By Here is a Letter to the Editor in the Stars & Stripes that some of you may find of interest:
I do not wish to bring my religious beliefs into the argument; religion tends to create radical extremes that, ironically, go against the basic precepts of most religions in the world.
What I do wish to comment on, and I am against openly gay individuals serving in the military, is the fact that I would feel most uncomfortable in certain situations, such as showering, wondering if any of the men showering near me is gay.
Gay men are attracted to the male body and, although I would not expect them to do something irrational in such an environment, I do not like the thought that my body is on display for them. I am 100 percent heterosexual and, if men and women were allowed to shower together, I can assure you that I would glance at the naked women who were near me; that is what I am attracted to, the female body. It does not mean I would do anything stupid, but I would certainly take in their naked beauty. Similarly, I am certain a naked gay man would “check out” his naked fellow servicemembers whenever he could.
If we are to allow openly gay individuals in the military, then we need to protect such concerns by having separate billeting, bathroom and shower facilities. If done, I would have no issues with gays serving in the military. Otherwise, it is no different than having all billets/showers and bathrooms designated unisex in the military. We already segregate sexuality between males and females; we would need to do the same with gay/nongay if we are to allow openly gay individuals in the military. Doing so is not discriminatory; sexual preference is not the same as our ethnic or racial differences, neither of which involves the sexual mechanics or exposure of our bodies.
Maj. David DeAvilaPol-E-Charki, Afghanistan
What I found most interesting the usual claims of being a homophobe and a bigot in the comments section of the S&S article. So the guy doesn’t want to shower with other gay guys, so how does this make him a homophobe? If a woman doesn’t want to shower with male soldiers does that make here anti-male? This is something the people who like to throw around the word bigot cannot explain thus why they have to try and silence people by calling them inflammatory names. The bottom line is that the shower situation will have to be addressed, with the most obvious solution being shower stalls within the bathrooms. Heck the co-ed showers works for the US, Australian, and Dutch soldiers in Afghanistan.
But I guess those Dutch and Australian soldiers must be bigots and homophobes as well?
8:45 pm on November 16th, 2010 1
"What I do wish to comment on, and I am against openly gay individuals serving in the military, is the fact that I would feel most uncomfortable in certain situations, such as showering, wondering if any of the men showering near me is gay."
What prevents him from wondering about that now? If anything, removing DADT would remove all doubt. "Mmm, that guy is gay. Note to self: don't shower when he is."
9:11 pm on November 16th, 2010 2
"…inflammatory names…" how many times have I made this argument?
There is a great possibility I would look at a male Colonel differently, just as I would any mane, believing he has received anal intercourse or performed felatio. Of course I look at women the same. I know there are some who would not support their homosexual leaders just as some don't support "weak" leaders at present. This is a fact of life if you want it or not.
9:19 pm on November 16th, 2010 3
"So the guy doesn’t want to shower with other gay guys, so how does this make him a homophobe? "
We all know how much money the US is spending on this war.. Do we really need the public showers? If they're scared of being 'checked out' by gay men, they can be accommodated for about 30 cents/curtain. Maybe the Army wants public showers because they're trying to tone down the 'refractory periods'.. Sorry to say it…Presumably this 'Army major' has been 'checked out' by naked gay men tons of times, but he just doesn't know which one(s).
Bottom line, these guys never sound good when they speak out like this.
10:10 pm on November 16th, 2010 4
I LIKE showering with gay men.
It makes me feel wanted.
10:47 pm on November 16th, 2010 5
"but I would certainly take in their naked beauty." The good Major must be in the infantry. Army doesn't have alot of "female beauty".
There is nothing that will make a man feel as wanted as having some Fag looking at his junk in the shower.
Doing away with DADT would make it easier to "train" these Fags (I mean gay gentlemen) before they enter the showers.
11:03 pm on November 16th, 2010 6
He's a Major so he will have plenty of options to avoid homosexual males. The lower enlisted will bear the real brunt in this. Just imagine being an E-nothing and having to deal with an openly gay E-7 or E-6. Can they be trusted to not abuse their authority over the younger soldiers?
1:57 am on November 17th, 2010 7
Just don't end Don't Ask, Don't Tell for proctologists and urologists.
3:29 am on November 17th, 2010 8
I don't know if this guy is a bigot. I assume he is probably not, but I am sure he is a bit homo-paranoid. Of all the arguments against ending DADT the openly gay guy checking me out in the shower one is fairly low on the list of effective arguments. The notion that DADT has prevented gays from serving in the military is just wrong. They are everywhere!
We've all had that dude in basic training, varsity football, or at the gym that spends way to much time in the shower appearing to enjoy the view tad to much. In most cases the guys staring are usually straight. Just head to a Korean or Japanese public bath or jimjabang. You will be gawked at. This Major needs to get over his homo-paranoia. DADT is going to be repealed eventually, and he is just going to have to find a way to deal with it.
6:09 am on November 17th, 2010 9
Homo-monger or homo-paranoid seem to be the only options.
"In most cases the guys staring are usually straight." Is that a Judgement, a Generalization, a Hope or a Survey? My experience disagrees with yours.
But you are correct, gays are everywhere. That's fine too. As long as they don't wear it as if it were a badge of honor (which they will), or receive extra pay and allowance for living with their lover (why not, right?). If they start getting perfered treatment for being openly gay, that will be a problem. Because all of a sudden everyone will be claming to be gay to get these perks. The barracks will be empty and so will the DFAC.
6:16 am on November 17th, 2010 10
The word BIGOT" was a codeword for Operation Overlord, defining ultra top-secret clearance required to know details of the landing plans.[1] Those with this knowledge were called "BIGoted"
8:33 am on November 17th, 2010 11
I think he actually made a good point in his letter, and couched it in a way most people would understand. Think women will let men shower with them? I mean, most men wouldn't do anything out of line, except stare and drool.
I always figured it like this: So you got two homos in a unit (Neil and Bob), and they have to share a room because they are the only two homos. Pvt Ramsey (name changed to protect the innocent) goes to the 1SG and says "Hey Top, Neil and Bob are living together and doing each other, so why can't my girlfriend, SPC Finebut, and I share a room too?" What is the 1SG supposed to do? Start moving people around based on their latest gf/bf status? Or in this case, bf/bf status?
It just doesn't work.
10:23 am on November 17th, 2010 12
Repealing DADT is opens several cans of worms, all of which the pro-gay people like to ignore. What do you do about sleeping arrangements when out on a field problem? Typically if your sleeping in tends you divide them up into male / female sleeping area's, but WTF are you supposed to do when some homosexual wants to flout that homosexuality. How is a senior heterosexual male NCO supposed to reprimand a junior homosexual soldier without putting himself at risk for being called "homophobe" and all that political BS that will follow. And finally what do you do when you start getting sexual harassment cases involving homosexual soldiers harassing heterosexual soldiers?
11:51 am on November 17th, 2010 13
What about at garrison? Will it be ok for two homosexuals holding hands and kissing in public while you and your family walk by going to the PX? Do you want to expose your children to the gay lifestyle on garrison?
Will there be designated gay enlisted and officer clubs? Will the military celebrate gay history month in recognition of the gay personnel contribution to the military? Will gays be afforded EEO protection?
As stated above, will the military recognize gay marriages or legal unions? Will the barracks be divided into gay and non-gay areas? Will a straight soldier be required to bunk and shower with a gay soldiers? Will soldiers be required to take "sensitivity" classes wrt gay service.
This issue is a slippery slope which affects more than just the service member. Military service is very different than the civilian environment and must be treated as such.
12:22 pm on November 17th, 2010 14
Well the US Army prohibits excessive displays of public affection, I don't think anyone's gonna worry about seeing two gays going at it in public. For the other issues.. who knows.
12:30 pm on November 17th, 2010 15
#14, while I agree with you, what is excessive? Will that also be challenged in the future by the openly gay?
12:42 pm on November 17th, 2010 16
If you watch AFN Prime (in Korea at least), two of the most common Public Service Announcments are for preventing sexual assault and sexual harrassment. This suggests that heterosexual soldiers cannot control their sexually. Even the original letter reflected this, to a mild extent, that the major could not help but check out the female beauty. (Of course he could help it. He could look away or leave the shower area.)
The commenters here seem to be suggesting that if they cannot control themselves, that homosexuals cannot either, or would behave much worse. There is no support for this assumption. It's just baseless fearmongering.
12:44 pm on November 17th, 2010 17
Sorry, I meant to say "themselves" instead of "their" in the second sentence.
12:52 pm on November 17th, 2010 18
What are the current regs for heterosexual interactions?
Are there restrictions on public displays of affection? If so, apply those to homosexuals, too.
Do traditional married couples get benefits? Give those to legally married same-sex couples as well. If unmarried "partners" get some benefits, give those to gay partners, too; if not, then don't.
What are the equal opportunity thresholds and how are they determined? If they go by parity with the general population, and if they were applied to homosexuals serving in the military, that would mean little more than a few percent of positions being filled by quotas (if that's how they do it).
The safest and probably best and fairest way is to apply this stuff in a dispassionate way across the board and just let gays have what their heterosexual counterparts have. That doesn't solve the problem of barracks and showers, but I think tough military folks can endure gay people's eyes looking at them. I mean, God, I would hope so.
1:28 pm on November 17th, 2010 19
HOMOSEXUALS ARE PHYSICALLY DIFFERENT FROM HETROSEXUALS. NO MATTER WHAT QUEERS TELL YOU, THINK FOR YOURSELF AND ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS EITHER YES OR NO:
1. I HAVE SEXUAL THOUGHTS FOR SOMEONE THE SAME SEX AS I
2. I AM ATTRACTED TO SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX
3. I AM NOT ATTRACTED TO THE OPPOSITE SEX
4. I BECOME DEFENSIVE WHEN NEGATIVE COMMENTS ARE MADE ABOUT QUEERS
5. I HAVE FEELINGS FOR A COWORKER OF THE SAME SEX AS MYSELF
This guy isn't a bigot (though I don't consider bigot a derogatory name/word). I won't take orders from some pole smoker any more than I would someone who takes a stick of meat up the anus. Faggots can't help themselves, they are simply different from the normal person termed a hetrosexual. That's the bottom line. Homosexuals will always have sexual urges for someone of the same sex that is a fact of life.
Does that mean they can't make decisions? I don't care
Does that mean they are less capable? I don't care
I will do everything I can to ensure the complete and utter failure of a homosexual leader. I will bad mouth them, I will actively discourage others from following their orders, I will do EVERYTHING I can to ensure their failure. I do not want my leader to have taken a man's penis into his mouth until the man ejaculates.
1:55 pm on November 17th, 2010 20
16 Baseless fear mongering? Hardly. Being gay does not mean you are no longer a "human". Humans make mistakes. Their sexuality does not alter this.
To call it baseless fear mongering, is to be dismissive of those who have concerns.
You would not do this with a female who feared men living in their area. But you feel free to do so with those that have normal sexuality.
The idea isn't that Homos are as bad as normals or "much worse". The idea is that they are so similar.
After all, Fags — are people too.
Some "people" don't understand NO means NO. Before you accuse me of fear mongering, it is not. I did not hear about this from someone else. My personel experience — in the military — during the DADT time frame.
After DADT is done, it will be worse. We saw it with females. I doubt things have changed much since 2005, when I retired. We see it with race also but to a lesser extent.
When the Military is divided into social Groups rather than a single force, the military is weakened. Civilians never understand that.
As for the AFKN ads about sexual assault, you're likely seeing the same ones I saw in 97, 02 and 03.
Didn't have those problems when Korean Hookers were $20.00 for a short time in the 80s.
Considering the numbers of Lady-boys in Korea and gay bars, the US Army Homos just might have a good enough outlet down range.
2:13 pm on November 17th, 2010 21
I like how no one has been able to address if women who don't want to shower with males are anti-male?
Just for the record I don't have a problem showering around gays, but just because I don't doesn't mean other people's concerns should be discounted. The US, Aussie, and Dutch troops found a way that works to integrate everyone in the shower environment, private stalls. I am willing to bet the major in the article would have no problems if this was the solution.
But once again I ask are the Dutch and Aussies a bunch of bigots too?
2:24 pm on November 17th, 2010 22
Shower stall don't seem to be an expensive accommodation.
BTW, if I went to a public gym in a place like San Fransisco that had open bay showers and saw two guys with hard ons in the shower, I can choose to wait until they exited or not shower then.
2:34 pm on November 17th, 2010 23
It is apparent to me that the only individuals that can be bigots are American Hetro white males. Christian and conservative get extra bigot points.
I'm thinking of adopting the muslim faith—at least in name.
Then I can really mess with people.
Wondering about a good muslim name. Mohammed of course.
3:18 pm on November 17th, 2010 24
"Baseless fear mongering? Hardly."
Isn't it kind of weird for a straight man to think he's irresistible to every gay men?
3:53 pm on November 17th, 2010 25
Is it weird that straight women think they are irresistible to all straight men?
4:03 pm on November 17th, 2010 26
lemmy………………..feel so sad for you
teadrinker……………so agree, why is it every straight male thinks gay men are always checking them out? Gay men know who are gay and where to meet gay men. I dont think the showers or sleeping quarters of their work place will be the first place on their minds!
4:04 pm on November 17th, 2010 27
Retired GI,
I like it!
Mohammad Re'tar Jihai
Allahu akbar, baby!
Teadrinker,
"Isn’t it kind of weird for a straight man to think he’s irresistible to every gay men?"
That's because, as an average straight man, I am fully aware that I find pretty much every woman to be funkable in her own way… and I have no reason to believe that an average gay man would think much differently about pretty much every man.
The existence of bathhouses, glory holes, and notorious airport bathrooms, helps to confirm this suspicion.
I have no fear or shame if a gay man checks me out… or even jerks off to my picture… but I can sympathize with those who do… just as I can sympathize with women who don't want men staring in their windows while they undress.
6:31 pm on November 17th, 2010 28
For all those overly concerned about their sexual privacy, there is a good chance that the next time they debark from or embark to the States they will have to have a near nude body scan or have their 'junk touched' by a guy of questionable sexuality.
6:55 pm on November 17th, 2010 29
If they repeal DADT I know who won't be promoted to LTC. There is no 'right' to join the US Military. If you are too fat or too stupid to pass the ASVAB, sorry you can't join. If you have multiple felony convictions or are covered from head to foot with tattoos you can't join. If you can't walk 10 ft without being out of breath then you are not military material. If you have illegal drugs in your system you can't join. If you are homosexual and can keep your sexual desires PRIVATE then you CAN join. But if you are homosexual and feel that everyone else MUST KNOW who you are sexually attracted to then sorry, you can't join. Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws & regulations for the military, DADT is a federal LAW. Would those males who favor DADT repeal mind if your wives were in the military with having to shower with males, even if no comments or gawking were to occur? If you do mind then you are being hypocritical & if you don't mind, well maybe you're in a swingers club.
7:32 pm on November 17th, 2010 30
I'd rather have a gay in my foxhole than Lemmie. Even rather have 2 of them. Best General Officer I ever served with (in 31 years) was gay and proud of it. Course that was Vietnam. As a private, my first 2 roomates were gay, but not for each other, and I never had better roomates. Hell yes, he is a bigot.
8:00 pm on November 17th, 2010 31
GI Korea wrote:
I like how no one has been able to address if women who don’t want to shower with males are anti-male?
I don't think it's same-same. I dare say women are more vulnerable to sexual assault and its outcome, based not just on average size but also on their ability to get pregnant, and aversion to nakedness around those who are not a voluntarily joined sexual mate may very well be hard-wired into most women (i.e., biologically based instinct).
Not so sure with men, so it strikes me as an apples-and-oranges comparison.
I think homosexual activity is, well, disgusting (I don't get the appeal of anal sex even when it's man-to-woman and I can't imagine even women enjoy providing fellatio), and so I get that some people automatically hear "I'm gay" from someone and then imagine all that stuff. Lemmy, for example, seems to be graphically obsessed with what gay men do with each other. And so the fact is there are people uncomfortable with that, and I think it's wrong to tell them they shouldn't be, so I think the big fix for ending DADT is to ensure that some guy who don't want to shower with gay men doesn't have to. If we can afford a trillion-dollar war, can't we afford shower curtains?
What cracks me up, though, is how many people seem to think that gay people checking out your arse and fantasizing about your wanker being put in different places you might not want to put it won't happen until DADT is repealed. If women are checking you out, so are gay men. The only way to escape this, I guess, is by getting obese, hairy, and smelly. But even then…
8:07 pm on November 17th, 2010 32
Lemmy wrote:
Oh, come on, Lemmy… I'll be you would like serving under a gay man if he were Chinese.
Seriously, though, I'm a military-associated civilian, never actually in uniform, so can someone tell me if Lemmy (or someone who thinks like him) would be violating some sort of UCMJ code or something if he were to really act on this?
Also seriously, Lemmy, anyone who so angrily thinks that graphically and obsessively about the nitty-gritty activities of homosexual men is likely either a self-loathing latent homosexual himself or someone who was on the receiving end of some horrific sexual abuse when younger. I don't mean this as a joke; if it's the latter, go get some help.
1:55 am on November 18th, 2010 33
32 Kushibo, "anyone who so angrily thinks that GRAPHICALLY and OBSESSIVELY about the NITTY-GRITTY ACTIVITIES of homosexual men is either a self-loathing latent homosexual or someone who was on the receiving end ——"
Good use of mirroring Kushibo, followed of course by the option of victim.
To all the homo-mongers out there rushing to defend these Fags, let me be clear. Being gay is not a lifestyle. It is a declared desire for sex. Nothing more and nothing less. It isn't higher thinking.
Lemmy worded it (I believe) in such "graphically and obsessively about the nitty-gritty activities" because some of you out there either don't seem to understand or are willing to let the sexual perversion slide in order to be seen as Open-minded. Much as muslims are given a pass.
Kushibo, I agree with Lemmy and could no more respect a Fagget regardless of rank, than I could/did any slut, skank, gash or whore that might be/was in a leadership position.
If you define yourself by sex, then that is the most important part of your life. I can not respect someone male or female that thinks in this manner. By their own statement of being openly gay, the military is, at best, of secondary importance.
I define myself here as a retired GI, not by my passtime down range.
The very fact that being "openly" gay is more important than being a soldier is all that is required to earn disrespect.
I believe those that are gay are born that way. At least that has been what I've seen from those I knew. If they want to serve, that is fine with me. Military service should be important to them. No one is stopping them. They should STFU and Serve.
Lastly: "I don't mean this as a joke; if it was the latter, go get some help."
I can see you saying that to your wife or mother or sister. How much help do you think rape would require Kushibo? If it happened to someone I cared for, or myself, I don't believe "help" would be very helpful. At least not untill I put a round or ten into the SOB.
As to your question on violating UCMJ by acting on this. It is done every damn day. I've seen it. I've "allowed" individuals to be seen for what they are. That doesn't mean gay. That means a piss poor military person. I've also helped and/or stood up for those that (deserved) it. Opportunities abound in the military to assist those around you, or help them fall. Often (very often) their domestic partner will do it to them before you can. Got stories from basic to Iraq.
Often there is no need for action. A piss poor Leader/Soldier who puts sex above the military will do it to themselves with little help. Unless they are muslim!
If they are muslim, people will close their eyes.
3:02 am on November 18th, 2010 34
"That’s because, as an average straight man, I am fully aware that I find pretty much every woman to be funkable in her own way… and I have no reason to believe that an average gay man would think much differently about pretty much every man. "
The average straight man doesn't find every woman attractive.
3:09 am on November 18th, 2010 35
"I think homosexual activity is, well, disgusting (I don’t get the appeal of anal sex even when it’s man-to-woman and I can’t imagine even women enjoy providing fellatio), and so I get that some people automatically hear “I’m gay” from someone and then imagine all that stuff."
Well, that's their damned fault, not the homosexuals. You don't imagine your friends and coworkers getting it on every time they tell you that they want to have kids, do you?
3:16 am on November 18th, 2010 36
Silly Teadrinker,
Don't put words in my mouth.
"The average straight man doesn’t find every woman attractive."
I agree… but that has little relation to what I said.
3:54 am on November 18th, 2010 37
There was a gay guy that came here a while back and told us that DADT had not been being used as advertised.
Most people understood it to be that the only way someone could be put out is if they self reported. But people were actually being questioned and discharged after a second or third party reported them. That's the problem.
Not all the gays want to go out of their way to be defined by their sexuality.
4:38 am on November 18th, 2010 38
Hell, just let 'em all in and create special units for them. Then, use them strictly on the most danderous missions with as little fire support as possible. Problem solved.
7:22 am on November 18th, 2010 39
ChickenHead – “That’s because, as an average straight man, I am fully aware that I find pretty much every woman to be funkable in her own way… and I have no reason to believe that an average gay man would think much differently about pretty much every man. ”
Teadrinker – "The average straight man doesn’t find every woman attractive."
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
There is a huge difference between "funkable" and "attractive". One suits the needs of the powerful male sex drive and shows very little selectivity. The other is much more selective and cerebral, usually having more to do with elements outside of just pure sex.
In general, there are very few females on this planet that will not suffice in eleviating the pressure to release the grease. This has almost nothing to do with the female being "attractive".
7:37 am on November 18th, 2010 40
In regard to #37 JoeC
This is what may actually happen if DADT is repealed, a considerable portion of those who are gay will not reveal it. They'll have the option, but decline due to marginalization.
7:43 am on November 18th, 2010 41
37 JoeC, TRUE! Only the ones that want to serve OPENLY.
7:57 am on November 18th, 2010 42
35 teadrinker, Uh yea, I kinda do
To the point that I wounder how some people ever get conceived. Ever walk around walmart? Seen some female or ten that you wouldn't dream of giving a roll too. But someone did. 
Repeatedly 
.
8:11 am on November 18th, 2010 43
Also under DADT you can be OUTED by your Lesbian carpet munching Lover. Who would have thunk that?!! Answer: Anyone with half a brain.
I used to think all gays were intelligent—a form of stereotyping.
I only knew two at the time and they were on top of things. Mostly each other.
Untill that Platoon Leader and her Lover showed up.
Now I know that Fags are just as stupid as the normal people.
9:54 am on November 18th, 2010 44
if you think the rutgers kid who killed himself over a video tape of him and his boyfriend then wait til the military lets them serve openly
it wont be pretty!!!!
11:16 am on November 18th, 2010 45
"There is a huge difference between “funkable” and “attractive”. One suits the needs of the powerful male sex drive and shows very little selectivity. The other is much more selective and cerebral, usually having more to do with elements outside of just pure sex."
I think you're being a bit too selective in how you define "attraction".
11:19 am on November 18th, 2010 46
#42,
You got me, there.
11:44 am on November 18th, 2010 47
Jimmie #30. I served with a number of male homosexuals & with lesbians in my 20 years of service. In fact when I was stationed at HAAF in Savannah, GA there were two lesbians in the unit who along with two civilian male homosexuals who owned a 'gay' bar. A large number of people in our unit including our first sergeant who had earned a silver star in Vietnam and was a former SF knew of this fact. Sometimes a number of us including Top would go to the bar & drink, the other customers wouldn't bother us since they knew that we were straight. The general that you knew, your two homosexual roommates, & the soldiers all had two things in common. One is of course that they were homosexual and two is that they knew how to STFU about their sexual orientation, they just did their duty like everyone else. JoeC #37, Defense Secretary Gates has made guidelines in DADT in regards to homosexual troops being 'outed' which I support. Maj DeAvila is NOT a bigot, he has simply pointed out some common sense concerns regarding the proposed DADT repeal. Even repeal supporters should welcome the discussion now, before repeal rather than after repeal if that happens to prevent a total fustercluck from happening. A big factor that needs to be considered are enlistment/reenlistment rates for straights, in other words can we maintain adequate force levels?
11:49 am on November 18th, 2010 48
I meant to say "& all the soldiers that I knew all had two things in common.
12:58 pm on November 18th, 2010 49
#47 – You have great points, your mistake is in thinking that the supporters of repeal want open discussion. I think they have the same problem as a lot of other issues: They do NOT want open discussion and reasonable thought. They want to push their agenda through by calling everyone that disagrees homophobes and other names, hoping the end result is that everyone is so afraid to discuss it or oppose it, that the policy is repealed.
3:07 pm on November 18th, 2010 50
Marcus Ambrose #49. Of course you are correct. Liberals claim to be so tolerant. They are only tolerant of those who agree with them.
4:50 pm on November 18th, 2010 51
Most extremists, both liberal and conservative believe rights only apply to themselves and those that agree with them.
Excessive is usually defined by whichever CSM / 1SG is walking around. Typically holding hand in uniform will get you yelled at, unless its for some photo op. I'm not worried about two dudes making out in public, I'm more worried about a low performance soldier who happens to be homosexual using that as an "shield" to continue their low performance. We already see this with females and minorities, we don't need another category for douch's to hide in.
7:45 pm on November 18th, 2010 52
#45 Teadrinker – "I think you’re being a bit too selective in how you define “attraction”."
While the absolute need to release the grease and anything other than this idea, originate from two separate parts of the human brain, they are not mutually exclusive with respect to "attraction". They are however, two completely different modes of thinking and one being much more powerful than the other, leads to much less selectivity.
Too selective in attraction? There are a myriad of different objects and scenarios where "attraction" could vary significantly. You can't be that myopic. This is not possible.
8:18 am on November 19th, 2010 53
You're a bigot
You're an idiot
You're a homophobe
You're an anti-semite
You're a racist
You're a Cowboys fan
You're stupid
You're short
You're bald
You have dark hair
You have brown eyes
You stink
You have bad teeth
You're a queer
You're a fagot
You're a lesbian
Which of these define someone as a bigot? Define bigot (use a dictionary).
I don't like people with red hair or I don't like homosexuals
What is the difference between the two statements? Why do people lable someone who says "I don't like homosexuals" a bigot? Why isn't someone who says "I don't like people with red hair."
The difference is a simple minded person who simply vomits what has been jammed down their throat.
You're getting sleepy, very sleepy
watch the swinging watch, you're getting sleepy
you're eyes are getting heavy, you're getting sleepy
back and forth, back and forth; you're getting sleepy
everytime you hear a telephone ring you'll shout "I'm gay" ant the top of your lungs
when I coun't to 5 you'll open your eyes
and then you will realize how much you don't know
You're very sleepy
one, two, three, four…..five
The phone is ringing.
8:51 am on November 19th, 2010 54
Lemmy, I apologize for my earlier suggestion that you go get some help. It's now pretty obvious (#53) that you've tried that route and it failed miserable.
9:08 am on November 19th, 2010 55
Dictionary.com
big·ot /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled
[big-uht] Show IPA
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
It seems most derrogatory terminology would fit the definition of a bigot.
Lemmy, you would be the king around here. Please post a picture of your crown. I bet it's quite a piece of work.
6:57 pm on November 22nd, 2010 56
@55,
So in other words a conservative bible-thumping republican. Or a tree-hugging democrat.