?. Can't you see how absurd that is?. It is so predictable when confronted with superior argument to resort to character assassination, and this time again with “acceptable collateral damage” (where have I heard that before) by dragging Letzrock into this. Shameful tactics when exposed after striping all the rhetoric.

For the moderators I have only a suggestion, all of you as the voice of reason in the forum is my opinion that this kind of accusations should only be allowed under the burden of proof to avoid attempts at bullying other members into silence.
This is the third time I have been accused of impersonating someone else in a desperate attempt to shut me up. It sets a bad precedent for the openness of this platform and I think that a call for proof by a moderator is in order.
I have resisted the temptation to respond the way this individual has out of respect for my fellow members and the EO team, but it has come to a point in which an answer is needed and in all fairness I am entitled to defend myself. I'm willing to risk getting banned to reach it; so is up to you to make the call regarding what comes next.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
I'm going to risk straying back to the original topic for a minute.

While stationed in Germany in the late seventies, an incident occurred in our barracks. It was a Weekend night and as was the norm several of our guys were getting hammered. We two guys in our Platoon that we all knew were a gay. (we called them something else back then) The barracks were the old WWII type that had been remodeled so that the room were setup to allow four men to a room. One guy (straight) went to semi passed out, and had a dream, the dream was that he was "with" his girl friend. Shortly after things reached a climax he awoke to find his room mate to close for his comfort, along with his clothing being in disarray.

This info was never provided to the 1st Sergeant because the queer (queer |kwi(ə)r|adjective
1 strange; odd : she had a queer feeling that they were being watched.
) behaving ETS'ed that next Monday.

As it turned out the First Sgt. and his clerk were both "gay" also. (The First Sgt. Was caught doing the hole in the bathroom stall thing at the Main PX.) This helped explain why he and his clerk went "missing" during field exercises for several hours at a time. A Great leader during a simulated battle wouldn't you say?

That was the only unit that I was in that the "gays" were comfortable enough to be "openly gay". But while I was stationed in Korea we had a tough as nails Staff Sgt. that only when drunk would he try to force you to do odd things. Don't know what ever happened to him because I went back to the States shortly after his arrival. This guy was an ex heavy weight boxer who had done very well in the ring but had come back into the Army for whatever reason. By the way he also happened to be a MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT. I read the reason that he received the medal and he was a fearless warrior (he took on at least a platoon size enemy force with a 45 and a grease gun (piece of junk machine gun) he was credited with saving somewhere around 15 GI's) , but I would not want to be in the platoon he was in during combat operations because eventually I might be faced with having to put a bullet in his head.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
But Cheri, you missed the point, everyone goes through this at one time or another and unless there is a reason to elevate one group above another - all our rights are equal, period. I went through name calling the other day, being stopped at a light in Toledo and being called nice names from one of the followers of the great Farrakhan, a bother of the Nation of Islam who was handing out newspapers. When I go to my truck in the bowels of a war zone and I have to hear the same thing, so what.

If we put words into action, then yes there is a true problem but don't we already have laws to cover everyone - assault is assault, a murder is a murder and so on.

The thing is there are choices that can be made, you are painting them with the same broad brush as you are fighting against. Some of these people are not Gay out of a gene thing that tells them to chase the same sex, some find the lifestyle to their liking while others use it to stand out - removing those who actually can't help it out of the equation. People don't have to wear pink and polka dot skirts but some do while others don't have to wear womens clothes while being a man but some do. The real problem for me and many others has nothing to do with the Gay issue but the presentation of it to us, I have to like them regardless or I have to accept them regardless or they are in your face telling everyone who they are - all of it detracts from their need to be part of the society and when you think about it, they want society to change to their way of thinking be demanding respect while not respecting others.

When I hear "isn't Ellen great, as a Gay performer she is tops" I have to think that this is a wrong way to look at things, it elevates her because of who she is, not how well she performs. I would rather look at her as a performer without stigmatizing her as Gay, don't you agree?

Also the other problem with the entire movement is the fact that the representitives of the movement also tie themselves with devient groups that should not be part of the main stream Gay movement but as I can see this is because no one has yet defined what Gay is.

One last thing, the miltary is our problem, there is absolutly no way to justify something as only a military issue in our country. What I mean is our military serves a job, they are there to protect us and if we have social engineering going on there, then that may be a bigger problem when we have to have hard fighting to protect us. I already know there are cohesion problems within some parts of the Army and Navy, I don't like it because it puts my country at risk.
 

highway star

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
IRT mentioned the Miss USA pagent and isn't that a glaring example of everything that's wrong with how some are trying to achieve their goals. After the other hotties got questions that were about as controversial as what's your favorite color, that vile, repulsive, intolerant little Perez Hilton throws out gay marriage. I wonder where the more reasoned and sane representatives of the gay community are in this? Why aren't they front and center distancing themselves from him?

I suspect that the answer to that is that the reasoned and sane folks are happy dealing with things as they are. They can live as couples, use legal instruments like wills and such to handle property rights, and realize that they'll live a happy life without trying to bully society into thinking as they do.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
So you base your proof on me calling your bluff?, is that a joke?. Can't you see how absurd that is?. It is so predictable when confronted with superior argument to resort to character assassination, and this time again with “acceptable collateral damage” (where have I heard that before) by dragging Letzrock into this. Shameful tactics when exposed after striping all the rhetoric.

For the moderators I have only a suggestion, all of you as the voice of reason in the forum is my opinion that this kind of accusations should only be allowed under the burden of proof to avoid attempts at bullying other members into silence.
This is the third time I have been accused of impersonating someone else in a desperate attempt to shut me up. It sets a bad precedent for the openness of this platform and I think that a call for proof by a moderator is in order.
I have resisted the temptation to respond the way this individual has out of respect for my fellow members and the EO team, but it has come to a point in which an answer is needed and in all fairness I am entitled to defend myself. I'm willing to risk getting banned to reach it; so is up to you to make the call regarding what comes next.

I notice you're deleting several of your posts here today, Mr Hawk. Why does revisionism serve your purposes?
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
They want to be able to marry, If they are able to finally get it through. Again I ask this to anyone against it, If it is legalized, Why do you care and how does it affect you?

OK, you don't have an answer, that's fine. Just say so rather than repeating the non-answer over and over. Since you can't reason it out for yourself, it affects people by taking the marriage covenant, the special agreement/joining/bonding of a man and woman, and usurps the special meaning it holds. I know, you're incapable of understanding or appreciating that, and that's OK also. You, nor anyone else, has yet answered why having full rights/privileges/benefits without the word marriage is unsatisfactory. I guess because there's no legitimate reason it wouldn't be.
 
Last edited:

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
One last time before this thread is locked and infractions are issued, stick to the topic and take everything else to private message or carrier pigeon.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The names may change, but the malady lingers on. No one can come up with a reason why the "M" word is a requisite.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
The "M" word symbolizes holy matrimony. In other words, religion. Religion condemns homosexuality, and therefore, relationships sanctified by religion must be torn down by any means necessary, according to the radical gay agenda.

By co-opting marriage for themselves, they hope to dilute and weaken the spiritual and moral undergirdings of marriage from within. The radical gay agenda pursues a scorched earth policy against all who oppose them. They would rather destroy all that is good and decent than face their own moral failings.

Civil unions are in every measure equitable to the civil benefits of marriage. But, that is not enough for the gay community. They are determined to destroy a sanctified relationship that does not, by natural law, belong to them.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Sometimes if you scorch the earth a little too much, The Firmament becomes your only sanctuary.
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
The "M" word symbolizes holy matrimony. In other words, religion. Religion condemns homosexuality, and therefore, relationships sanctified by religion must be torn down by any means necessary, according to the radical gay agenda.

By co-opting marriage for themselves, they hope to dilute and weaken the spiritual and moral undergirdings of marriage from within. The radical gay agenda pursues a scorched earth policy against all who oppose them. They would rather destroy all that is good and decent than face their own moral failings.

Civil unions are in every measure equitable to the civil benefits of marriage. But, that is not enough for the gay community. They are determined to destroy a sanctified relationship that does not, by natural law, belong to them.

If 2 gays being married lessons your marriage, that says more about your marriage than the gay issue.
Your calling it moral failings says alot about you.
Maybe you would be better off to worry about your marriage, and less about the others striving for their pursuit of happiness, especially when the only effect it has on you is in your own mind.
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
Also many marriages are performed by the justice of the peace, with no religious overtones. Maybe those dimminish your marriage as well.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
If 2 gays being married lessons your marriage, that says more about your marriage than the gay issue.
Your calling it moral failings says alot about you.
Maybe you would be better off to worry about your marriage, and less about the others striving for their pursuit of happiness, especially when the only effect it has on you is in your own mind.

My marriage is fine, Doug. No need to make it personal.
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
OK, you don't have an answer, that's fine. Just say so rather than repeating the non-answer over and over. Since you can't reason it out for yourself, it affects people by taking the marriage covenant, the special agreement/joining/bonding of a man and woman, and usurps the special meaning it holds. I know, you're incapable of understanding or appreciating that, and that's OK also. You, nor anyone else, has yet answered why having full rights/privileges/benefits without the word marriage is unsatisfactory. I guess because there's no legitimate reason it wouldn't be.

Leo, they don't want a "special civil" union they want to Marry the one they love, just like heterosexuals have the right to do. If you also believe this lessons your marriage, please read my signature line again.

Your trash thread and "n" word thread makes me feel like I am arguing with Archie Bunker.
 
Top