Marty is going to be on fire...
Massacre de Srebrenica: la «faute» aux gais néerlandais (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/international/europe/201003/18/01-4262053-massacre-de-srebrenica-la-faute-aux-gais-neerlandais.php)
Retired US General: Gay Dutch Troops Contributed to Srebrenica Massacre (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Retired-US-General-Gay-Dutch-Troops-Contributed-to-Srebrenica-Massacre--88450667.html)
Not as clear cut as the title would suggest, but still not that far:
QuoteSHEEHAN: "That [Srebrenica] was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II."
LEVIN: "And did the Dutch leaders tell you it was because there were gay soldiers there?"
SHEEHAN: "It was a combination ..."
LEVIN: "Did they tell you [that gay soldiers were to blame], that is my question."
SHEEHAN: "Yes."
LEVIN: "They did?"
SHEEHAN: "They included that as part of the problem."
Gays are evil. ;)
This knowledge makes one think twice about repealing DADT, doesn't it? :hmm: Do we really want another massacre?
I KNEW IT.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2010, 06:06:50 PM
I KNEW IT.
You didn't know shit.
If someone asked you yesterday you would have been LOL mew Ceiling Cat did it!
Quote from: Jaron on March 18, 2010, 06:14:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2010, 06:06:50 PM
I KNEW IT.
You didn't know shit.
If someone asked you yesterday you would have been LOL mew Ceiling Cat did it!
Go back to sleep. You are incoherent.
and here I thought you were referring to the repressed gays in the serbian army taking out their frustration over not being able to suck cock by murdering muslims?
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2010, 06:17:22 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 18, 2010, 06:14:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 18, 2010, 06:06:50 PM
I KNEW IT.
You didn't know shit.
If someone asked you yesterday you would have been LOL mew Ceiling Cat did it!
Go back to sleep. You are incoherent.
Punk. :P
Makes sense really. You think grallon or Marty would protect muslims?
kinda retarded. Did they have a gay only army or something? :unsure: That would be weird. I'm pretty sure there were starights gays and all kinds of other labeled people doing the killing.
What pray tell does the soldier's sex life have to do with the orders he's following?
hmmm that sounds kinky. maybe the whole dutch army was making gay snuff films?
stupidest non-news story of the day.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 18, 2010, 08:33:36 PM
kinda retarded. Did they have a gay only army or something? :unsure: That would be weird. I'm pretty sure there were starights gays and all kinds of other labeled people doing the killing.
What pray tell does the soldier's sex life have to do with the orders he's following?
hmmm that sounds kinky. maybe the whole dutch army was making gay snuff films?
stupidest non-news story of the day.
Sheehan is clutching at straws trying to find reasons why
blacks gays should not be allowed to serve in the military
except as unskilled laborers and cooks openly. If you cross this line, next thing you know, they will allow
niggers to vote gays to marry.
Of course he is a moron. Rank times IQ is a constant.
Oh, that old lifestyle = race line. One of my favorite fallacies :)
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2010, 10:38:32 PM
Oh, that old lifestyle = race line. One of my favorite fallacies :)
well, for the moment, gays can't really stop being gay. I suppose they can stop having sex, but I'm not sure that's totally wise.
If there was an anti-gay pill, they would have a choice though. But right now, I don't see why you think comparing this to race line is a fallacy?
Taking a vow of celibacy is not the same as loving women.
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2010, 10:38:32 PM
Oh, that old lifestyle = race line. One of my favorite fallacies :)
What the fuck? How is that a "lifestyle"? Are you suggesting that being gay is a choice? Do you make a choice to suck cock every morning, derscheisse?
You having a fat ass and a pedo-moustache is a "lifestyle choice". Being gay is not.
I like the Dutch response:
QuoteGen. Blames Gays for Bosnian Genocide
By Michelle Garcia
Retired Marine Gen. John Sheehan (pictured) blames the Netherlands' inclusion of gays in the military for thousands of Bosnian deaths in 1995.
Sheehan was the top NATO commander in the 1990s during the height of genocide in former Yugoslavia. During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on gays in the military on Thursday, he said that the situation in Yugoslavia was a clear example of how other nations allowing gays in the military led to undermining unit cohesion, according to the Washington Post.
The Dutch military was the first to allow gays to serve openly in the ranks when it lifted its ban in 1974. Two decades later, 400 Dutch peace keepers were stationed in Srebrenica when Serbian forces attacked the Bosnian Muslims, killing 8,000 men and boys by Serbian forces.
Sheehan said that allowing gays in the Dutch military left peace keepers "ill-equipped to go to war."
When Carl Levin, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee asked him to verify whether Dutch leaders said the mission failed because it included gay soldiers, Sheehan said yes.
"They did?" Levin asked.
"They included that as part of the problem," Sheehan replied. He added that the former chief of staff of the Dutch army said allowing gay service members detracted from its war-fighting abilities.
Levin countered, "But I think that any effort to connect that failure on the part of the Dutch to the fact that they have homosexuals, or did allow homosexuals, I think is totally off-target."
Roger van de Wetering, a spokesman for the Netherlands Ministry of Defense, told Voice of America news that Sheehan's statements were "total nonsense" and that he "cannot believe that a man of that rank is stating such a thing."
Sheehan retired from the military in 1997.
:wacko: @ this thread.
I'm willing to hear more evidence on this. The "gays did it" thing is not obviously nutty.
Srebrenica: severe case of gay panic?
Funnily enough, this has already made it to Polish newspapers (usually the "Americans are stupid" column).
I love my lifestyle. :wacko:
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 02:20:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2010, 10:38:32 PM
Oh, that old lifestyle = race line. One of my favorite fallacies :)
What the fuck? How is that a "lifestyle"? Are you suggesting that being gay is a choice? Do you make a choice to suck cock every morning, derscheisse?
You having a fat ass and a pedo-moustache is a "lifestyle choice". Being gay is not.
I dunno but sucking cock every morning seems like a choice to me. Unless you are a sex slave.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2010, 05:21:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 02:20:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2010, 10:38:32 PM
Oh, that old lifestyle = race line. One of my favorite fallacies :)
What the fuck? How is that a "lifestyle"? Are you suggesting that being gay is a choice? Do you make a choice to suck cock every morning, derscheisse?
You having a fat ass and a pedo-moustache is a "lifestyle choice". Being gay is not.
I dunno but sucking cock every morning seems like a choice to me. Unless you are a sex slave.
What if it's auto-fellatio?
Unless you have some sort of weird spine disorder that pulls your head down to your junk when you wake up it still seems to be a choice.
Raz fails the joke understanding roll. :(
Genocide is no joke.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2010, 05:38:34 AM
Genocide is no joke.
Depends.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motifake.com%2Fimage%2Fdemotivational-poster%2F0907%2Fendor-holocaust-demotivational-poster-1247948587.jpg&hash=078a247b6abf4fd9c762f935f2ba71a0b4033dbc)
So, if being gay isn't a choice, it's genetic?
It's a disease and AIDS is its cure.
Being gay is a choice.
Quote from: Neil on March 19, 2010, 06:29:47 AM
Being gay is a choice.
Yes, but being homosexual isn't.
I swear it's like we go down a list of topics to rehash at regular interval. <_<
G.
Quote from: Grallon on March 19, 2010, 06:35:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 19, 2010, 06:29:47 AM
Being gay is a choice.
Yes, but being homosexual isn't.
I swear it's like we go down a list of topics to rehash at regular interval. <_<
G.
Neil is a troll. Obviously he goes down a list of topics to raise our ire.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 06:36:44 AM
Neil is a troll. Obviously he goes down a list of topics to raise our ire.
Neil doesn't get a rise out of me - I know his schtick. You haven't grasped it yet though.
And I haven't felt enough passion for anything in recent years to muster something as biblical as 'ire' about any particular topic.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on March 19, 2010, 06:35:26 AM
Yes, but being homosexual isn't.
I swear it's like we go down a list of topics to rehash at regular interval. <_<
Blame Martinus. He keeps saying stupid things that require a response.
What the fuck. Besides can't you attack some other part of my identity, e.g. being Polish.
Being a homophobe places you in the same line as Alexandru H.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 06:48:07 AM
What the fuck. Besides can't you attack some other part of my identity, e.g. being Polish.
You mean Russian.
Besides, you don't see 'Poles' whining for their 'rights' and trying to upset social order, do you? Rather than knowing and accepting one's place in society, many gays seem determined to destroy Western society out of sheer selfishness, a selfishness that has become infectious.
QuoteBeing a homophobe places you in the same line as Alexandru H.
Or rather, it places him into mine, as I am his superior.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 06:48:07 AM
What the fuck. Besides can't you attack some other part of my identity, e.g. being Polish.
Being a homophobe places you in the same line as Alexandru H.
Do you suck with that mouth, too? That's how venereal diseases spread, you know... :bowler:
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 06:48:07 AM
Being a homophobe places you in the same line as Alexandru H.
All you need to do is stop being so sensitive about it goddamit! Your reactions only show how uncomfortable you remain with your orientation. All of us have more facets than those that get emphasized by the deforming prism that is the net. Neil is more than his homophobia as you are more than the shrill jackass you sometimes comes across as.
G.
Grallon would you save a bunch of Muslims if you could?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2010, 07:21:45 AM
Grallon would you save a bunch of Muslims if you could?
The cute ones certainly.
G.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 02:20:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2010, 10:38:32 PM
Oh, that old lifestyle = race line. One of my favorite fallacies :)
What the fuck? How is that a "lifestyle"? Are you suggesting that being gay is a choice? Do you make a choice to suck cock every morning, derscheisse?
You having a fat ass and a pedo-moustache is a "lifestyle choice". Being gay is not.
No, but
you make a choice to suck a cock every morning. The fag fails again.
Gays are claiming all kinds of historical figures for their ranks, why not some historical events too? :P
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2010, 10:38:32 PM
Oh, that old lifestyle = race line. One of my favorite fallacies :)
Good point, we should be expelling people with undesirable lifestyles from the military. I would start with conseratives and evangelicals. The latter endanger our missions in Islamic countries and believe in nutty supersitions - they can't be trusted with complex technology and equipment. The former say foolish things on chat boards and can expose the army to embarassment.
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2010, 10:38:32 PM
Oh, that old lifestyle = race line. One of my favorite fallacies :)
Actually, it is the bigotry = bigotry line. The concept that it is comparing "lifestyle" to the "race" fallacy is one of my favorite fallacies. :)
No one is pretending any more that "blacks" lack the brains, or gays the courage, to serve well. Now it is just the rear-guard moaning that the bigots might not like serving with gays any more than they liked serving with "blacks."
Fuck the bigots. Let 'em quit or STFU.
I think we can all compromise: ban bad gays like Mart from the military, or at worst make them cooks and drivers, and let the good ones serve as frontline soldiers.
Quote from: PDH on March 19, 2010, 09:33:15 AM
I think we can all compromise: ban bad gays like Mart from the military, or at worst make them cooks and drivers, and let the good ones serve as frontline soldiers.
Counter proposal:
Let good gays serve, send bad gays like Mart to deepest Alabama without internet access.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 19, 2010, 09:39:06 AM
Counter proposal:
Let good gays serve, send bad gays like Mart to deepest Alabama without internet access.
Better than mine.
Utah works too.
QuoteI think we can all compromise: ban bad gays like Mart from the military, or at worst make them cooks and drivers, and let the good ones serve as frontline soldiers.
I'm with you on the cooks. But...letting gays drive?.....hmm.....
Quote from: Grallon on March 19, 2010, 06:35:26 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 19, 2010, 06:29:47 AM
Being gay is a choice.
Yes, but being homosexual isn't.
I swear it's like we go down a list of topics to rehash at regular interval. <_<
G.
Is that the actual distinction gay people make or is it just you?
As I agree totally but can never properly explain it. Being gay is a choice, wanting to be though, isn't.
Quote from: Grallon on March 19, 2010, 07:30:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2010, 07:21:45 AM
Grallon would you save a bunch of Muslims if you could?
The cute ones certainly.
G.
Well that's good enough for me. We should draft grallon.
QuoteDutch fury at US general's gay theory over Srebrenica
Some 8,000 people were killed at Srebrenica in 1995
Dutch officials have rejected a retired US general's claim that its forces failed at Srebrenica because of poor morale over openly gay soldiers.
A defence ministry spokesman dismissed as "complete nonsense" the remarks by John Sheehan, a former Nato commander.
Gen Sheehan had been speaking at a US Senate hearing on allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military.
He said Dutch leaders had told him that the presence of gay soldiers had contributed to the Bosnian massacre.
Srebrenica was a UN safe haven under the protection of Dutch peacekeepers when, in 1995, Bosnian Serb forces overran the town, killing some 8,000 Muslim men and boys.
Gen Sheehan said the former chief of staff of the Dutch army had told him that the presence of openly gay soldiers in the Dutch peacekeeping force were seen as "part of the problem" which contributed to the fall of Srebrenica.
He argued that since the end of the Cold War, European militaries had changed and he concluded "there was no longer a need for an active combat capability".
'Totally off-target'
This "socialisation" process, Gen Sheehan said, "included open homosexuality" and led to "a focus on peacekeeping operations because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back".
Gen Sheehan is a former Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic
"It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense," Dutch defence ministry spokesman Roger van de Wetering said in response.
"The Srebrenica massacre and the involvement of UN soldiers was extensively investigated by the Netherlands, international organisations and the United Nations.
"Never was there in any way concluded that the sexual orientation of soldiers played a role."
The Dutch ambassador to the US, Renee Jones-Bos, added in a statement on the embassy's website that she "couldn't disagree more" with the claims by the former general, who retired from the military in 1997.
In the US Senate itself, Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told Gen Sheehan he was "totally off-target".
Several countries - including Britain, Canada, Australia and Israel - allow openly gay people to serve in the armed services.
:lol:
I wonder if Israel would've still lost Gaza if they didn't have gays in the military.
That's not the first time gays in the military are linked to a massacre. See: razing of Thebes by Alexander.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 10:40:38 AM
That's not the first time gays in the military are linked to a massacre. See: razing of Thebes by Alexander.
Or Ernst Rohm and the Third Reich.
In other burning news: are gays responsible for Martinus?
Quote from: Tyr on March 19, 2010, 09:48:27 AM
Is that the actual distinction gay people make or is it just you?
As I agree totally but can never properly explain it. Being gay is a choice, wanting to be though, isn't.
It's a distinction I make a point of stressing - even though the label is a shortcut often used for convenience sake. But being a shortcut it's simplistic and reductive; it presents one aspect of whoever it's applied to as his/her defining characteristic. Much like saying 'he's black' focuses on one thing to the immediate exclusion of any other traits. He's first black than a lawyer or chef or kind or etc...
More later on the dimension of choice.
G.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on March 19, 2010, 06:17:52 AM
It's a disease and AIDS is its cure.
that's not working very well as it's killing a lot of straight people also.
BTW "gay" or whatever other word you want to use is a choice for some of us.
I don't live a "gay" or "straight" lifestyle. I live a life. It may have some style (those who know me would say I have great style) but it is neither definably gay or staright or any other word that debases it as being wholly concerned with who I sleep with.
To my mind anyone who bases their entire existence on which gender you prefer have sex with is a sad little person.
Currently when I feel up for sex it's dudes, only because it's simpler. less ritual, and planning. MY lifestyle is Lazy-sexual? :p
nope, I'm a person before I'm any sort of LGBT typology. I make a point also not to lump others' sexuality into large assumptive categories based solely on who they fuck. who you fuck has very little bearing on your job (unless you are a hooker) or even your hobbies, to my mind.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 19, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
I make a point also not to lump others' sexuality into large assumptive categories based solely on who they fuck. who you fuck has very little bearing on your job (unless you are a hooker) or even your hobbies, to my mind.
Its a good point Buddha. I suspect the reason people go on about sexuality so much here is because Marti often raises the issue in such idiotic ways.
When I read the thread title, I had a horrible mental picture of a horde of battle-crazed gays rampaging through the Balkans. :(
Quote from: Malthus on March 19, 2010, 12:18:09 PM
When I read the thread title, I had a horrible mental picture of a horde of battle-crazed gays rampaging through the Balkans. :(
tiaras askew, feather boas blowing in the wind. HOTT :p
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2010, 12:15:53 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 19, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
I make a point also not to lump others' sexuality into large assumptive categories based solely on who they fuck. who you fuck has very little bearing on your job (unless you are a hooker) or even your hobbies, to my mind.
Its a good point Buddha. I suspect the reason people go on about sexuality so much here is because Marti often raises the issue in such idiotic ways.
yeah that's likely right. everyone loves to play with marti's fragile brain. It's hard to resist I'd imagine for many. :p
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2010, 10:42:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 10:40:38 AM
That's not the first time gays in the military are linked to a massacre. See: razing of Thebes by Alexander.
Or Ernst Rohm and the Third Reich.
:bash:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 19, 2010, 12:21:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 19, 2010, 12:18:09 PM
When I read the thread title, I had a horrible mental picture of a horde of battle-crazed gays rampaging through the Balkans. :(
tiaras askew, feather boas blowing in the wind. HOTT :p
Nah, I'm guessing they would mostly be Bears. Probably leather fetish ones, too. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2010, 12:15:53 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 19, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
I make a point also not to lump others' sexuality into large assumptive categories based solely on who they fuck. who you fuck has very little bearing on your job (unless you are a hooker) or even your hobbies, to my mind.
Its a good point Buddha. I suspect the reason people go on about sexuality so much here is because Marti often raises the issue in such idiotic ways.
Like what?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 19, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
BTW "gay" or whatever other word you want to use is a choice for some of us.
I don't live a "gay" or "straight" lifestyle. I live a life. It may have some style (those who know me would say I have great style) but it is neither definably gay or staright or any other word that debases it as being wholly concerned with who I sleep with.
To my mind anyone who bases their entire existence on which gender you prefer have sex with is a sad little person.
Currently when I feel up for sex it's dudes, only because it's simpler. less ritual, and planning. MY lifestyle is Lazy-sexual? :p
nope, I'm a person before I'm any sort of LGBT typology. I make a point also not to lump others' sexuality into large assumptive categories based solely on who they fuck. who you fuck has very little bearing on your job (unless you are a hooker) or even your hobbies, to my mind.
That may be nice and dandy, but we don't live in a X-blind society (where X is race, color, or sexual orientation). To the homophobes out there you and I will always be freaks and that's how they will define us. One may hide his head in the sand and "reject labels" or own up to it and be gay/bi and proud about it.
Like a Jewish father once said to his son in a movie (the title of which I forgot) I once saw: "Remember always who you are, son, because even if you forget it, there will always be some son of a bitch to remind you of that."
I am not gay to the exclusion of everything else, but it is one of the important aspects of my identity. It is a matter of some intangible brotherhood based on common experience (of prejudice but not just that), similar sensibilities and similar perspective that is often impossible to understand for the "mainstream" people. In many ways, this kinship is greater than one created by ethnicity - I feel I have more in common with a gay person from the US than I have with a Polish catholic farmer, for example.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 19, 2010, 12:22:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2010, 12:15:53 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 19, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
I make a point also not to lump others' sexuality into large assumptive categories based solely on who they fuck. who you fuck has very little bearing on your job (unless you are a hooker) or even your hobbies, to my mind.
Its a good point Buddha. I suspect the reason people go on about sexuality so much here is because Marti often raises the issue in such idiotic ways.
yeah that's likely right. everyone loves to play with marti's fragile brain. It's hard to resist I'd imagine for many. :p
Bitch, don't give me shit about "fragile brain". Seriously. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
That may be nice and dandy, but we don't live in a X-blind society (where X is race, color, or sexual orientation). To the homophobes out there you and I will always be freaks and that's how they will define us. One may hide his head in the sand and "reject labels" or own up to it and be gay/bi and proud about it.
Like a Jewish father once said to his son in a movie (the title of which I forgot) I once saw: "Remember always who you are, son, because even if you forget it, there will always be some son of a bitch to remind you of that."
I am not gay to the exclusion of everything else, but it is one of the important aspects of my identity. It is a matter of some intangible brotherhood based on common experience (of prejudice but not just that), similar sensibilities and similar perspective that is often impossible to understand for the "mainstream" people. In many ways, this kinship is greater than one created by ethnicity - I feel I have more in common with a gay person from the US than I have with a Polish catholic farmer, for example.
People think I'm a freak because I play D&D. I don't define my identity as a person who plays D&D. Fuck those LARPers though. They need to be purged with holy judgment fire.
Sex > D&D.
Having your brains bashed with a base ball bad > Having people laugh at you derisively.
Analogy fail. :(
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
...
That may be nice and dandy, but we don't live in a X-blind society (where X is race, color, or sexual orientation). To the homophobes out there you and I will always be freaks and that's how they will define us. One may hide his head in the sand and "reject labels" or own up to it and be gay/bi and proud about it.
...
Marty - that is precisely one of the 'idiotic ways' CC was refering to... You're not a teenager at his first flag waving rally... Don Quixote de la Pansy indeed.
And you sure as hell won't encourage others to dismiss your sexual orientation as irrelevant if you keep highlingting it. *sigh*
G.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
That may be nice and dandy, but we don't live in a X-blind society (where X is race, color, or sexual orientation). To the homophobes out there you and I will always be freaks and that's how they will define us. One may hide his head in the sand and "reject labels" or own up to it and be gay/bi and proud about it.
No, not really.
I used to like you, but you became some kind of gay-leftist crusader.
That's at least 2 things I have an hard time with.
Quote
I am not gay to the exclusion of everything else, but it is one of the important aspects of my identity.
That's what I don't get with you guys.
I don't think my taste in sexual partners is an important aspect of my identity. I don't think my identity is built around the type of women I love.
I'd like to think I'm much richer than that.
But if you insist on being shallow, I suppose that's your right.
Just don't complain when people bitch back.
Quote
It is a matter of some intangible brotherhood based on common experience (of prejudice but not just that), similar sensibilities and similar perspective that is often impossible to understand for the "mainstream" people. In many ways, this kinship is greater than one created by ethnicity - I feel I have more in common with a gay person from the US than I have with a Polish catholic farmer, for example.
There again: You VS the rest of the world.
So, being Polish and being raised by catholic parents didn't really made you into what you are today, but at some point during your teenage year, you woke up a totally different man, the old marty was gone, the new gay one arrived. You then decided it would be a good thing to become a lawyer, and you developped an appreciation for strategy games on the PC.
Before you discovered yourserlf as gay, you were nothing, now you are everything.
And you complain it's hard for mainstream people to understand you? I wonder why.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 01:28:26 PM
Sex > D&D.
Having your brains bashed with a base ball bad > Having people laugh at you derisively.
Analogy fail. :(
Nobody ever tried with a baseball bat, but some people tried to beat me up pretty badly, some even succeeded.
Some thought I was weak, some thought I had a loud mouth, some thought I was annoying, some wanted to extort money from poor little me, etc, etc.
I don't think the reasons really matter when you get a unprovoked beating.
Of course, if you tried to kiss a straight guy, there might be a gay panic defense here...
;)
Besides, you live in a country where homosexuals are barely tolerated and 'gay clubbing' does not mean the same as in San Francisco. Being aware of the risks and chosing to identify yourself publicly as such, you can be some sort of hero, but heros don't have it easy with the other side.
I wouldn't wish any kind of beating bestowed on you, but you know it's kinda expected for gays in Poland and it should not be a surprise, and there is not much any of us can do for your particular situation. Most of us live in places where homosexuality is tolerated/accepted, and one or two trolls aside, I don't think anyone is arguing for an open season on gay clubbing instead of baby seals.
Quote from: Grallon on March 19, 2010, 11:24:42 AM
It's a distinction I make a point of stressing - even though the label is a shortcut often used for convenience sake. But being a shortcut it's simplistic and reductive; it presents one aspect of whoever it's applied to as his/her defining characteristic. Much like saying 'he's black' focuses on one thing to the immediate exclusion of any other traits. He's first black than a lawyer or chef or kind or etc...
More later on the dimension of choice.
G.
THEY CAME FIRST for the Homosexuals,
and Marty didn't speak up because he wasn't homosexual.
THEN THEY CAME for the Gays,
and he didn't speak up because he wasn't gay.
THEN THEY CAME for the queers,
and he didn't speak up because he wasn't a queer.
THEN THEY CAME for Marty
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Sad.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 10:40:38 AM
That's not the first time gays in the military are linked to a massacre. See: razing of Thebes by Alexander.
I'm not sure that the concept of 'gay' existed yet. Even if they performed homosexual acts, they did not act like teenaged girls, as gay men do.
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2010, 02:43:16 PMI don't think anyone is arguing for an open season on gay clubbing
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeout.com%2Fimg%2Fforced%2F37400%2Fw200%2Fh160%2Fimage.jpg&hash=cdc28f20d93a800c0b8b51fcb05d5ea0361c0ac2)
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
Like a Jewish father once said to his son in a movie (the title of which I forgot) I once saw: "Remember always who you are, son, because even if you forget it, there will always be some son of a bitch to remind you of that."
My father always told me to remember that people will treat me like I'm black...but that never happens as no one recognizes me as such.
Quote from: citizen k on March 19, 2010, 03:20:17 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeout.com%2Fimg%2Fforced%2F37400%2Fw200%2Fh160%2Fimage.jpg&hash=cdc28f20d93a800c0b8b51fcb05d5ea0361c0ac2)
?
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2010, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
Like a Jewish father once said to his son in a movie (the title of which I forgot) I once saw: "Remember always who you are, son, because even if you forget it, there will always be some son of a bitch to remind you of that."
My father always told me to remember that people will treat me like I'm black...but that never happens as no one recognizes me as such.
Gay = black?
Quote from: The Brain on March 19, 2010, 03:30:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2010, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
Like a Jewish father once said to his son in a movie (the title of which I forgot) I once saw: "Remember always who you are, son, because even if you forget it, there will always be some son of a bitch to remind you of that."
My father always told me to remember that people will treat me like I'm black...but that never happens as no one recognizes me as such.
Gay = black?
Canadian = black
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2010, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 19, 2010, 03:30:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2010, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
Like a Jewish father once said to his son in a movie (the title of which I forgot) I once saw: "Remember always who you are, son, because even if you forget it, there will always be some son of a bitch to remind you of that."
My father always told me to remember that people will treat me like I'm black...but that never happens as no one recognizes me as such.
Gay = black?
Canadian = black
:barf:
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2010, 03:29:04 PM
My father always told me to remember that people will treat me like I'm black...but that never happens as no one recognizes me as such.
Bill Clinton has much the same lament.
Quote from: grumbler on March 19, 2010, 03:50:46 PM
Bill Clinton has much the same lament.
He has Hillary so no sympathy is deserved.
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2010, 03:29:25 PM
Quote from: citizen k on March 19, 2010, 03:20:17 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timeout.com%2Fimg%2Fforced%2F37400%2Fw200%2Fh160%2Fimage.jpg&hash=cdc28f20d93a800c0b8b51fcb05d5ea0361c0ac2)
?
gay clubbing? :unsure:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 19, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
BTW "gay" or whatever other word you want to use is a choice for some of us.
I don't live a "gay" or "straight" lifestyle. I live a life. It may have some style (those who know me would say I have great style) but it is neither definably gay or staright or any other word that debases it as being wholly concerned with who I sleep with.
To my mind anyone who bases their entire existence on which gender you prefer have sex with is a sad little person.
Currently when I feel up for sex it's dudes, only because it's simpler. less ritual, and planning. MY lifestyle is Lazy-sexual? :p
nope, I'm a person before I'm any sort of LGBT typology. I make a point also not to lump others' sexuality into large assumptive categories based solely on who they fuck. who you fuck has very little bearing on your job (unless you are a hooker) or even your hobbies, to my mind.
Thats not the lines I was thinking. But I agree anyway.
I was thinking more- being gay IS 100% optional. If Martinus (or whoever) wanted to he could go out there get married, have kids and live a totally straight life. As far as society is concerned he'd be straight
But he'd still actually be gay. And so of course wouldn't at all be happy in doing this.
I was thinking homosexual vs gay is a decent way to explain 'being' gay and actually 'doing' gay (...odd English there).
Quote from: citizen k on March 19, 2010, 09:09:48 PM
gay clubbing? :unsure:
Why that image? Why an image at all?
Quote from: garbon on March 19, 2010, 10:19:49 PM
Quote from: citizen k on March 19, 2010, 09:09:48 PM
gay clubbing? :unsure:
Why that image? Why an image at all?
to differentiate between clubbing a gay like a baby seal and gay clubbing? :unsure:
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2010, 02:36:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
That may be nice and dandy, but we don't live in a X-blind society (where X is race, color, or sexual orientation). To the homophobes out there you and I will always be freaks and that's how they will define us. One may hide his head in the sand and "reject labels" or own up to it and be gay/bi and proud about it.
No, not really.
I used to like you, but you became some kind of gay-leftist crusader.
That's at least 2 things I have an hard time with.
Quote
I am not gay to the exclusion of everything else, but it is one of the important aspects of my identity.
That's what I don't get with you guys.
I don't think my taste in sexual partners is an important aspect of my identity. I don't think my identity is built around the type of women I love.
I'd like to think I'm much richer than that.
But if you insist on being shallow, I suppose that's your right.
Just don't complain when people bitch back.
Quote
It is a matter of some intangible brotherhood based on common experience (of prejudice but not just that), similar sensibilities and similar perspective that is often impossible to understand for the "mainstream" people. In many ways, this kinship is greater than one created by ethnicity - I feel I have more in common with a gay person from the US than I have with a Polish catholic farmer, for example.
There again: You VS the rest of the world.
So, being Polish and being raised by catholic parents didn't really made you into what you are today, but at some point during your teenage year, you woke up a totally different man, the old marty was gone, the new gay one arrived. You then decided it would be a good thing to become a lawyer, and you developped an appreciation for strategy games on the PC.
Before you discovered yourserlf as gay, you were nothing, now you are everything.
And you complain it's hard for mainstream people to understand you? I wonder why.
Dear god, there is so much wrong in this post I don't even know where to begin. Please die already.
For the record, I never liked you. I considered you always a miserable piece of human trash, ever since your homophobic rants at grallon back on the Paradox boards. Plus you are fat and disgusting. So no love lost here, I'm afraid.
Oh and my parents aren't catholic. Dad is lapsed, mother is agnostic. Grandmother (who had a big part in raising me) was an atheist.
Oh and btw, where do people get this image of Poland as a country where guys are hunted for sport or something? We are having a vibrant gay scene in Warsaw (and it is considered good form for the non-queer celebrities and more hip politicians to show themselves every once in a while dancing in one of the upscale gay clubs), and a fucking Euro Pride in July. Sure, there are some neonazis coming to Pride marches but last year there were maybe 30 of them and police had to protect them from the gay pride participants. Compared to the event in front of Notre Dame earlier this year, it seems like Poland has less violence against gays than France.
Perhaps it's not San Francisco, but it's definitely not Russia or Romania either.
San "BB gun" Francisco? That's a relief.
Quote from: The Brain on March 20, 2010, 03:45:17 AM
San "BB gun" Francisco? That's a relief.
Well, he used San Francisco as a litmus test, not me - I was aware of this incident, but I thought against bringing this up not to muddle the message. Thanks Mr. Nitpick. :rolleyes: :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:39:24 AM
Oh and btw, where do people get this image of Poland as a country where guys are hunted for sport or something?
If you stopped posting so many drama queen shrill threads about how disfunctional you are because of such things as how repressive Poland is then perhaps we might have a different view of things.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 08:57:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:39:24 AM
Oh and btw, where do people get this image of Poland as a country where guys are hunted for sport or something?
If you stopped posting so many drama queen shrill threads about how disfunctional you are because of such things as how repressive Poland is then perhaps we might have a different view of things.
I won't have a different view. Poles are just waiting to collaborate in a pogrom with either a German or Russian master. Whichever one they spread their legs for.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 20, 2010, 09:07:03 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 08:57:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:39:24 AM
Oh and btw, where do people get this image of Poland as a country where guys are hunted for sport or something?
If you stopped posting so many drama queen shrill threads about how disfunctional you are because of such things as how repressive Poland is then perhaps we might have a different view of things.
I won't have a different view. Poles are just waiting to collaborate in a pogrom with either a German or Russian master. Whichever one they spread their legs for.
True, but you would not necessarily know that they also hunt down gays in their spare time unless Marti endlessly bleated about it.
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:39:24 AM
Oh and btw, where do people get this image of Poland as a country where guys are hunted for sport or something?
:unsure: I believe that would be you. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:39:24 AM
Oh and btw, where do people get this image of Poland as a country where guys are hunted for sport or something?
I mostly constructed it because it annoys you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 08:57:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:39:24 AM
Oh and btw, where do people get this image of Poland as a country where guys are hunted for sport or something?
If you stopped posting so many drama queen shrill threads about how disfunctional you are because of such things as how repressive Poland is then perhaps we might have a different view of things.
Show me three threads I posted since the start of this iteration of the forum, which concern "how repressive Poland is".
I always have a bit of an issue with the sudden turn to being 'colour-blind', 'gender-blind' or 'sexuality-blind' and not taking that into consideration. I mean to use the feminism example you've centuries of gender and sex being probably the most important characteristic that will define you. When women push back against that, suddenly apparently we should just not care about sex or gender (and it's the feminists' fault that they do care about it) and ignore or forget about the weight of history. It always seems to be to be almost an attempt at self-absolution.
My own view is that there are people who judge and wish me harm because I am gay- in other words this has been how homosexuals have been defined for the last century at least, and that isn't/wasn't a choice. So I'm not going to stand there and argue 'well I'm a person who just happens to....' Because I'm buying into the fundamental argument of homophobes that there is something wrong and worth shame in being gay. So I'll take that label and what's behind it and wear it with pride.
When you are with people who are genuinely tolerant - who don't give a shit - you don't have to have that sort of sophism because they are tolerant enough not to care whether you're a 'gay' person rather than a 'person who happens to be gay'.
Now this of course doesn't mean I'm not a person with wide-ranging interests and thoughts and conversations, but it's absurd that I'd have to deny a part of my identity (and the one that many people focus on as the most important, the one aspect deserving loathing) to have a wide-ranging life.
QuoteI don't think my taste in sexual partners is an important aspect of my identity. I don't think my identity is built around the type of women I love.
I'd like to think I'm much richer than that.
This is nonsense. You may be a sublime human hotpot but the truth is that your choice of sexual partner is an essential part of your identity. I think those sexual experiences and relationships are hugely important in forming us. Ultimately in terms of marriage or relationship sexual desire is a big part of how we choose the person who will, more than anyone since our mother, shape and define our character. The only way you could remove sex from your identity is if you cauterised the soul.
Edit: Incidentally I hate the word 'tolerance' because it indicates someone powerful deigning to 'tolerate' you or someone 'tolerating' a nuisance. I far prefer a concept like solidarity which is more equal. And I think the difference is instructive here. The goal in tolerance is, as G suggests earlier, that sexuality is dismissed, whereas I think solidarity has a situation where sexuality is fine and the present seething central aspect of humanity that it is (God bless you Herr Doktor Freud) but that the nature of it doesn't matter. So the gay guy may not understand with his straight friend considering some girl terribly hot, or vice versa but they recognise it's the same as opposed to something that shouldn't said or should be brushed under the carpet for fear of being too 'gay' or overly defined by one's sexuality.
Dismissing sexuality to me suggests a life that compartmentalises it away from all other human relations. I don't want to be any more private and abashed about loves and relationships than I choose to be. I want to have them as able to be celebrated and commiserated by other people as any straight person. I think that's what I mean by people who are genuinely tolerant and don't care - and I think there are a fair few on Languish.
Very well said, Sheilbh. Agree 100%.
The fact that I take a keen interest in gay-related affairs does not mean I have no other interests or hobbies - but that's an important part of my personality and identity, that goes beyond "who I just happen to fuck". Now, on Languish we all become a bit distorted caricatures of our real selves, because a board like this tends to focus on some aspects of life rather than others (for example, I doubt that in real life 90% of all conversations or free time of Caliga is devoted to boobs).
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 11:38:10 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 08:57:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:39:24 AM
Oh and btw, where do people get this image of Poland as a country where guys are hunted for sport or something?
If you stopped posting so many drama queen shrill threads about how disfunctional you are because of such things as how repressive Poland is then perhaps we might have a different view of things.
Show me three threads I posted since the start of this iteration of the forum, which concern "how repressive Poland is".
Yes, I will get right on that. In the meantime you might wonder why Poland gay hunting has become a Languish Meme and what Polish poster could have been the reason for that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 11:51:23 AM
Dismissing sexuality to me suggests a life that compartmentalises it away from all other human relations. I don't want to be any more private and abashed about loves and relationships than I choose to be. I want to have them as able to be celebrated and commiserated by other people as any straight person. I think that's what I mean by people who are genuinely tolerant and don't care - and I think there are a fair few on Languish.
Its not dismissive, its just not a big deal until people make it so, like Marti.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 12:42:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 11:51:23 AM
Dismissing sexuality to me suggests a life that compartmentalises it away from all other human relations. I don't want to be any more private and abashed about loves and relationships than I choose to be. I want to have them as able to be celebrated and commiserated by other people as any straight person. I think that's what I mean by people who are genuinely tolerant and don't care - and I think there are a fair few on Languish.
Its not dismissive, its just not a big deal until people make it so, like Marti.
:yes:
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 11:38:10 AM
Show me three threads I posted since the start of this iteration of the forum, which concern "how repressive Poland is".
Note the lack of denial... just a degree of confidence that he hasn't too-obviously done this three times in
this iteration of the board! :lol:
A most
excellent weasel.
BTW, I saw the video of this hearing, and Sen Levin absolutely eviscerated the poor, stupid general. It is a thing of beauty. Go http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2010/03%20March/03-18-10%20Webcast.htm (http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2010/03%20March/03-18-10%20Webcast.htm) and fast forward to about minute 68.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 11:51:23 AM
...
Dismissing sexuality to me suggests a life that compartmentalises it away from all other human relations. I don't want to be any more private and abashed about loves and relationships than I choose to be. I want to have them as able to be celebrated and commiserated by other people as any straight person. I think that's what I mean by people who are genuinely tolerant and don't care - and I think there are a fair few on Languish.
Thoughtful and tactful as always Sheilbh lad. However I think you misunderstood my use of the expression 'dismissing one' sexual orientation'; or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. As CC said, the idea is to not prejudge someone solely on one's... culinary habits - like Viper can't help himself doing for instance.
G.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 12:42:16 PM
Its not dismissive, its just not a big deal until people make it so, like Marti.
Eh. Marti isn't the guy telling a Senate hearing committee that gays and lesbians are responsible for a genocide. Marti isn't the one defending a law that says gays are going to cause the military to collapse. Marti isn't the one who thinks it should be legal to fire people for being gay.
Anyway grumbler, while I agree with you, ultimately the General won because it ain't getting repealed in the next four years.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 12:42:16 PM
Its not dismissive, its just not a big deal until people make it so, like Marti.
I suppose my issue is that there are varying understandings of what a 'big deal' is. For example I know a guy who has a picture of his wife on his desk. If a gay man were to do the same I promise you that there would be people grumbling about it 'being shoved down their throat' - which is the last defence of homophobia in civilised countries. So I resist this idea that sexuality shouldn't enter into the rest of our lives because our society is hugely sexualised and to me it seems selective that gay men can be defined by their sexuality while the man who has a picture of his wife on his desk isn't 'defined' by his sexuality.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 02:26:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 12:42:16 PM
Its not dismissive, its just not a big deal until people make it so, like Marti.
I suppose my issue is that there are varying understandings of what a 'big deal' is. For example I know a guy who has a picture of his wife on his desk. If a gay man were to do the same I promise you that there would be people grumbling about it 'being shoved down their throat' - which is the last defence of homophobia in civilised countries. So I resist this idea that sexuality shouldn't enter into the rest of our lives because our society is hugely sexualised and to me it seems selective that gay men can be defined by their sexuality while the man who has a picture of his wife on his desk isn't 'defined' by his sexuality.
When my sons and I walk our dog down by a nearby river we frequently see our neighbours, two gay men who recently got married. I dont refer to them as the two gay guys. I refer to them by their names and when we talk to them we dont talk about them being gay, we talk to them about the neighourhood, how they are doing, how their dog is doing. You know, every day stuff.
Like I said, its no big deal. The problem is you live in a place where it still appears to be a big deal.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 20, 2010, 01:49:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 12:42:16 PM
Its not dismissive, its just not a big deal until people make it so, like Marti.
Eh. Marti isn't the guy telling a Senate hearing committee that gays and lesbians are responsible for a genocide. Marti isn't the one defending a law that says gays are going to cause the military to collapse. Marti isn't the one who thinks it should be legal to fire people for being gay.
No but Marti makes it a lot harder on gay people since he may make people associate shrill irrational posts with being gay.
CC, Languish is largely a political and social board - while the style of the debate may be facetious or insulting, the topics are those of politics, law, society etc.
In this context, my sexual orientation is sure going to come to the fore because it plays a much more important role than my other characteristics. I am not prevented from marrying a person I love because I like computer games. I'm not prevented from donating blood because I'm a lawyer. I'm not banned from adopting children because I'm am Polish. The police is not less likely to investigate an act of violence against me because I'm white. I am not going to be barred from certain jobs (like the military) because I am an atheist.
I could go on like this. There is a lot of characteristics that define me but most of them do not affect my status vis-a-vis numerous topics we discuss here in the same way my sexual orientation does.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 03:20:20 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 20, 2010, 01:49:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 12:42:16 PM
Its not dismissive, its just not a big deal until people make it so, like Marti.
Eh. Marti isn't the guy telling a Senate hearing committee that gays and lesbians are responsible for a genocide. Marti isn't the one defending a law that says gays are going to cause the military to collapse. Marti isn't the one who thinks it should be legal to fire people for being gay.
No but Marti makes it a lot harder on gay people since he may make people associate shrill irrational posts with being gay.
Oh this is utter bollocks.
This is the homophobe's equivalent of "well, I don't mind given niggers their rights, if only they weren't so uppity."
QED :lol:
*shrug*
That's the argument. Preceded by the obligatory "Some of my friends are gay" from CC.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 03:17:53 PMWhen my sons and I walk our dog down by a nearby river we frequently see our neighbours, two gay men who recently got married. I dont refer to them as the two gay guys. I refer to them by their names and when we talk to them we dont talk about them being gay, we talk to them about the neighourhood, how they are doing, how their dog is doing. You know, every day stuff.
Ok let me ask you this. When you talk to them, how often do you raise the question of the sovereignty of First Nations or the status of the treaties with them under international law? Because that's the topic you have been extremely active in on the forum lately, and judging from your post you seem to expect that topics we discuss here are the same kind of topics you discuss with your neighbors when walking the dog.
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:33:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 03:17:53 PMWhen my sons and I walk our dog down by a nearby river we frequently see our neighbours, two gay men who recently got married. I dont refer to them as the two gay guys. I refer to them by their names and when we talk to them we dont talk about them being gay, we talk to them about the neighourhood, how they are doing, how their dog is doing. You know, every day stuff.
Ok let me ask you this. When you talk to them, how often do you raise the question of the sovereignty of First Nations or the status of the treaties with them under international law? Because that's the topic you have been extremely active in on the forum lately, and judging from your post you seem to expect that topics we discuss here are the same kind of topics you discuss with your neighbors when walking the dog.
Actually a fair amount. One of the fellows is a Federal lawyer working in the area of native land claims. Its too bad you cant actually talk to your neighbours without fear of being hunted and all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 03:36:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:33:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 03:17:53 PMWhen my sons and I walk our dog down by a nearby river we frequently see our neighbours, two gay men who recently got married. I dont refer to them as the two gay guys. I refer to them by their names and when we talk to them we dont talk about them being gay, we talk to them about the neighourhood, how they are doing, how their dog is doing. You know, every day stuff.
Ok let me ask you this. When you talk to them, how often do you raise the question of the sovereignty of First Nations or the status of the treaties with them under international law? Because that's the topic you have been extremely active in on the forum lately, and judging from your post you seem to expect that topics we discuss here are the same kind of topics you discuss with your neighbors when walking the dog.
Actually a fair amount. One of the fellows is a Federal lawyer working in the area of native land claims. Its too bad you cant actually talk to your neighbours without fear of being hunted and all.
Why do you define yourself and your relations with other people only through the perspective of being a lawyer, then?
I mean, compared to my alleged obsession with my homosexuality, that must be the most boring and drab identity fixture ever.
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:38:58 PM
Why do you define yourself and your relations with other people only through the perspective of being a lawyer, then?
I mean, compared to my alleged obsession with my homosexuality, that must be the most boring and drab identity fixture ever.
Well, you wouldn't know. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:29:33 PM
*shrug*
That's the argument. Preceded by the obligatory "Some of my friends are gay" from CC.
You dont have any gay friends?
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:29:33 PM
*shrug*
That's the argument. Preceded by the obligatory "Some of my friends are gay" from CC.
And conveniently enough your argument is one that absolves you of any responsibility to limit your shrillness and whining.
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:38:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 03:36:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:33:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 03:17:53 PMWhen my sons and I walk our dog down by a nearby river we frequently see our neighbours, two gay men who recently got married. I dont refer to them as the two gay guys. I refer to them by their names and when we talk to them we dont talk about them being gay, we talk to them about the neighourhood, how they are doing, how their dog is doing. You know, every day stuff.
Ok let me ask you this. When you talk to them, how often do you raise the question of the sovereignty of First Nations or the status of the treaties with them under international law? Because that's the topic you have been extremely active in on the forum lately, and judging from your post you seem to expect that topics we discuss here are the same kind of topics you discuss with your neighbors when walking the dog.
Actually a fair amount. One of the fellows is a Federal lawyer working in the area of native land claims. Its too bad you cant actually talk to your neighbours without fear of being hunted and all.
Why do you define yourself and your relations with other people only through the perspective of being a lawyer, then?
I mean, compared to my alleged obsession with my homosexuality, that must be the most boring and drab identity fixture ever.
Tell me. Do you ever actually engage people in conversation face to face. Do you tend to talk about being gay all the time. Like you do here. Or do you talk about things you think the other person might be interested in. Like their neighorhood, their dog, their work etc.
Given your response I am guessing you only really talk about being gay so I can see why you think that defines you. That must be particularly hard in a country where you get hunted.
Quote from: grumbler on March 20, 2010, 01:02:39 PM
BTW, I saw the video of this hearing, and Sen Levin absolutely eviscerated the poor, stupid general. It is a thing of beauty. Go http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2010/03%20March/03-18-10%20Webcast.htm (http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2010/03%20March/03-18-10%20Webcast.htm) and fast forward to about minute 68.
The poor general didn't help his case much did he?
Quote from: Maximus on March 20, 2010, 04:04:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 20, 2010, 01:02:39 PM
BTW, I saw the video of this hearing, and Sen Levin absolutely eviscerated the poor, stupid general. It is a thing of beauty. Go http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2010/03%20March/03-18-10%20Webcast.htm (http://armed-services.senate.gov/Webcasts/2010/03%20March/03-18-10%20Webcast.htm) and fast forward to about minute 68.
The poor general didn't help his case much did he?
Actually, his case won, so I guess he did!
That does not follow.
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:25:07 PM
CC, Languish is largely a political and social board - while the style of the debate may be facetious or insulting, the topics are those of politics, law, society etc.
In this context, my sexual orientation is sure going to come to the fore because it plays a much more important role than my other characteristics. I am not prevented from marrying a person I love because I like computer games. I'm not prevented from donating blood because I'm a lawyer. I'm not banned from adopting children because I'm am Polish. The police is not less likely to investigate an act of violence against me because I'm white. I am not going to be barred from certain jobs (like the military) because I am an atheist.
I could go on like this. There is a lot of characteristics that define me but most of them do not affect my status vis-a-vis numerous topics we discuss here in the same way my sexual orientation does.
By the way, here is a recent example of what I have been talking about. You either have a very short memory or not very truthful to yourself, or us.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=4077.msg206475#msg206475
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 04:55:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2010, 03:25:07 PM
CC, Languish is largely a political and social board - while the style of the debate may be facetious or insulting, the topics are those of politics, law, society etc.
In this context, my sexual orientation is sure going to come to the fore because it plays a much more important role than my other characteristics. I am not prevented from marrying a person I love because I like computer games. I'm not prevented from donating blood because I'm a lawyer. I'm not banned from adopting children because I'm am Polish. The police is not less likely to investigate an act of violence against me because I'm white. I am not going to be barred from certain jobs (like the military) because I am an atheist.
I could go on like this. There is a lot of characteristics that define me but most of them do not affect my status vis-a-vis numerous topics we discuss here in the same way my sexual orientation does.
By the way, here is a recent example of what I have been talking about. You either have a very short memory or not very truthful to yourself, or us.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=4077.msg206475#msg206475
The fact that it was a fucking joke aside, you haven't even posted in that thread so how that would bother you is beyond me. You have accused me of making "shrill" "drama queen" "irrational" posts about homosexuality, and all you can find to support your thesis is my joke about a Hungarian closet gay neonazi in a thread about a black dude getting freaked out by a swastika on chatroullette?
Seriously, get a grip.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 03:17:53 PM
When my sons and I walk our dog down by a nearby river we frequently see our neighbours, two gay men who recently got married. I dont refer to them as the two gay guys. I refer to them by their names and when we talk to them we dont talk about them being gay, we talk to them about the neighourhood, how they are doing, how their dog is doing. You know, every day stuff.
I think that's the goal, but I don't know how far it's been reached. As I say there are people on Languish who don't give a shit at all - which is the ideal. However on Languish there are people who clearly do, I'd guess it would be the same in your neighbourhood. Most of my friends are straight and don't care a jot - in the nicest way possible. But I'm aware that that's something that isn't necessarily the norm. Atmospheres can change in different areas, or different times of day - regardless of neighbourhood. On a saturday night when pubs and clubs are kicking out I'd be wary of walking round holding another guy's hand.
QuoteLike I said, its no big deal. The problem is you live in a place where it still appears to be a big deal.
It varies as I imagine it does everywhere in the civilised world. But I don't believe that it's only a big deal because Marti or other fags makes it one.
Marti's problem isn't his fundamental point so much of his inability to scale his response. Martinus seems to have maybe two posting styles that of a normal poster with a penchant for slightly over the top analogies and GOING NUCLEAR. That's nothing to do with sexuality :P
QuoteAnd conveniently enough your argument is one that absolves you of any responsibility to limit your shrillness and whining.
I don't think there's any such responsibility except, at most, the responsibility to be polite.
Quote from: Maximus on March 20, 2010, 04:28:55 PM
That does not follow.
True, but only people who understood the law or logic would know that it doesn't follow. People like Marti just think that, if one side prevails, everyone who was on that side must have been helping it win. He doesn't get the concept of what we call "winning the race even though shackled to a Polack."
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 05:44:31 PM
I don't think there's any such responsibility except, at most, the responsibility to be polite.
Unlimited shrillness and whining are what have rendered Al Sharpton, and to a lesser extent Jesse Jackson, the butt of jokes outside their own narrow consitituency. If every single facet of your pet issue is the gravest calamity to confront humanity since the Holocaust then sooner or later people start to tune you out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2010, 06:51:23 PM
Unlimited shrillness and whining are what have rendered Al Sharpton, and to a lesser extent Jesse Jackson, the butt of jokes outside their own narrow consitituency. If every single facet of your pet issue is the gravest calamity to confront humanity since the Holocaust then sooner or later people start to tune you out.
Well luckily gays haven't gone down that route. They've generally made rather impressive strides into the mainstream throughout the civilised world. However I still reject that word 'responsibility'. It may not be politically wise but that's a different thing altogether.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 06:54:16 PM
Well luckily gays haven't gone down that route. They've generally made rather impressive strides into the mainstream throughout the civilised world. However I still reject that word 'responsibility'. It may not be politically wise but that's a different thing altogether.
Consider the hair precisely split. But then there is no "responsibility" to be polite either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2010, 06:57:23 PM
Consider the hair precisely split. But then there is no "responsibility" to be polite either.
No but I'd support one :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 06:54:16 PM
Well luckily gays haven't gone down that route. They've generally made rather impressive strides into the mainstream throughout the civilised world. However I still reject that word 'responsibility'. It may not be politically wise but that's a different thing altogether.
Plus, if people judge "gays" based on the behavior of just one of them, then they are kinda hopelessly closed-minded anyway. If they do as Yi suggests and just laugh at the one who is overly shrill (Sharpton, Martinus) then there is no loss to anyone but the individual shrillustrator.
I would note, though, that "gay" is not the adjective that comes to my mind when I hear the name "Martinus." :cool:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2010, 12:42:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 11:51:23 AM
Dismissing sexuality to me suggests a life that compartmentalises it away from all other human relations. I don't want to be any more private and abashed about loves and relationships than I choose to be. I want to have them as able to be celebrated and commiserated by other people as any straight person. I think that's what I mean by people who are genuinely tolerant and don't care - and I think there are a fair few on Languish.
Its not dismissive, its just not a big deal until people make it so, like Marti.
This is spot on.
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 20, 2010, 07:13:09 PM
This is spot on.
Alci lad, you're a professional soldier - what did you think of the 'performance' of that general testifying before the senatorial comitee? About his arguments and justifications to maintain the current DADT policy? Do you think if things were in the open it would endanger units' cohesion and effectiveness?
G.
Quote from: grumbler on March 18, 2010, 10:21:03 PM
Of course he is a moron. Rank times IQ is a constant.
I would have to agree. Hmmm, didn't you retire a Commander or something?
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 19, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
BTW "gay" or whatever other word you want to use is a choice for some of us.
I don't live a "gay" or "straight" lifestyle. I live a life. It may have some style (those who know me would say I have great style) but it is neither definably gay or staright or any other word that debases it as being wholly concerned with who I sleep with.
To my mind anyone who bases their entire existence on which gender you prefer have sex with is a sad little person.
Currently when I feel up for sex it's dudes, only because it's simpler. less ritual, and planning. MY lifestyle is Lazy-sexual? :p
nope, I'm a person before I'm any sort of LGBT typology. I make a point also not to lump others' sexuality into large assumptive categories based solely on who they fuck. who you fuck has very little bearing on your job (unless you are a hooker) or even your hobbies, to my mind.
That may be nice and dandy, but we don't live in a X-blind society (where X is race, color, or sexual orientation). To the homophobes out there you and I will always be freaks and that's how they will define us. One may hide his head in the sand and "reject labels" or own up to it and be gay/bi and proud about it.
Like a Jewish father once said to his son in a movie (the title of which I forgot) I once saw: "Remember always who you are, son, because even if you forget it, there will always be some son of a bitch to remind you of that."
I am not gay to the exclusion of everything else, but it is one of the important aspects of my identity. It is a matter of some intangible brotherhood based on common experience (of prejudice but not just that), similar sensibilities and similar perspective that is often impossible to understand for the "mainstream" people. In many ways, this kinship is greater than one created by ethnicity - I feel I have more in common with a gay person from the US than I have with a Polish catholic farmer, for example.
shrug. why do I need to embrace a "label" that has nothing to do with who I am. Fuck off. I'm not a sample of society. I'm one person, with an opinion. I never try to say that my way is better than anyone's (in fact I know I'm in a very small minority with my contrariness. That doesn't mean it's wrong for me though) or that there is some kind of "x-blind" society. It is my choice and my choice alone how I define myself. The rest of you can do as you like. I could not care less what "most" people think. I simply offer my view as something that is not the norm, so that people can have some awareness of it.
I am my own label. :contract:
Quote from: Grallon on March 20, 2010, 07:17:14 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 20, 2010, 07:13:09 PM
This is spot on.
Alci lad, you're a professional soldier - what did you think of the 'performance' of that general testifying before the senatorial comitee? About his arguments and justifications to maintain the current DADT policy? Do you think if things were in the open it would endanger units' cohesion and effectiveness?
G.
I wasn't able to hear his testimony, but my opinion on it, and I will say that many in my line of work in the military, being the infantry, is that flat out repealing it isn't a good idea. With maybe some kind of stipulations or something to that effect I would endorse it.
For general soldiers, I really don't think it's a big deal at all. But when it comes to deployment and the infantry I think it would be a problem. We had a gay soldier serving in my company, an infantryman, and while he was an alright guy, he tried to bitch out many times to go home, openly being flamboyant and telling the chain of command while DADT was still in effect doing anything he could to get out of the deployment. Now this is just one example, because of his situation he had to have separate living quarters, and made his situation much worse.
When deployed, infantry are tasked out to small compounds usually living with 50-70 people in general in close proximity. The way it is seen in general, is that combat troops can't mix gender, which is why no female soldiers are allowed in combat arms. It would cause ridiculous amounts of problems, and I can see the same problems occurring if homosexual soldiers were intermixed within combat arms as well. There would have to be segregated living quarters like there are for women in my opinion. My combat outpost was all male, whenever female soldiers would come to our outpost for a night, they had to have their own room, and had to have their own bathroom and shower room guarded whenever they would use it, which was a real pain in the ass since we only had one shower and limited bathrooms as it was. There is a zero-sex policy for deployments, and spouses are rarely together during deployments.
There are a bunch of science tests and crap on the reactions in your brain when you see females and lovers in distress, favoritism, displaying macho tendencies, etc.
I think that gays should be allowed in the military, but unless there are going to be all homosexual combat arms units, I don't really see it as very feasible for them to serve in them for the time being. There's a lot of separating of the sexes in the military expressly because of the problems that arise because of it. But I don't see that as very feasible, and I imagine that many people wouldn't see that as acceptable either.
(Haven't read over this gotta run so I'm sure its a jumbled mess, respond to it and ill clarify anything needed when I get home later tonight.)
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2010, 01:20:33 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 19, 2010, 12:22:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2010, 12:15:53 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on March 19, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
I make a point also not to lump others' sexuality into large assumptive categories based solely on who they fuck. who you fuck has very little bearing on your job (unless you are a hooker) or even your hobbies, to my mind.
Its a good point Buddha. I suspect the reason people go on about sexuality so much here is because Marti often raises the issue in such idiotic ways.
yeah that's likely right. everyone loves to play with marti's fragile brain. It's hard to resist I'd imagine for many. :p
Bitch, don't give me shit about "fragile brain". Seriously. :rolleyes:
why not? I'm completely aware of my own emo bullshit, and own up to that far more than I harass others about their own.
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 20, 2010, 07:40:48 PM
...
There are a bunch of science tests and crap on the reactions in your brain when you see females and lovers in distress, favoritism, displaying macho tendencies, etc.
I think that gays should be allowed in the military, but unless there are going to be all homosexual combat arms units, I don't really see it as very feasible for them to serve in them for the time being. There's a lot of separating of the sexes in the military expressly because of the problems that arise because of it. But I don't see that as very feasible, and I imagine that many people wouldn't see that as acceptable either.
...
You seem to be presupposing that all homosexuals would (re)act as this person you mentioned did - in similar circumstances. What if they don't? It's not everyone who cannot differentiate between their private and public roles. True professonals should be able to make that distinction. And if they aren't being professionals then yes they would have no place in the military.
G.
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 20, 2010, 07:40:48 PM
For general soldiers, I really don't think it's a big deal at all. But when it comes to deployment and the infantry I think it would be a problem. We had a gay soldier serving in my company, an infantryman, and while he was an alright guy, he tried to bitch out many times to go home, openly being flamboyant and telling the chain of command while DADT was still in effect doing anything he could to get out of the deployment. Now this is just one example, because of his situation he had to have separate living quarters, and made his situation much worse.
Was he really gay?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fcomedy%2Fcontent%2Fimages%2F2007%2F05%2F09%2Fpants_396x222.jpg&hash=7c37f093326ada35c886c9e0f25c8662e6f23d8d)
He does have a cunning plan, though.
Wibble, wibble.
Quote from: Grallon on March 20, 2010, 07:57:01 PM
You seem to be presupposing that all homosexuals would (re)act as this person you mentioned did - in similar circumstances. What if they don't? It's not everyone who cannot differentiate between their private and public roles. True professonals should be able to make that distinction. And if they aren't being professionals then yes they would have no place in the military.
G.
Please keep in mind that most of the unit is going to be a year or two out of high school.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2010, 08:20:39 PM
Please keep in mind that most of the unit is going to be a year or two out of high school.
Then it's a failure of the military to form and train its recruits accordingly. And said failure is unavoibale if the issue itself is obfuscated from the start.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on March 20, 2010, 08:24:39 PM
Then it's a failure of the military to form and train its recruits accordingly. And said failure is unavoibale if the issue itself is obfuscated from the start.
G.
Would you be saying the same thing if the issue were females serving, sleeping, showering and pissing in hitherto all-male combat units?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2010, 08:20:39 PM
Please keep in mind that most of the unit is going to be a year or two out of high school.
So are most Israeli, British, for that matter, Dutch soldiers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2010, 08:29:37 PM
Quote from: Grallon on March 20, 2010, 08:24:39 PM
Then it's a failure of the military to form and train its recruits accordingly. And said failure is unavoibale if the issue itself is obfuscated from the start.
G.
Would you be saying the same thing if the issue were females serving, sleeping, showering and pissing in hitherto all-male combat units?
Maybe the comparison would make sense if in civilian schools, gyms etc men and women shared all facilities.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 20, 2010, 08:29:37 PM
Would you be saying the same thing if the issue were females serving, sleeping, showering and pissing in hitherto all-male combat units?
It does/would take a little 'getting used to'. Of course men and women intermingling in the workplace is nothing new - even though in most cases it's under less... intimate conditions. But we're not talking about females here since gay males are male first - homosexual second. All iin all, nothing a thorough education cannot iron out.
And I do hope you realize its the heterosexual education that needs ironing out since, according to you, they cannot handle either women or gays or, in another era, blacks...
G.
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 20, 2010, 07:40:48 PM
There would have to be segregated living quarters like there are for women in my opinion.
There are a bunch of science tests and crap on the reactions in your brain when you see females and lovers in distress, favoritism, displaying macho tendencies, etc.
I dont think the analogy to mixed sex deployments works very well and to the extent it does you probably dont want all the gay guys segregated to themselves. Isnt that exactly the problem you would be trying to avoid.
I wonder if there have been any similar tests done to see how all male combat units work with mixed gay and straight soldiers. I suspect the results would be different.
I'm more trying to say that people attracted to each other, or where one person is attracted to another whether reciprocated or not, should not be in such intimate circumstances for such a long period of time, I think it would wear on morale. And whether true or not, if you think a person is gay and they're making remarks or looking at you funny you're going to take it differently than a guy you know is straight, just like a woman would from a man.
Basically what I'm getting at is what I said in the first sentence. Urges become more acute, and rape and sexual assault will increase. And then there will be cases of mixed signals etc. It would get ugly in my opinion. Which is why women aren't allowed. It's not because they all can't do it, I've met many who are stronger than most men, and I'm sure many of you have as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 08:00:24 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 20, 2010, 07:40:48 PM
For general soldiers, I really don't think it's a big deal at all. But when it comes to deployment and the infantry I think it would be a problem. We had a gay soldier serving in my company, an infantryman, and while he was an alright guy, he tried to bitch out many times to go home, openly being flamboyant and telling the chain of command while DADT was still in effect doing anything he could to get out of the deployment. Now this is just one example, because of his situation he had to have separate living quarters, and made his situation much worse.
Was he really gay?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fcomedy%2Fcontent%2Fimages%2F2007%2F05%2F09%2Fpants_396x222.jpg&hash=7c37f093326ada35c886c9e0f25c8662e6f23d8d)
He was very much gay before deployment and before anything got tough, as in caught in the barracks with other guys, pierced belly button, would openly talk about gay sex to anybody who would listen. :shutup:
A pierced belly button? :o
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 20, 2010, 07:40:48 PM
Quote from: Grallon on March 20, 2010, 07:17:14 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 20, 2010, 07:13:09 PM
This is spot on.
Alci lad, you're a professional soldier - what did you think of the 'performance' of that general testifying before the senatorial comitee? About his arguments and justifications to maintain the current DADT policy? Do you think if things were in the open it would endanger units' cohesion and effectiveness?
G.
I wasn't able to hear his testimony, but my opinion on it, and I will say that many in my line of work in the military, being the infantry, is that flat out repealing it isn't a good idea. With maybe some kind of stipulations or something to that effect I would endorse it.
For general soldiers, I really don't think it's a big deal at all. But when it comes to deployment and the infantry I think it would be a problem. We had a gay soldier serving in my company, an infantryman, and while he was an alright guy, he tried to bitch out many times to go home, openly being flamboyant and telling the chain of command while DADT was still in effect doing anything he could to get out of the deployment. Now this is just one example, because of his situation he had to have separate living quarters, and made his situation much worse.
When deployed, infantry are tasked out to small compounds usually living with 50-70 people in general in close proximity. The way it is seen in general, is that combat troops can't mix gender, which is why no female soldiers are allowed in combat arms. It would cause ridiculous amounts of problems, and I can see the same problems occurring if homosexual soldiers were intermixed within combat arms as well. There would have to be segregated living quarters like there are for women in my opinion. My combat outpost was all male, whenever female soldiers would come to our outpost for a night, they had to have their own room, and had to have their own bathroom and shower room guarded whenever they would use it, which was a real pain in the ass since we only had one shower and limited bathrooms as it was. There is a zero-sex policy for deployments, and spouses are rarely together during deployments.
There are a bunch of science tests and crap on the reactions in your brain when you see females and lovers in distress, favoritism, displaying macho tendencies, etc.
I think that gays should be allowed in the military, but unless there are going to be all homosexual combat arms units, I don't really see it as very feasible for them to serve in them for the time being. There's a lot of separating of the sexes in the military expressly because of the problems that arise because of it. But I don't see that as very feasible, and I imagine that many people wouldn't see that as acceptable either.
(Haven't read over this gotta run so I'm sure its a jumbled mess, respond to it and ill clarify anything needed when I get home later tonight.)
Nothing like that has been experienced in the militaries that allow openly gay people to serve, and as far as I'm aware they are not segregating soldiers either.
Aren't there rules against "fraternization" between female and male soldiers in the US army as well? I cannot understand why such rules cannot be extended to homosexual sex either.
Little known fact: My belly button is pierced.
Quote from: Alcibiades on March 20, 2010, 11:46:54 PM
I'm more trying to say that people attracted to each other, or where one person is attracted to another whether reciprocated or not, should not be in such intimate circumstances for such a long period of time, I think it would wear on morale. And whether true or not, if you think a person is gay and they're making remarks or looking at you funny you're going to take it differently than a guy you know is straight, just like a woman would from a man.
Basically what I'm getting at is what I said in the first sentence. Urges become more acute, and rape and sexual assault will increase. And then there will be cases of mixed signals etc. It would get ugly in my opinion. Which is why women aren't allowed. It's not because they all can't do it, I've met many who are stronger than most men, and I'm sure many of you have as well.
Aren't there rules against sexual (or other) harassment, or sex between soldiers anyway, whether they are straight or not? This is a matter of professionalism and professional conduct, not sexual orientation. After all, gay soldiers already serve in the military.
The purpose of repealing DADT is not to have suddenly a gaggle of flamboyant nellies descend on your barracks looking for a sex adventure (this seems to be the homophobic stereotype here which appears to be completely unrealistic) but to retain professionals who are gay, but do not want to be fired because they have a same sex partner outside of the military, in the same way most straight soldiers (you included) do. (Incidentally, if you bother to take a look at all the DADT Repeal "poster boys and girls", i.e. ex soldiers who were discharged under the policy and now advocate against it, you would see how extremely restrained and professional they are in their conduct - are straight male soldiers really such horrible machismo male chauvinists and sexists that you believe their gay equivalents would be similar?)
Again, as I said, British army does not appear to be one big gay orgy despite gay (and transsexual) soldiers serving openly and not being relegated to "pink battalions" only.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 08:40:36 PM
So are most Israeli, British, for that matter, Dutch soldiers.
Even if we limit it to units deployed in the field?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 05:44:31 PMMarti's problem isn't his fundamental point so much of his inability to scale his response. Martinus seems to have maybe two posting styles that of a normal poster with a penchant for slightly over the top analogies and GOING NUCLEAR. That's nothing to do with sexuality :P
Indeed. I just think nuance doesn't lend itself well to Languish discourse. Nuanced posts either get ignored or (which is worse) they get a flaming response that is no different from the one an inflammatory post would get (just look at Larchie's nuanced posts recently about uniform-worship in the US, which met with a reaction from grumbler and Berkut which would be no different, had Larch said that America is a Third Reich totalitarian country).
So the cost-benefit analysis suggests you should make inflammatory rather than nuanced posts (the former requiring less energy/mental exertion than the latter) because the response will ultimately be the same. It is a classic prisoner's dilemma - do I want to be the solitary Sheilbh in the forum of Berkuts, grumblers and Martinuses (just look at PDH - he apparently made the same calculation and went from his original style of making thought-through relatively longish posts that everybody ignored to barbed Brain-style one-liners mixed with an occasional Neil-style troll :P).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 04:55:03 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 20, 2010, 08:40:36 PM
So are most Israeli, British, for that matter, Dutch soldiers.
Even if we limit it to units deployed in the field?
Yes. Remember Prince Harry's unit being deployed to Afghanistan?
Here's an article following a 19 y.o. British soldier in Afghanistan for example:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6164691.ece
Quote from: Grallon on March 20, 2010, 08:51:55 PM
It does/would take a little 'getting used to'. Of course men and women intermingling in the workplace is nothing new - even though in most cases it's under less... intimate conditions. But we're not talking about females here since gay males are male first - homosexual second. All iin all, nothing a thorough education cannot iron out.
And female soldiers are human first and female second. You yourself seem to be aware of the problems that might arise when men and women are sleeping in the same foxhole under high-stress combat situations.
And I'm interested to know what that thorough education would look like in practice. Let's say the US Army hired you to educate new recruits to be indifferent to the sexuality of their comrades. How would you go about doing it?
For the record, the average age of the US soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan (according to wikianswers, but still: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_age_of_u.s._soldiers_in_iraq) is 30.
This hardly seems like "2 years out of high school".
In short there is no reason to assume that an average British soldier being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan is older than an average American soldier. QED.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 05:05:34 AM
Quote from: Grallon on March 20, 2010, 08:51:55 PM
It does/would take a little 'getting used to'. Of course men and women intermingling in the workplace is nothing new - even though in most cases it's under less... intimate conditions. But we're not talking about females here since gay males are male first - homosexual second. All iin all, nothing a thorough education cannot iron out.
And female soldiers are human first and female second. You yourself seem to be aware of the problems that might arise when men and women are sleeping in the same foxhole under high-stress combat situations.
And I'm interested to know what that thorough education would look like in practice. Let's say the US Army hired you to educate new recruits to be indifferent to the sexuality of their comrades. How would you go about doing it?
Err, the point is NOT to educate new recruits to be indifferent to the sexuality of their comrades. :huh:
The point is to educate new recruits (whether gay or straight) that they should conduct themselves professionally and should not sexually harass other recruits and soldiers. If a gay soldier is open about his sexuality (for example he is known to have a boyfriend) but he does not make uncomfortable passes against other male soldiers, does not try to sleep with them or otherwise sexually harasses them, this is it - I don't see what else you need. If others have a problem with his sexuality in such circumstances (where he does not behave inappropriately towards others), then it is their problem, in the same way a racist soldier may have a problem with a black soldier.
Incidentally, I wouldn't have a problem in principle with abolishing sex/gender segregation in the military either - isn't this what some armies have done, to some degree, already?
The thing is, gender/sex segregation is relatively easy to accomplish and is something that has been culturally ingrained in our society (we have toilets for men and women; we don't have - except for some weird experiments - toilets for gay men and straight men, for example; and besides, it's not like sex/gender separation in case of toilets for example has as much to do with preventing unwanted sexual tension, but more to do with different intimacy expectations, not to mention biological differences; on the other hand, gay and straight men usually pee and shit in the same way; same with showers: our cocks look the same, irrespective of sexual orientation). So it's not like without separate male and female units in the army, the entire military would descend into some wild orgy - soldiers can be expected to obey the same professional standards I mentioned earlier to conduct themselves well.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 05:12:35 AM
For the record, the average age of the US soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan (according to wikianswers, but still: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_age_of_u.s._soldiers_in_iraq) is 30.
This hardly seems like "2 years out of high school".
In short there is no reason to assume that an average British soldier being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan is older than an average American soldier. QED.
The average age is increased by the age of the realtively few high ranking officers and long serving NCOs. The median age is much lower and the modus is probably around what Yi said, late teens early twenties.
Quote from: Winkelried on March 21, 2010, 05:26:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 05:12:35 AM
For the record, the average age of the US soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan (according to wikianswers, but still: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_age_of_u.s._soldiers_in_iraq) is 30.
This hardly seems like "2 years out of high school".
In short there is no reason to assume that an average British soldier being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan is older than an average American soldier. QED.
The average age is increased by the age of the realtively few high ranking officers and long serving NCOs. The median age is much lower and the modus is probably around what Yi said, late teens early twenties.
Yeah but Yi's question was whether Brits are doing it completely different. There is no reason to assume this is the case.
Besides, the average age for Vietnam was 19. Surely your explanation wouldn't hold water (assuming both figures are calculated in the same way). :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 05:15:28 AM
Err, the point is NOT to educate new recruits to be indifferent to the sexuality of their comrades. :huh:
The point is to educate new recruits (whether gay or straight) that they should conduct themselves professionally and should not sexually harass other recruits and soldiers. If a gay soldier is open about his sexuality (for example he is known to have a boyfriend) but he does not make uncomfortable passes against other male soldiers, does not try to sleep with them or otherwise sexually harasses them, this is it - I don't see what else you need. If others have a problem with his sexuality in such circumstances (where he does not behave inappropriately towards others), then it is their problem, in the same way a racist soldier may have a problem with a black soldier.
That's the point of a sexual harassment policy in a white collar office setting, with an eight hour, five day work schedule.
The point is different in a combat unit living together under primitive circumstances 24 hours a day for weeks and months at a stretch. There are elements of personal relationships that come into play in a combat unit that do not in an office. Do you have faith that the guy next to you will risk his life to protect yours? Do you value his approval enough to expose yourself to danger? Are you worried that someone will jeopardize the mission or the unit because of a favorite?
And Grallon was the one who said straight/gay tensions could be educated away, not me.
And since you keep bringing up black integration, it would be useful to point out that racial divisions were a very serious issue in Vietnam.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 05:36:06 AM
And since you keep bringing up black integration, it would be useful to point out that racial divisions were a very serious issue in Vietnam.
Yes, and? It is no longer the issue, largely because such issues are resolved through exposure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 05:36:06 AM
That's the point of a sexual harassment policy in a white collar office setting, with an eight hour, five day work schedule.
The point is different in a combat unit living together under primitive circumstances 24 hours a day for weeks and months at a stretch. There are elements of personal relationships that come into play in a combat unit that do not in an office. Do you have faith that the guy next to you will risk his life to protect yours? Do you value his approval enough to expose yourself to danger? Are you worried that someone will jeopardize the mission or the unit because of a favorite?
Well this does not appear to be an issue in the militaries that allow gay people to serve openly. So what was your point again?
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 05:41:32 AM
Yes, and? It is no longer the issue, largely because such issues are resolved through exposure.
Sure. And for anyone who views gays in the military as the sole issue and is totally unconcerned about the military's ability to perform its functions that will be the end of the debate.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 05:12:35 AM
Yeah but Yi's question was whether Brits are doing it completely different. There is no reason to assume this is the case.
Besides, the average age for Vietnam was 19. Surely your explanation wouldn't hold water (assuming both figures are calculated in the same way). :huh:
I doubt they sent reservists and national guard members to Vietnam. Anyway I just wanted to say that an average age of 30 doesn't mean that most members of the armed forces are necessarily around that age. Most are still immature 20 y.o. Though I agree that Brits of the same age don't seem to have the same cultural baggage in regards to gay soldiers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 05:05:34 AM
Quote from: Grallon on March 20, 2010, 08:51:55 PM
It does/would take a little 'getting used to'. Of course men and women intermingling in the workplace is nothing new - even though in most cases it's under less... intimate conditions. But we're not talking about females here since gay males are male first - homosexual second. All iin all, nothing a thorough education cannot iron out.
And female soldiers are human first and female second. You yourself seem to be aware of the problems that might arise when men and women are sleeping in the same foxhole under high-stress combat situations.
Maybe the comparison would make sense if in civilian schools, gyms etc men and women shared all facilities.
Quote from: Winkelried on March 21, 2010, 05:46:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 05:12:35 AM
Yeah but Yi's question was whether Brits are doing it completely different. There is no reason to assume this is the case.
Besides, the average age for Vietnam was 19. Surely your explanation wouldn't hold water (assuming both figures are calculated in the same way). :huh:
I doubt they sent reservists and national guard members to Vietnam. Anyway I just wanted to say that an average age of 30 doesn't mean that most members of the armed forces are necessarily around that age. Most are still immature 20 y.o. Though I agree that Brits of the same age don't seem to have the same cultural baggage in regards to gay soldiers.
Well yeah that's my point. I didn't obviously mean to imply that average 30 y.o. means most soldiers are around that age, but that most are not 19 y.o. either - but in any case, my key point was that there are no reasons to assume British soldiers deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq are older than their US counterparts.
So the conclusion is that: (1) if US soldiers are not younger than UK soldiers, and (2) UK military allows openly gay people to serve in the military (and again there is no reason to assume that gay people are not being deployed), then (3) you can have a working army with gays where the said gays do not make other soldiers uncomfortable with unwanted sexual attraction.
Now, whether straight US soldiers are homophobic and would have a problem with non-intrusive gay people in a way that UK soldiers wouldn't is another question - I guess it is a question to yi and alci whether US soldiers are on a lower level of civilizational and educational development than their UK counterparts.
Ooh! Ooooh! I know the answer!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 05:45:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 05:41:32 AM
Yes, and? It is no longer the issue, largely because such issues are resolved through exposure.
Sure. And for anyone who views gays in the military as the sole issue and is totally unconcerned about the military's ability to perform its functions that will be the end of the debate.
Fine. But then please stop making up fake arguments why the situation in the UK army is incomparable to the one in the US army - the only difference (if present) would be that culturally, homophobia is stronger in the US than it is in the UK.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 05:42:44 AM
Well this does not appear to be an issue in the militaries that allow gay people to serve openly. So what was your point again?
AFAIK there are exactly two peices of evidence that have been entered into the debate on the effect of openly serving gays in the military. One is an article by a respected US miliitary journal that reviewed the experiences of five or so western armies and found no impact. The other is the testimony by that General Homohater before Congress that the Dutch Chief of Staff told him gays caused [sic] the Sbrenica massacre. I haven't read the journal article and I assume you haven't either. I don't know how they evaluated small unit cohesion before and after the inclusion of gays, I don't know if they focused on combat units, or combat units in combat, or anything at all. But it's still evidence in favor of inclusion. So the only question is how much certainty we can attach to the future outcome.
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 05:52:57 AM
Maybe the comparison would make sense if in civilian schools, gyms etc men and women shared all facilities.
Or if straights and gays regularly went into combat together in civilian schools.
[pre-emptive Columbine joke]
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:09:54 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 05:52:57 AM
Maybe the comparison would make sense if in civilian schools, gyms etc men and women shared all facilities.
Or if straights and gays regularly went into combat together in civilian schools.
[pre-emptive Columbine joke]
Are you being serious?
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 06:00:52 AM
Fine. But then please stop making up fake arguments why the situation in the UK army is incomparable to the one in the US army - the only difference (if present) would be that culturally, homophobia is stronger in the US than it is in the UK.
Maybe I was making up fake arguments about the Dutch army.
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:12:14 AM
Are you being serious?
More or less. Your argument is that since gays and straights already shit and shower together in school they should have no problems shitting, showering, and killing together in combat. It might be different. It might also be that military recruits from predominantly rural, southern, or midwestern locales haven't shat and showered that much with gays.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:17:23 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:12:14 AM
Are you being serious?
More or less. Your argument is that since gays and straights already shit and shower together in school they should have no problems shitting, showering, and killing together in combat. It might be different. It might also be that military recruits from predominantly rural, southern, or midwestern locales haven't shat and showered that much with gays.
Will gays as a group be more likely to join up than rednecks as a group? The idea that there would be a higher density of gays in the military may well be valid but not obviously so.
Regarding whether it is different or not we just have to look at the experience of countries that allow gays in the military. Whether their experiences support this or not I cannot say, I don't follow the gays in military issue.
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:26:22 AM
Will gays as a group be more likely to join up than rednecks as a group? The idea that there would be a higher density of gays in the military may well be valid but not obviously so.
I don't know where you're getting this from.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:30:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:26:22 AM
Will gays as a group be more likely to join up than rednecks as a group? The idea that there would be a higher density of gays in the military may well be valid but not obviously so.
I don't know where you're getting this from.
Why would those rural boys suddenly be more confronted with gays in the military than they were in civilian life?
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:31:36 AM
Why would those rural boys suddenly be more confronted with gays in the military than they were in civilian life?
Because I think (out) gays skew urban and coastal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:07:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 05:42:44 AM
Well this does not appear to be an issue in the militaries that allow gay people to serve openly. So what was your point again?
AFAIK there are exactly two peices of evidence that have been entered into the debate on the effect of openly serving gays in the military. One is an article by a respected US miliitary journal that reviewed the experiences of five or so western armies and found no impact. The other is the testimony by that General Homohater before Congress that the Dutch Chief of Staff told him gays caused [sic] the Sbrenica massacre. I haven't read the journal article and I assume you haven't either. I don't know how they evaluated small unit cohesion before and after the inclusion of gays, I don't know if they focused on combat units, or combat units in combat, or anything at all. But it's still evidence in favor of inclusion. So the only question is how much certainty we can attach to the future outcome.
The testimony by the General Homohater is not "evidence" at all - it's an anecdotal testimony of him saying that this is "what he heard" being used as one of the reasons by some unnamed Dutch army people, and then the Dutch army dismissing it as "utter nonsense" through the mouth of its spokesman.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:33:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:31:36 AM
Why would those rural boys suddenly be more confronted with gays in the military than they were in civilian life?
Because I think (out) gays skew urban and coastal.
I think your mistake is to equate out gays and gays who are flamboyant. I think the latter are much less likely to join the military in the first place, not to mention make it through the boot camp.
Neil Patrick Harris is an example of an out gay (and he was great as Colonel Carl Jenkins :P). Ru Paul is an example of a flamboyant one. Big difference.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 06:34:18 AM
The testimony by the General Homohater is not "evidence" at all - it's an anecdotal testimony of him saying that this is "what he heard" being used as one of the reasons by some unnamed Dutch army people, and then the Dutch army dismissing it as "utter nonsense" through the mouth of its spokesman.
Not by some unnamed Dutch army people, by the Dutch chief of staff. And not one of the reasons [for the massacre], as "a problem."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:40:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 06:34:18 AM
The testimony by the General Homohater is not "evidence" at all - it's an anecdotal testimony of him saying that this is "what he heard" being used as one of the reasons by some unnamed Dutch army people, and then the Dutch army dismissing it as "utter nonsense" through the mouth of its spokesman.
Not by some unnamed Dutch army people, by the Dutch chief of staff. And not one of the reasons [for the massacre], as "a problem."
This has not been confirmed by the Dutch chief of staff, and has been aggressively opposed by the Dutch military in their official statement, saying it's utter nonsense and untrue. There is no evidence he simply didn't make it up.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 06:38:30 AM
I think your mistake is to equate out gays and gays who are flamboyant. I think the latter are much less likely to join the military in the first place, not to mention make it through the boot camp.
Neil Patrick Harris is an example of an out gay (and he was great as Colonel Carl Jenkins :P). Ru Paul is an example of a flamboyant one. Big difference.
I think you're completely missing the point. Brain and I were discussing how the exposure of straight military recruits to gays before they enlist. Nothing at all to do with how many gays will join or how they will act once in uniform.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:33:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:31:36 AM
Why would those rural boys suddenly be more confronted with gays in the military than they were in civilian life?
Because I think (out) gays skew urban and coastal.
I'm too tired and feverish to add "out" to the equation right now. I can't think straight (no fun intended).
Btw:
Quote"Total nonsense," said General Henk van den Breemen, the Dutch chief of staff at the time. The Dutch embassy in Washington dismissed the US officer's argument as worthless, Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister said that it was not worth commenting on, and the Dutch defence ministry voiced incredulity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/19/gay-dutch-soldiers-srebrenica
So it's a fucking lie.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:42:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 06:38:30 AM
I think your mistake is to equate out gays and gays who are flamboyant. I think the latter are much less likely to join the military in the first place, not to mention make it through the boot camp.
Neil Patrick Harris is an example of an out gay (and he was great as Colonel Carl Jenkins :P). Ru Paul is an example of a flamboyant one. Big difference.
I think you're completely missing the point. Brain and I were discussing how the exposure of straight military recruits to gays before they enlist. Nothing at all to do with how many gays will join or how they will act once in uniform.
The thing is, the exposure of Southern rednecks to openly gay people who are not flamboyant is greater than zero before they join - they know people who have no girlfriends and who are suspected of being gay, etc. They will not go through some social shock when they join the military and find such people inside, too.
Btw what is the gay situation in American PDs and FDs? What's the official policy? What's the experience? I know nothing about this.
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:55:04 AM
Btw what is the gay situation in American PDs and FDs? What's the official policy? What's the experience? I know nothing about this.
No idea. Never heard of an openly gay dude in either, either positively or negatively.
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:55:04 AM
Btw what is the gay situation in American PDs and FDs? What's the official policy? What's the experience? I know nothing about this.
What's PDs and FDs?
Police and fire departments? I believe openly gay people can serve without problems - there have been at least two tv series with openly gay policemen, and I think one of the 911 firemen heroes was openly gay.
Here's the story of one of the most interesting homosexual fireman too (although celibate):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mychal_Judge
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 06:46:51 AM
Btw:
Quote"Total nonsense," said General Henk van den Breemen, the Dutch chief of staff at the time. The Dutch embassy in Washington dismissed the US officer's argument as worthless, Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister said that it was not worth commenting on, and the Dutch defence ministry voiced incredulity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/19/gay-dutch-soldiers-srebrenica
So it's a fucking lie.
Boy, I sure didn't see
that coming!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:17:23 AM
More or less. Your argument is that since gays and straights already shit and shower together in school they should have no problems shitting, showering, and killing together in combat. It might be different. It might also be that military recruits from predominantly rural, southern, or midwestern locales haven't shat and showered that much with gays.
And you're talking about gays as if they weren't people first and foremost; or about rural recruits as if they were such morons that they couldn't grasp the difference - or adapt with sufficient exposure. It's probably all that's needed - to eat and shit and shower and possibly die next to guys they thought as 'evhul' - only to discover they're just like them. You mentioned the severe segregation between blacks & whites in Vietnam... What's left of that nowadays? The institution has adapted and the individuals in it have adapted as well. It won't be different in this case.
Finally look no further than our very own Seige - as homo as it gets - despite the self-repression and the trappings of a 'normal' life - and yet he does seem to thrive in his career and with his teammates.
I've said it often, straights & homos may eat different types of meat but they sure as hell eat it in the same way.
Now
I wouldn't fit in any army - I can't stand the continuing physical efforts and I couldn't resist tasty morcels like Alcy. :P
G.
Quote from: Grallon on March 21, 2010, 08:00:05 AM
You mentioned the severe segregation between blacks & whites in Vietnam... What's left of that nowadays? The institution has adapted and the individuals in it have adapted as well. It won't be different in this case.
As I already mentioned to Marty, having a disfunctional army for 20 years might not be good enough for some people.
You sure you don't want to give that education question a crack?
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 04:55:47 AM
So the cost-benefit analysis suggests you should make inflammatory rather than nuanced posts
You are actually trying to justify your posting history as a conscious rational effort?!? :lmfao:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 08:16:27 AM
You sure you don't want to give that education question a crack?
And I've answered you: exposure. Little children are often afraid of the dark until you open the light and show them there's nothing hiding under the bed.
In any case the US army is already full of gays so what's the difference? I think a great many soldiers might be shocked to learn they've been messing and showering and sleeping with buddies who turn out to be 'knob-shiners' (one of my favorite slurs) after all...
Of course the difference is the hypocrisy hiding it all. It doesn't exist if it's not mentioned or aknowledged yes? Bahh!
G.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:07:05 AM
AFAIK there are exactly two peices of evidence that have been entered into the debate on the effect of openly serving gays in the military. One is an article by a respected US miliitary journal that reviewed the experiences of five or so western armies and found no impact. The other is the testimony by that General Homohater before Congress that the Dutch Chief of Staff told him gays caused [sic] the Sbrenica massacre. I haven't read the journal article and I assume you haven't either. I don't know how they evaluated small unit cohesion before and after the inclusion of gays, I don't know if they focused on combat units, or combat units in combat, or anything at all. But it's still evidence in favor of inclusion. So the only question is how much certainty we can attach to the future outcome.
That isn't the only piece of evidence. Even the RAND report, commissioned in 1993 to study the impact of gay sserving openly, said there would be no impact, and there have been several studies since then besides the one you quote.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 21, 2010, 08:39:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 04:55:47 AM
So the cost-benefit analysis suggests you should make inflammatory rather than nuanced posts
You are actually trying to justify your posting history as a conscious rational effort?!? :lmfao:
Not really an effort, but rather an absence of it.
Flaming people and posting outrageously exaggerated shit is much easier than trying to maintain my cool and posting balanced, thought-through responses. :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 19, 2010, 08:15:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2010, 10:38:32 PM
Oh, that old lifestyle = race line. One of my favorite fallacies :)
Good point, we should be expelling people with undesirable lifestyles from the military. I would start with conseratives and evangelicals. The latter endanger our missions in Islamic countries and believe in nutty supersitions - they can't be trusted with complex technology and equipment. The former say foolish things on chat boards and can expose the army to embarassment.
Really? If the Army were manned by a bunch of liberals we would never win one damn war. We need liberals to maintain the balance in society, but not in the Army. I want dependable people, no tree-huggers that are going to feel bad when we knock down a door and zip-cuff all males in the house while the women and children cry and scream.
Won WWII.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 01:46:05 PM
Won WWII.
And WW1.
But Siegie's people fought on the other side during those wars, so they don't like to think about them.
Quote from: grumbler on March 20, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
Plus, if people judge "gays" based on the behavior of just one of them, then they are kinda hopelessly closed-minded anyway.
Wrong. I recommend you quit being such a child.
Quote from: Grallon on March 21, 2010, 08:00:05 AM
Finally look no further than our very own Seige - as homo as it gets - despite the self-repression and the trappings of a 'normal' life - and yet he does seem to thrive in his career and with his teammates.
I've said it often, straights & homos may eat different types of meat but they sure as hell eat it in the same way.
Now I wouldn't fit in any army - I can't stand the continuing physical efforts and I couldn't resist tasty morcels like Alcy. :P
:lol:
Quote from: Siege on March 21, 2010, 01:20:48 PM
Really? If the Army were manned by a bunch of liberals we would never win one damn war. We need liberals to maintain the balance in society, but not in the Army. I want dependable people, no tree-huggers that are going to feel bad when we knock down a door and zip-cuff all males in the house while the women and children cry and scream.
looking at recent US history, I can't see a correlation with that.
Looking at Israel's history, I can't see how these methods made you live in peace&security.
Quote from: Siege on March 21, 2010, 01:20:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 19, 2010, 08:15:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on March 18, 2010, 10:38:32 PM
Oh, that old lifestyle = race line. One of my favorite fallacies :)
Good point, we should be expelling people with undesirable lifestyles from the military. I would start with conseratives and evangelicals. The latter endanger our missions in Islamic countries and believe in nutty supersitions - they can't be trusted with complex technology and equipment. The former say foolish things on chat boards and can expose the army to embarassment.
Really?
No Siege, not really. It is called being facetious.
Quotewant dependable people, no tree-huggers that are going to feel bad when we knock down a door and zip-cuff all males in the house while the women and children cry and scream.
I would think gay men would be more than capable of putting other men into bondage and ignoring the complaints of women and children . . .
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 21, 2010, 07:51:00 PM
Quote from: Grallon on March 21, 2010, 08:00:05 AM
Finally look no further than our very own Seige - as homo as it gets - despite the self-repression and the trappings of a 'normal' life - and yet he does seem to thrive in his career and with his teammates.
I've said it often, straights & homos may eat different types of meat but they sure as hell eat it in the same way.
Now I wouldn't fit in any army - I can't stand the continuing physical efforts and I couldn't resist tasty morcels like Alcy. :P
:lol:
What? Grallon called me Homo and nobody defended my honor?
[] I am very disapointed! [/Gary Oldman]
The Last Mimzky wasn't that good.
QuoteSheehan's Testimony 'Complete Nonsense'
By Kerry Eleveld
A Dutch officer has refuted the testimony of a retired U.S. Marine General before the Senate Armed Services Committee in which he suggested that the officer partially blamed openly gay service in the Dutch military for one of the worst massacres on European soil since World War II.
During last week's hearing on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, former NATO commander General John Sheehan told committee members that a former Dutch Defense Chief-of-Staff, General Henk van den Breemen, said the "liberalization" of the Dutch forces rendered them incapable of protecting the people of Srebrenica in 1995 during the Bosnian war, when approximately 8,000 Muslim men and boys were executed.
Van den Breemen rejected Sheehan's account in a statement on the Dutch Ministry of Defense's website, calling it "complete nonsense," according to a translation provided the gay veterans group Servicemembers United.
The statement reads, "Sheehan based his claims on statements from then-Chief of Staff, General Henk van den Breemen. Van den Breemen, for his part, considers Sheehan's accusations "complete nonsense." Van den Breemen does not share Sheehan's opinion on the role of homosexuals in the fall of Srebrenica, and has never said anything that would imply he did."
The Dutch Minister of Defense also responded forcefully to the accusation, saying that Sheehan's comments were "disgraceful and unbecoming."
"Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop strongly rejects the statements of retired American General John Sheehan, who blamed the presence of homosexuals in the Dutch military forces for the fall of the Srebrenica enclave in 1995 and the ensuing massacre of nearly eight thousand Muslims," said the statement. "Quoting the minister: 'Disgraceful and unbecoming a military man. I do not intend to waste any more words on this.'"
Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson, who specialized in human intelligence gathering and was discharged under the gay ban, said he was shocked by Sheehan's testimony when he listened to it during the hearing.
"It defied common sense to claim that to begin with," said Nicholson. "We've long heard arguments like that from extreme groups who are fanatical in their opposition to repeal, but to see a military general, who is clearly well educated, who is a career man, adopt that that sort of rhetoric -- which we now know to be an complete fabrication -- just flabbergasted me."
Now that Gen. Sheehan's own source has disavowed the testimony, Nicholson added, "it's important to get the truth out there, especially when you disparage the military of a U.S. ally."
Nicholson pointed out that Secretary of State of Hillary Clinton recently praised the Dutch military's service alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan during a NATO press conference in Brussels.
"Much of what we have come up with is modeled on what the Dutch have done," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters at a NATO meeting in December.
"The Dutch forces in Afghanistan came up with the model of the three Ds: defense, diplomacy and development," she said. "They were ahead of us. The results they got demonstrated the effectiveness of their approach. So, of course, we would like to see the Dutch continue.
The U.S. has twice asked the Dutch military to extend its stay in Uruzgan because of the exemplary work they have done there.
Nicholson said we owe "a heartfelt 'Thank You'" to the Dutch for their contributions to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, for the political risks their government has taken to support us, and for the Dutch lives that have been lost in the process.
During his testimony, Sheehan said the Dutch "made a conscious effort to socialize their military -- that includes the unionization of their militaries, it included open homosexuality ... That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war."
Shortly after Sheehan's remarks became public, the Dutch U.S. ambassador also renounced his characterization of the facts.
"I take pride in the fact that lesbians and gays have served openly and with distinction in the Dutch military forces for decades, such as in Afghanistan at the moment," Ambassador Renée Jones-Bos said in statement. "The military mission of Dutch U.N. soldiers at Srebrenica has been exhaustively studied and evaluated, nationally and internationally. There is nothing in these reports that suggests any relationship between gays serving in the military and the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims."
QuoteDutch Ministry of Defense Statement:
Demissionair minister van Defensie Eimert van Middelkoop neemt krachtig afstand van de uitlatingen van de gepensioneerde Amerikaanse generaal John Sheehan, die heeft verklaard dat de aanwezigheid van homoseksuelen in de Nederlandse krijgsmacht mede de oorzaak was van de val van Srebrenica in 1995 en de daaropvolgende genocide op bijna achtduizend moslims: "Schandelijk en een militair onwaardig. Ik wil er verder geen woord meer aan vuil maken", aldus de minister.
Sheehan zei zich te baseren op uitspraken van de toenmalige Chef Defensie Staf, generaal Henk van den Breemen. Deze vindt de aantijgingen van Sheehan echter "volstrekte onzin." Van den Breemen deelt Sheehan's mening over de rol van homoseksuelen bij de val van Srebrenica niet, en heeft iets dergelijks ook nooit gezegd.
English translation:
Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop strongly rejects the statements of retired American General John Sheehan, who blamed the presence of homosexuals in the Dutch military forces for the fall of the Srebrenica enclave in 1995 and the ensuing massacre of nearly eight thousand Muslims. Quoting the minister: "Disgraceful and unbecoming a military man. I do not intend to waste any more words on this."
Sheehan based his claims on statements from then-Chief of Staff, General Henk van den Breemen. Van den Breemen, for his part, considers Sheehan's accusations "complete nonsense". Van den Breemen does not share Sheehan's opinion on the role of homosexuals in the fall of Srebrenica, and has never said anything that would imply he did.
www.advocate.com
Of course that dutch general is not going to acknowledge ever saying something like that.
Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2010, 10:42:27 AM
Of course that dutch general is not going to acknowledge ever saying something like that.
LOL the classic conspiracy theory loon argument.
Why would any fags want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against fags, as long as they are not in the Army.
Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2010, 10:48:46 AM
Why would any fags want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
You know this how?
Why would any kikes want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against kikes, as long as they are not in the Army.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 11:24:04 AM
Flaming people and posting outrageously exaggerated shit is much easier than trying to maintain my cool and posting balanced, thought-through responses. :P
Not that you have any experience with that, being a
REAL lawyer. Not fake at all.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2010, 10:50:52 AM
Why would any kikes want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against kikes, as long as they are not in the Army.
Why would any Hebes want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against Hebes, as long as they are not in the Army.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2010, 12:09:54 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2010, 10:50:52 AM
Why would any kikes want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against kikes, as long as they are not in the Army.
Why would any Hebes want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against Hebes, as long as they are not in the Army.
Why would ephebes want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against ephebes, as long as they are not in the Army.
Quote from: garbon on March 23, 2010, 12:28:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2010, 12:09:54 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2010, 10:50:52 AM
Why would any kikes want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against kikes, as long as they are not in the Army.
Why would any Hebes want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against Hebes, as long as they are not in the Army.
Why would ephebes want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against ephebes, as long as they are not in the Army.
Why would epithets want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against epithets, as long as they are not in the Army.
I hate Americans and they should stay the fuck out of the army.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2010, 10:50:52 AM
Why would any kikes want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against kikes, as long as they are not in the Army.
I can't help being a kike.
I cannot change that fact. Even if I leave my religion, I would still be a kike.
You, on the other hand, choose to be a fag.
And by the way, kike is only for ashkenazis.
Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2010, 11:28:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2010, 10:50:52 AM
Why would any kikes want to serve in the military?
For all the wrong reasons, I can tell you that much.
I got nothing against kikes, as long as they are not in the Army.
I can't help being a kike.
I cannot change that fact. Even if I leave my religion, I would still be a kike.
You, on the other hand, choose to be a fag.
He doesn't think it's a choice though. so you'll have to disagree amicably. :p
Quote from: Siege on March 24, 2010, 11:29:46 AM
And by the way, kike is only for ashkenazis.
Fine. Arab, then.
As I suspected, the Dutch general refuted the claim that gays in the military led to the Sbernica massacre. He did *not* refute the claim that gays in the military was "a problem."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2010, 05:10:21 PM
As I suspected, the Dutch general refuted the claim that gays in the military led to the Sbernica massacre. He did *not* refute the claim that gays in the military was "a problem."
What Dutch general? What are you quoting?
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 05:26:12 PM
What Dutch general? What are you quoting?
1 page back, 2 down. Marty's cutnpaste.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2010, 05:29:22 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 05:26:12 PM
What Dutch general? What are you quoting?
1 page back, 2 down. Marty's cutnpaste.
I note they also didn't say it was a problem. In the absence of evidence one way or the other, I am shocked that you interpretted it to implicitly say gays were a problem.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 05:31:41 PM
In the absence of evidence one way or the other, I am shocked that you interpretted it to implicitly say gays were a problem.
In the Captain Renault sense of the word "shocked," no doubt.
Quote from: ulmont on March 24, 2010, 05:33:30 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 05:31:41 PM
In the absence of evidence one way or the other, I am shocked that you interpretted it to implicitly say gays were a problem.
In the Captain Renault sense of the word "shocked," no doubt.
No, not that shocked.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2010, 05:10:21 PM
As I suspected, the Dutch general refuted the claim that gays in the military led to the Sbernica massacre. He did *not* refute the claim that gays in the military was "a problem."
*Nor* did he refute the claim that the mayoral candidate in Louisville has been spied upon by satellites! :ph34r:
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 05:31:41 PM
I note they also didn't say it was a problem. In the absence of evidence one way or the other, I am shocked that you interpretted it to implicitly say gays were a problem.
The US general made a series of statements, some of which he attributed to the Dutch general and some which he did not. The Dutch general vehemently denied the ones not attributed directly to him. Do you think that is the normal response of someone who has been misquoted?
Technically he quoted a General Hankman Berman not Henk van den Breemen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2010, 06:08:52 PM
The US general made a series of statements, some of which he attributed to the Dutch general and some which he did not. The Dutch general vehemently denied the ones not attributed directly to him. Do you think that is the normal response of someone who has been misquoted?
What do you think the pattern of the Dutch denials is telling you?
Yi, where do you find in this statement that van den Breemen rejects some of the claims but not others:
QuoteEnglish translation:
Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop strongly rejects the statements of retired American General John Sheehan, who blamed the presence of homosexuals in the Dutch military forces for the fall of the Srebrenica enclave in 1995 and the ensuing massacre of nearly eight thousand Muslims. Quoting the minister: "Disgraceful and unbecoming a military man. I do not intend to waste any more words on this."
Sheehan based his claims on statements from then-Chief of Staff, General Henk van den Breemen. Van den Breemen, for his part, considers Sheehan's accusations "complete nonsense". Van den Breemen does not share Sheehan's opinion on the role of homosexuals in the fall of Srebrenica, and has never said anything that would imply he did.
He is refuting and disavowing Sheehan's claims completely, in the second bolded sentence and then in the last bolded part. He is essentially calling EVERYTHING Sheehan says, whether attributed to him or not, "complete nonsense".
How on earth can you take this and "read between the lines" that he is not denying quotes attributed directly to him? That's pretty cuckoo. :tinfoil:
Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2010, 06:04:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2010, 05:10:21 PM
As I suspected, the Dutch general refuted the claim that gays in the military led to the Sbernica massacre. He did *not* refute the claim that gays in the military was "a problem."
*Nor* did he refute the claim that the mayoral candidate in Louisville has been spied upon by satellites! :ph34r:
:D
Btw, Yi, have you actually read or watched Sheehan's testimony transcript? I have just rewatched it and I don't see him saying anywhere that van den Breemen told him "gays are a problem".
He is asked whether he heard any opinions from other military commanders that gays pose a problem for their command and he said yes. He was then asked to give examples and this is where he started quoting van den Breemen in the context of Srebrenica.
So is your point essentially that:
1. Sheehan doesn't say van den Breemen told him expressly that gays are a problem.
2. But Sheehan quoted van den Breemen on Srebrenica in response to a question asking whether someone told him that gays are a problem.
3. Thus it is implied that van den Breemen told him that gays are a problem.
4. Van den Breemen called what Sheehan is saying "complete nonsense" that said that he never told him anything like that about gays in Srebrenica.
5. BUT he did not expressly say that he didn't tell Sheehan that gays are a problem despite the fact that while Sheehan didn't say he did, it could be implied from his statement that he might have had or might have not.
and ERGO: despite calling what Sheehan said total nonsense and expressly rejecting quotes attributed to him directly by Sheehan, it cannot be implied from van den Breemen's general rejection that he is also rejecting quotes Sheehan never said he made (but ones that could be implied as ones that may or may have not been made by van den Breemen from Sheehan's general response to the question in the senate commission), and therefore it is clear that from van den Breemen's calling of Sheehan's statement a nonsense it can be implied that he is implicitly acknowledging his quotes he never made but ones that could have been implied from Sheehan's speech, rather than his blanket rejection being an implied rejection of his implied quotes too.
Btw, Yi is a perfect example how homophobia works. It is hanging on every shred of "evidence" or on every word, "reading between the lines" if necessary, to justify one's own prejudice. Here we have years of analyses and tests (not to mention real world examples of countries like the UK) showing that allowing gays to serve openly works, on one hand, but all of this is simply not enough to outweigh insane ramblings of one guy who quotes only one example of alleged negative influence of gays on the military, and this example is immediately disavowed by its source as "complete nonsense".
This is also a perfect example of how Marti hysteria works. Marti reads a post by someone, and posts a fairly reasonable response. He gets no reply, because it is the middle of the night where the other poster lives, and that poster is asleep (in a one-poster bed, as it were). Marti then creates a more strongly worded post, with more detail, more specifically challenging the original post. No response. He then calls the person a homophobe, all before the other poster even wakes up! :lol:
And Marti, the way to deal with the Yi Method is to use it. Make no statements, just ask questions. Above all, make sure that you respond to every Yi question with a question, not an answer (because answering a Yi question simply invites more questions, and the debate becomes entirely one-sided). Only answer one Yi question for each of your questions he answers.
You're right and I am wrong Marty. I thought Sheehan had said "they said it was a problem," but I reread it and he said "they said it was part of the problem."
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2010, 06:32:32 AM
And Marti, the way to deal with the Yi Method is to use it. Make no statements, just ask questions. Above all, make sure that you respond to every Yi question with a question, not an answer (because answering a Yi question simply invites more questions, and the debate becomes entirely one-sided). Only answer one Yi question for each of your questions he answers.
That's not the Martinus method. The Martinus method is to scream, as shrilly and incestantly as possible, until the other party gives up in digust.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2010, 06:28:27 AM
This is also a perfect example of how Marti hysteria works. Marti reads a post by someone, and posts a fairly reasonable response. He gets no reply, because it is the middle of the night where the other poster lives, and that poster is asleep (in a one-poster bed, as it were). Marti then creates a more strongly worded post, with more detail, more specifically challenging the original post. No response. He then calls the person a homophobe, all before the other poster even wakes up! :lol:
I know. :blush:
I'm on a self-feeding loop of rage. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2010, 06:53:12 AM
You're right and I am wrong Marty. I thought Sheehan had said "they said it was a problem," but I reread it and he said "they said it was part of the problem."
Ok. :)
Quote
Sheehan Sorry for Antigay Remarks to Dutch
By Julie Bolcer
Retired Marine Genereal John Sheehan has apologized to Dutch military officials for saying that the presence of gay soldiers in their ranks prevented them from stopping the Serbian genocide against Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica.
According to Agence France-Presse, the Dutch defense ministry said Tuesday that former NATO commander Sheehan "wrote a letter of apology" dated Monday.
"In it, Sheehan said he was 'sorry' for remarks made at a Senate hearing earlier this month where he argued against plans by President Barack Obama to end a ban on allowing gays to serve openly in the US military."
"To be clear," wrote Sheehan to former chief of staff of the Dutch army General Henk van den Breemen, "the failure on the ground in Srebrenica was in no way the fault of the individual soldiers."
As a result of the letter, the gay rights group Pink Army said it would drop its threat to sue Sheehan.
This must be the most backhanded apology ever. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2010, 06:37:08 AM
This must be the most backhanded apology ever. :lol:
I must say I find it more insulting to get a fake apology than if the man had stood by his sentiment/assessment. Everybody apologizes far too easily for everything these days. <_<
G.
My favourite are conditional "if-anyone-was-offended" apologies.