You
Homophobic is "fear" of homosexuals-I don"t fear them, their activity disgusts me. There is a difference. The use of that label is indeed name calling, it is meant to be a slam on either my opinion or me, and you know it.


That door swings both ways.

Perhaps you missed it, I said in an earlier post that there isn't a job in the Military that requires a person to be either straight or gay. So it isn't about being able to do their job, it's about morale. I for one would much rather have a Military protecting us with a high morale than one that has to cater to a very small minority and all the problems that it will bring.

 

actually plenty of reasons were stated why we dont think they should be allowed to "come out of the closet" and homophobia was not one of them

 

You have a fear that certain things will happen if gays are allowed to be openly gay. That is a case of homophobia. It may disgust you, sure, but other than that, why shouldn't they be in the military? Because they will lower the morale? Why would they do that, unless there is some severe homophobia going on? That's the only reason they would bring 'problems'.

 

They're all because of homophobia. there's really no other reason you'd be worried about being in a tent with a gay man.

 

how about because i believe its morally wrong and i think its politically incorrect. If you want to call it being homophobic then yea, im homophobic, ive said it before, ill say it again. I believe two *****'s touching is not right, i...am a homophobe.

 

if a queer calls a normal guy a homophobe, its ok.

if a normal guy calls a queer a queer, then thats wrong?

this is exactly the problem that will develop once DADT is implemented. a double standard with the gay ole guys being treated to a different set of rules. it already happens in civilian jobs and lives. get in a fight with a normal guy and its a fight. get in a fight with a queer and its a bias crime, even if the queer part of it never came into light.

this is going to be another morale killer like the 1.4% raise.

 

It's not wrong or homophobic to not like it. It is very homophobic to think that the sky will fall because you may be inside a tent with 10 guys and one of them is gay.

 

You could change "queer" to a word for black people and have the exact same argument. If nobody is worried that the gay man is going to kill them in their sleep with the gayness, there will be no problem.

 

someone pass the chestwaders, babywipes and hand sanitizer, it's getting deep up in here

 

If I were black, that would offend me. A lot. One is a lifestyle choice, the other is whom you were born to, and the two are in no way comparable.

 

I don't think it's a choice. That's debatable, not set in stone. That is your opinion, but I like redheads and blondes more than brunettes. What makes me jolly is not my choice, rather what happens when I check out a girl that walks by.

If you were black and that would offend you, and being gay is not simply a choice, then a gay man has every right to be just as offended as a black man would by changing the statement to be about black people.

You're totally blind if you can't say that you could rewind to 40 years ago and say:
"if a black man calls a white guy a honky, its ok.

if a white guy calls a black man a (you know what), then thats wrong?

this is exactly the problem that will develop once INTEGRATION is implemented. a double standard with the black guys being treated to a different set of rules. it already happens in civilian jobs and lives. get in a fight with a normal guy and its a fight. get in a fight with a black man and its a bias crime, even if the black part of it never came into light.

this is going to be another morale killer like the 1.4% raise."

Maybe it's because I was raised in the south (by the grace of God), btu I have heard this same thing applied to black people over and over.
If you say it's completely different and in no way is remotely the same, sorry, but you're dead wrong.

If it is a choice, then yeah, it's one thing, but I know some gay dudes, and I don't think they have a choice, they're **** to the core.

 

Don't bring race into the discussion, it is a totally different problem. Stay on the subject. Yes, I do believe it is a choice. If you are slanted that way, you certainly don't have to live the lifestyle, you can live without sex. That is a choice and I have known those that made that choice. Same as you can remain single.

 

Ok, yeah, let's make a decision, base it on how we feel about it and leave the rest of the point of views out of the discussion.
It's totally the same. Blind as a bat (or in denial) if you can't see that.

We weren't talking about people having sex, a gay man is a gay man whether he's having sex or not. If he's in the military in a combat zone, he probably isnt living the lifestyle anyway, he's probably living like a soldier, and if he is openly gay, i.e. says he likes guys, it shouldn't hurt anything, unless of course you've got a problem with that, and at that point, the gay man isn't the one with the problem.

 

This discussion is running it's course. I guess I'll settle that I'm a homophobic, racist, against feminish, and (fill in the blank).

To those who are active duty, "Fair winds and God speed."

 

Is it not -the fact- that the gay man or woman... is in fact... defined BY the very "type" of sex these people desire? It IS the TYPE of sex that defines them AS "GAY". Wash the subject anyway you want or desire it to be... it DOES NOT change the FACT that the GAY male or female is interested similar genitalia / sex. The hetero male or female desires the OPPOSITE genitalia, as nature / biology defines.

Therefore the "gay man" IS in fact "gay" because OF the SEX he desires.

He may be living as a soldier, but when bunked with other males, it IS IN FACT the same as a hetero male being bunked with females. As you would view that red head, the gay male views his male counterpart. Somehow this revelation escapes you.

It is NOT homophobia when a hetero male or female desires NOT to be bunked with a gay male or female. It's choice, generally defined by that person's MORAL proclivity and not by "being killed by the gayness".

You want to serve, fine, serve. I don't want you flaunting your perverted sexuality next to me... do it somewhere else... this is not your meat market.