The Glade 4.0

Did you say, "No, they won't"? If you did, then I'm not being dishonest at all.

Had you said, "It's unlikely they will" and then followed with your qualifiers, but you didn't. You said specifically that "No, they won't". So call someone else dishonest, idiot.

The plain fact is, Diamondeye, that you mis-spoke. Then you compounded your error by not being able to man up and admit it, choosing instead to throw insults at me. The sad thing is, that does not surprise me at all, coming from you.

Rape is against rules in the military, but it happens, as my link shows. Sexual harassment is against the rules, but it happens. To think that it won't happen with gays because rules will prohibit it is incredibly naive.

The fact that you can claim you're not being dishonest, when you specifically had to add ... after "No they won't", thereby completely changing what I was saying is an indicator of just what a dishonest shitstain you are. That is what we refer to as a strawman, of the worst sort. All you're doing is fixating on the semantics of a sentence fragment in order to claim I was saying somting completely different than what the totality of my post indicated.

You must think everyone here amazingly stupid to try such an obviously dishonest tactic.

The fact is that you've utterly failed to show why there's anything special if there are sexual harassment issues with gays that doesn't already exist in straight situations.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think DE's point, unless I've somehow wildly misinterpreted him, is that there are already policies in place to deal with sexual harassment. Adding gays to the military doesn't call for adding more policies. The policies in place already account for them. Will some people sexually harass others anyway? Of course they will, and it is unpreventable. The policies simply make it possible to deal with the harassment after the fact, as it should be.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

That is correct, and more to the point, there is absolutely no good reason to think that when those policies are violated in a fashion involving people of the same sex there is no good reason to think it will be any more problematic than if they were not.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Own your own words, Diamondeye. It's a readable fact that you said "No, they won't", then you added qualifiers to explain why they won't, and yet it's a provable fact via link I provided in this thread that, in spite of the very qualifiers you speak of, rape and sexual harassment do occur. Therefore, "Yes, they will" is the correct statement, your qualifiers be damned.

Among all the pros and cons of deciding whether to join the military, young heterosexual men do not need the added concern of sexual harassment from openly gay superiors.

Nice language, though. Shitstain is the best you have?

I'm sure Jesus is proud of you.

As long as enforcement is uniform they should be.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

There are further policies and laws requiring uniform enforcement of rules.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How is this any more problematic that a straight or lesbian woman serving under a straight man, or a straight or gay man serving under an aggressive woman? Why are the solutions currently in place to deal with those problems not comprehensive enough to deal with the addition of openly serving homosexuals?



Really? This is really where you are going? Why does everything you post have to come full-circle and wind up as an attack on Christians?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I get the impression Farther considers himself Christian, and doesn't think much of Diamondeye's version of Christianity.

Which isn't to defend the little bastard, his argument is bullshit and he's a complete ***. I just wanted to clarify that I don't think he's attacking Christianity as a whole. He's just attacking what he sees as Diamondeye's least Christian qualities.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

It's funny how Christians always think that Jesus agrees with their own personal point of view.

His posting history in the fire fighter thead leads me to believe otherwise.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Recruitment and retention. Who needs a solution to a problem if the problem is easily avoided altogether?

So your solution is not to allow them to serve?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I have friends who want to convert me, and they tell me this and that. Often, what they tell me is far different than what I see on this page, as well as other places. Sometimes I think there are 100 or so jesuses, each with his own followers that are taught different things, and each group is encouraged by their personal jesus to mock and ridicule the followers of the other jesuses. For instance, some groups have no problem hurling insults and obscenities at opponents, and other groups would never entertain such a thought. My friends tell me such language as Diamondeye uses is not proper for a christian to use, under any circumstances, yet both would tell me they are christian.

That's just how I see it, and it makes no sense to me at all.

For the same reason, perhaps women shouldn't work because men don't need the added concern of sexual harassment from them.

The solution I refer to is the solution in the mind of a potential recruit and in the mind of those who may be considering reenlisting. It's easier to avoid potential problems, by just not joining.

Take you value judgements of Christians and shove them up your *** you prick. You have done nothing but be an antagonistic douche since you showed up.

I am the closest thing this board has to a follower of the Fallen, and the continuous judgemental bullshit you give over Christians makes me hope you decide one day decide to go and pull your head from the dark place it resides in.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

For a self important sense of "I am better than these people"

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I will, when you take your value judgment of me and shove it up your ***. Or maybe not.

So your solution is to deny the freedom of choice to homosexuals in order to create a situation in which heterosexuals can be insulated from making difficult choices?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Why do you keep saying "your" solution? Recruits and current military folks will decide for themselves without any input from me. The problem relates to each individual, and each individual will come up with his own solution, not "my" solution. Some will stay. Some will leave. Some will sign up. Some will not.

So if you don't have a **** opinion of your own then shut the **** up. If you do, lets hear what your solution is.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

My opinion is that there are going to be problems with recruitment and retention. Any overall solution depends, I suppose, on what you think the military should be.

You see, some of you are busy hailing this as some great victory for the individual, and I agree, it is a victory. Where we differ is I am not willing to stick my fingers in my ears, stick my head in the sand and go "lalalalala, I can't hear you" when people point out that this is not the end of the story. Some of you here are willing to do just that.

So then, what is your solution, Rynar? If recruitment and retention problems impact readiness and the ability of the military to kill people and destroy property is impaired, what do you suggest?

Just come out and say what you mean then, you **** half-wit. The the entire body of your posting history here reads like one big **** forum troll. If you don't like the responses you're getting (and you seem to be getting them from pretty much everyone here, from across a broad spectrum of personal philosophies and political beliefs), then perhaps it's time to look inward and be a little bit self critical.



a) It isn't going to happen. It didn't happen when blacks were integrated, it didn't happen when women were integrated, and it won't happen now.

b) If it does happen, then oh well. You can't defend freedom by restricting it, because you've destroyed what you said you were trying to defend in the first place; and if we aren't in the business of defending freedom then the concept of a military is morally bankrupt anyway.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20