What it means is the LBFTP (lesbian, Bi, Fag, tranny, Pedo) group has won another hard bought victory.


The rights of the majority to not have to deal with the abnormality of homosexual activity are over-ruled by the rights of the genetic misfits to force their way into every nook and cranny (pun intended).

At this point in our society only the minority are afforded civil rights.





(yup - pain killers + bourbon = Fun on the High Street!)

Something tells me he salivates when he thinks about this...

Here's how the Family Research Council envisions things going if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed: first, more straight soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will be fellated in their sleep against their will.

Dmtdust wrote:

Lay off the Pills and Booze.  I already regret reading your post.

Ehh?

With our future clouded by the fiscal impact of an aging generation bump (the baby boomers) we can no longer afford to spend money to hand out "warm and fuzzy" awards.  If it doesn't pass the benchmarks of fiscal constraint and then general fairness it should not be done.  Accomodation of a second gender was prohibitively expensive, accomodating the third and fourth genders will not only be fiscally destructive but also devasting on the balance of morale. Not everyone can be everything; we cannot continue to fulfill the fantasies of the outlyiers at the expense of the general population.

Why do the liberals grant more importance to the feelings of those who are gay than those who are straight?  Why does the minority matter more?

Emm - I'd say "take a pill," but apparently it's too late for that.  Instead, let me feed your nightmares: a world full of gay wetbacks anxious to do your plumbing.

Seriously...???

the outcome of this is going to be a gay rate of .0005 of the military - but they've gotten their point across.   Obnoxious waste of time and money.

Dmtdust wrote:

Equal Rights all around.  I don't give a crap if someone is gay or straight.  Can they do the job?  Good, get on with it then. 

All this "stuff" which is defined as differences are naught but tools to oppress everyone at some time or another.

I agree with that on it's surface; but there are bills to be paid and differences demanding additional costs.


Say Dusty...why don't they allow the young men to shower with the young women in the military???

Emmeran wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Equal Rights all around.  I don't give a crap if someone is gay or straight.  Can they do the job?  Good, get on with it then. 

All this "stuff" which is defined as differences are naught but tools to oppress everyone at some time or another.

I agree with that on it's surface; but there are bills to be paid and differences demanding additional costs.


Say Dusty...why don't they allow the young men to shower with the young women in the military???

Because the young girls will rape the guys?

Dmtdust wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Equal Rights all around.  I don't give a crap if someone is gay or straight.  Can they do the job?  Good, get on with it then. 

All this "stuff" which is defined as differences are naught but tools to oppress everyone at some time or another.

I agree with that on it's surface; but there are bills to be paid and differences demanding additional costs.


Say Dusty...why don't they allow the young men to shower with the young women in the military???

Because the young girls will rape the guys?

To support your position you are avoiding the reality:  why don't they allow the young men to shower with the young women in the military???

You are in a playful mood.  What type of pain pills? 

No, that was a stupid rejoinder OMP.   Do you really, really think that homosexual rape would occur?  With the number of gays in the service now, is this ever a problem?

Seriously?

Emmeran wrote:

we cannot continue to fulfill the fantasies of the outlyiers at the expense of the general population.

Why do the liberals grant more importance to the feelings of those who are gay than those who are straight?  Why does the minority matter more?

Declining religious indoctrination means more people will be getting off in different ways.  Today’s outliers are tomorrows mean.  The middle of the graph is shifting, and these issues are the growing pains.  Besides, gays cost way less than any other group since they don’t haphazardly spray children around.

Emmeran wrote:

phoQ wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

why don't they allow the young men to shower with the young women in the military???

In the future, they will.

Thank you for the definitive answer oh wise time traveller; you have done us a great service.
Challenge!!!   Prove your assumption.

I think I saw it in Starship Troopers.

phoQ wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

phoQ wrote:

In the future, they will.

Thank you for the definitive answer oh wise time traveller; you have done us a great service.
Challenge!!!   Prove your assumption.

I think I saw it in Starship Troopers.

It was in the last Alien movie.

Well, gayness is not a human only activity; it must have some reason on the Darwinian level.  It isn't that much of an anomaly, and as an anomaly if it is, who really gives a shit what someone does? 

We measure the benefit to the society by not having another group of "The Others".  That in itself is a huge benefit.  As long as we play stupid atavistic neolithic herder games regarding sex/reproduction rights, and believe in a sky father, we are screwed.  Removing one more tool of divisiveness (i.e. discriminating over where you put yer pee pee and with whom)  Will reap deeper benefits that you can imagine.  As the barriers drop, the society gains.   Really.

Dmtdust wrote:

Well, gayness is not a human only activity; it must have some reason on the Darwinian level.  It isn't that much of an anomaly, and as an anomaly if it is, who really gives a shit what someone does? 

We measure the benefit to the society by not having another group of "The Others".  That in itself is a huge benefit.  As long as we play stupid atavistic neolithic herder games regarding sex/reproduction rights, and believe in a sky father, we are screwed.  Removing one more tool of divisiveness (i.e. discriminating over where you put yer pee pee and with whom)  Will reap deeper benefits that you can imagine.  As the barriers drop, the society gains.   Really.

Not being a "human only" activity reinforces the concept that it is a genetical mishap, anomalies happen on a measurable scale - but that doesn't make them normal.  They remain genetic anomalies; not a lessening factor but not an increasing factor - their needs should be measured mathematically.

Our recent history of measurements cannot be construed as the norm in fiscal budgeting; we have undertaken extraordinary support of the minority since the early seventies and have run a reflective budget deficit in that same period.  You have digressed from the point, we must be fiscally solvent; individual rights do not extend to individual desires - you cannot be what you aren't.  Some groups remain as elite among the majority and therefore may be unobtainable for the minority.

The majority groups have rights also; you continue to find focus on the minority excluding the majority  My daughter is gay, my son isn't - who's rights should be measured first?   Logic says the majority group deserves majority consideration so long as it does not infringe upon the basic rights of the minority.  Basic rights do not include consideration in a selective service organisation, existance does not grant you the right to join every organisation under the sun.  Financial realities prohibits the creation of new gender classes, again we cannot afford to entertain the individual goals of a societal outlyer just to prove our moral standing.

Bottom line:  We are broke - any changes should only reflect fiscal savings until we can once again balance our moral standing with our fiscal abilities. 

I'm sorry; hard luck on your burdgeoning gay military career - Life sucks for all of us.

phoQ wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

phoQ wrote:

In the future, they will.

Thank you for the definitive answer oh wise time traveller; you have done us a great service.
Challenge!!!   Prove your assumption.

I think I saw it in Starship Troopers.

You did. I know it left me feeling terribly distraught.

Emm is staking out a piece of ground with interesting borders:

1. The Gulf of Mexico is actually just experiencing a trickle.
2. People who sneak across the border would be better off if they stayed at home (they don't know what's good for them).  And we'll be better off with the police having the power to demand our papers so long as they can cook up a "reasonable suspicion."
3. Gays can't be trusted to shower with straights; fear of ass-rape justifies discrimination.

Stated in a totally "fair and balanced" way, of course.

doesyourpussyhurt wrote:

Closet cases are usually the loudest in the room...

I just got back from a junket involving quite a few food celebrities and saw a version of this in action. One of guests was a popular Asian TV chef, outrageously funny and campy, who flirted flamboyantly with all the men in the group, the overwhelming number of whom were straight and, in some cases, accompanying their food writer wives on the trip. They flirted right back, placing the chef's attentions right where the chef intended for them to be: innocent and fun and nothing more than that.

I enjoy flirting both with men and women and I'm usually pleased to find that they enjoy flirting with me, as well. Flirting isn't sex, it's flirting and - in some wonderful instances it can certainly lead to more. But why load it down with that extra baggage?

Fled wrote:

Emm - I'd say "take a pill," but apparently it's too late for that.  Instead, let me feed your nightmares: a world full of gay wetbacks anxious to do your plumbing.

No Fled, it's never too late, he should take the whole bottle RIGHT NOW.


As for me, if your willing to fight for your country, I don't care if you like the dick.  I refuse to believe that just because someone is gay that they are more prone to rape innocent hets.

Emmy, to quote Dear Dottie, you have a point, and it's at the top of your head.

doesyourpussyhurt wrote:

Back in Human Sexuality 101 I had a nun for a professor. When the subject of gay sex came up, there were several Emms in the class who would explode with their rhetorical bullshit, just like Emm.

Finally one day the teacher had had enough of these little boys outbursts. She pointed out, with statistics to prove her point, that those who cry the loudest are most often those who either spend much time fantasizing about the things they railed against, or they were actively involved in gay sex but didn't want anyone to know about it.

As she continued making her point all the troublemakers got up and ran from the class. Apparently they didn't like being called out.

When I hear someone like Emm making BS statements about gays and what they would do, I think back to that day and smile knowingly.

You sir are an idiot; I did not make statements about gays and what they would do.  I would also encourage you to step back and consider how pointless it is to learn Human Sexuality from a Nun.

I was right, they restated the numbers a few days later

Not even close, Emm.  You suggested that it was more a trickle than a gusher.  Since then, the estimates for the rate of the "leak" have quadrupled.  As I looked at the real-time video, it sure seemed like a gusher by any standard you might choose. 

The police can already do that in all 50 states.

I went through the constitutional law in your string before.  Perhaps they can ask for papers, but without probable cause, under current law I do not believe they can detain you for any significant length of time.  They can frisk you but that's about it absent probable cause.  Not that the current Supreme Court wouldn't like to modify the law, being the activist judges that they are.  Beyond that part of the reasonable suspicion issue, I think we agree about the legality of it. 

Rape wasn't part of the conversation; discrimination against the rights of the majority was.

Well, maybe you didn't raise it, and maybe Ize just spinnin' it a little.  Still, I am curious about your "rights of the majority" argument.  What rights are those, exactly?  Not to be confronted with a longing gaze in the shower?  That seemed to be your pitch.  Pitting rights of a majority against rights of a minority seems like a rhetorical device rather than an argument.  Let's see: the right to a certain comfort level in the shower versus the right not to be fired based on prejudice.  I think I see a winner here. . . 

What if the majority's sensitivities are unreasonable or even lack a rational basis? 

Sorry, Bucko.  Motion denied.

2. The police can already do that in all 50 states.

I went through the constitutional law in your string before.  Perhaps they can ask for papers, but without probable cause, under current law I do not believe they can detain you for any significant length of time.  They can frisk you but that's about it absent probable cause.  Not that the current Supreme Court wouldn't like to modify the law, being the activist judges that they are.  Beyond that part of the reasonable suspicion issue, I think we agree about the legality of it.

And the AZ law mandates the same thing, try reading it.  Probable cause is explicity mandated, racial profiling is explicity forbidden.  The idea that someone might break existing laws to over-zealously enforce this law is ludicrous and doesn't stand up before the constitution.

I have read the statute, quite carefully, from front to back, and I cited two different passages in your thread.  There is a section that requires AZ police to verify the immigration status of anyone where there is a "reasonable suspicion" as to their status.  Such verification likely would require detention for a period of time, and current constitutional law is fairly limiting as to what the police can do based on a mere reasonable suspicion.  Reasonable suspicion is considerably less basis for police action than probable cause.  The AZ statute clearly does not require probable cause for this type police action.  Indeed, it requires the police to act in the absence of probable cause, provided there is reasonable suspicion.  On your side of the argument is the fact that the provision only requires the police to make a "reasonable attempt" to verify status.  Arguably, this means that they would not detain the suspect longer than the constitution would allow, however long that might actually be. 

In any event, I find the juxtaposition of this provision with the provision, in a separate section of the statute, purporting to bar racial profiling, to be at odds.  After all, exactly how would the reasonable suspicion arise absent any racial profiling?  It is a high-wire act at best, and likely will be confusing in the field.

But all the mumbo jumbo aside - why do you favor granting amnesty to 10 million people who snuck across the border?

I don't.  I also don't favor sending them all back, which would be ridiculously expensive, time consuming and unproductive.  I would put them at the back of the line.  Also, those who have accumulated felony convictions would go immediately. as would those with insufficient documented employment or educational history here.  I'd also like to see some form of hierarchy based on accomplishments, employment, employability, citizen family members, time in country, etc. for considering the ultimate disposition of their applications.  No one illegally here would displace or harm any other immigrant's chances.  I don't jhave a complete proposal, but these are the general lines of what I would like to see.

Fled wrote:

But all the mumbo jumbo aside - why do you favor granting amnesty to 10 million people who snuck across the border?

I don't.  I also don't favor sending them all back, which would be ridiculously expensive, time consuming and unproductive.  I would put them at the back of the line.  Also, those who have accumulated felony convictions would go immediately. as would those with insufficient documented employment or educational history here.  I'd also like to see some form of hierarchy based on accomplishments, employment, employability, citizen family members, time in country, etc. for considering the ultimate disposition of their applications.  No one illegally here would displace or harm any other immigrant's chances.  I don't jhave a complete proposal, but these are the general lines of what I would like to see.

I'm cool with that, one caveat though - all applications must be made from one's home country. 

One thing I don't want to hear is the whine about breaking up families; we do that all of the time whenever we send one of our citizens to jail - it's just a fact of life.

Scotty wrote:

Motherfucker.  Even I want to see geh sex now.  STFU!!!!!

Poor Scotty, try deviantclip.com.

The actual debate about how to handle said fudge packers once DADT is repealed.  First we have to get regulations in place to allow fags in the military, with the repeal of DADT the old regs take over and we are back in the 80's.  After that we have to decide how to handle couples, obviously they cannot be allowed to marry as the Fed doesn't recognize that yet; we can't let them live together on base either as we don't allow straight couples that liberty. 

Being as most of these people are teenagers we'll see a huge run of narc'ing couples out just to fuck with them and we have to deal with that also.  Normally when dealing with an established straight couple one will be transferred to a non-deployable unit, SOP says both parts of an established couple are preferably not to be deployed at the same time and definitely not together. (Although the Bush admistration tried to kill that practice).

But assuming all things are equal we will have to add a "relationship manager" responsibility to someone in the command structure, most likely the XO (as if that person isn't already busy enough).  The complexities and costs added in a force the size of ours makes it hard to support this "warm and fuzzy" shift, war is serious business not a playground for civil rights experimentation.

The price of mistakes in this field is flesh and blood, and all it takes is a small shift in morale and discipline to turn victory into defeat; don't ever forget that.