I, for one, can't figure out who's fighting so hard against this. I guess it's an issue that bears repeating and needs to be thrust into the limelight.

Also: Penis.

I don't know but I've been told...

See, "behind" is a subtle but pointed synonym for "ass," and then from "ass" you get to all the gay stuff and you know and the thing.

Yoink!

It's only gay if you look him in the eye.

Conservatives may be mostly for it during neutral polling, but if the initiative comes out of "NoBama's" White House, they'll be against it. Count on it.

Firm
Behind

bidness: It's only gay if you look him in the eye.



"If you wanted to do something private with a man back then it wasn't gay. It was just two men...celebrating each other's strength."

won't someone please think of the homophobes?

/only argument I've ever heard against this was to protect the feelings of bigots

bidness: It's only gay if you look him in the eye.

It's not gay if you're angry at him while doing it

rmz: "If you wanted to do something private with a man back then it wasn't gay. It was just two men...celebrating each other's strength."

Reminds me of this recent article

"Why is the frat boy culture so sleazy?" (new window)

/answer: they gotta prove they're not homo

You'd think conservatives would be strongly supportive of a legal way to get them darned queers killed.

FTFA: "The overall polling currently shows an overwhelming 69 percent favoring ending DADT."

Lmao.

holiday_inn_in_cambodia: bidness: It's only gay if you look him in the eye.

It's not gay if you're angry at him while doing it

Wait.... I thought the balls had to touch!

holiday_inn_in_cambodia: bidness: It's only gay if you look him in the eye.

It's not gay if you're angry at him while doing it

It's not gay if it's with a hockey stick.

yesterday's thread (new window)

Well, just for that, you are going to be doing those push-ups with me lying on your back! You are going to discover muscles, you never knew you had! Big... muscles, hard... muscles!

Everyone is else is taking it up the ass in this economy; why leave out the military?

Di Atribe: I, for one, can't figure out who's fighting so hard against this. I guess it's an issue that bears repeating and needs to be thrust into the limelight.

Also: Penis.

Conservative...I do not think it means what you think it means.

Nah, the conservatives will say they're for12349876: rmz: "If you wanted to do something private with a man back then it wasn't gay. It was just two men...celebrating each other's strength."

Reminds me of this recent article

"Why is the frat boy culture so sleazy?" (new window)

/answer: they gotta prove they're not homo

They could've done that by not joining a frat.

bartink: Conservative...I do not think it means what you think it means.

The only current meaning is: You think GW Bush was super!

Christ, what the hell was that? I FAIL.

Obama can't end it, only congress. Hopefully when it's all said and done (Obama's 1st term, that is) it'll be done.

If it isn't... Then I'll raise hell.

I'm not an American Farker ™, so I don't really understand something here. How does someone's sexual orientation effect their ability to serve - and potentially die - protecting the country they love?

I mean, if the reason is because they might be distracted by all of the attractive and well-muscled men, shouldn't there also be a ban on women in the armed forces, as they may also be unable to control their urges?

jake3988: Obama can't end it, only congress. Hopefully when it's all said and done (Obama's 1st term, that is) it'll be done.

If it isn't... Then I'll raise hell.

It might take til his second term. If not by then, President Franken will have 8 years to get the job done.

Extreme_Lukewarm: Well, just for that, you are going to be doing those push-ups with me lying on your back! You are going to discover muscles, you never knew you had! Big... muscles, hard... muscles!

OOOOHHHH YES SIR!

12349876: rmz: "If you wanted to do something private with a man back then it wasn't gay. It was just two men...celebrating each other's strength."

Reminds me of this recent article

"Why is the frat boy culture so sleazy?" (new window)

/answer: they gotta prove they're not homo

Or they just want to do double damage against Hot and Sleaze monsters.

/Comes in handy during the Frat/Hippy island war

krupintupple: I'm not an American Farker ™, so I don't really understand something here. How does someone's sexual orientation effect their ability to serve - and potentially die - protecting the country they love?

You think that all Americans feel that way? Do you think that just because someone is American that they will be able to explain that to you? Please get real. We all think it's retarded.

The military resists change, in any shape or form. Anything that causes even the slightest ripple in their carefully crafted structures and systems is opposed, regardless of how stupid and meaningless it is, or even if the end result is better than the current situation. It is just how they are structured.

/It's also the only true bastion of conservative thought left in the world.
//Everyone else are just liberals in conservative's clothing.

Hot and Stench monsters.

/Dork.

Hell, if they want to take a bullet for me, more power to them, because I ain't going over there.

it's a shame that gallup poles aren't credible anymore

Why wouldnt we want lesbians in the service?

It's like not wanting them on your soft-ball team.

The guys should be allowed too. Everyone has to follow the same rules of conduct while on tax-payer-time.

When leave comes around...have a ball.

TomD9938: When leave comes around...have a ball.

Or two.

Di Atribe: I, for one, can't figure out who's fighting so hard against this. I guess it's an issue that bears repeating and needs to be thrust into the limelight.

Also: Penis.

the military itself is fighting it. the theory goes that ending DADT will have a temporary, though possibly large, effect on morale. Thus they want to put it off till we aren't fighting two wars and no major crises are looming. i agree with them about wrapping up the wars first, if we wait for nothing to be going on that touches on America's interests we are going to be waiting a long time.

Di Atribe: krupintupple: I'm not an American Farker ™, so I don't really understand something here. How does someone's sexual orientation effect their ability to serve - and potentially die - protecting the country they love?

You think that all Americans feel that way? Do you think that just because someone is American that they will be able to explain that to you? Please get real. We all think it's retarded.

no reason to be rude, i was simply curious. clearly, someone, somewhere thinks this way or it wouldn't be. it is official policy, is it not?

Lost Thought 00: The military resists change, in any shape or form. Anything that causes even the slightest ripple in their carefully crafted structures and systems is opposed

QFT. It is that simple.

krupintupple: I'm not an American Farker ™, so I don't really understand something here. How does someone's sexual orientation effect their ability to serve - and potentially die - protecting the country they love?

I mean, if the reason is because they might be distracted by all of the attractive and well-muscled men, shouldn't there also be a ban on women in the armed forces, as they may also be unable to control their urges?

This happens all the farking time on Fark, and each time it's depressing to me.

Some non-American comes in and asks a question about an insane policy of the US Government, or aspect of our cultural ethos. They explain why this policy doesn't make sense from their point of view using logic and reason, and it makes me facepalm at how insanely moronic our society is sometimes.

krupintupple: no reason to be rude, i was simply curious. clearly, someone, somewhere thinks this way or it wouldn't be. it is official policy, is it not?

I'm not being rude. I just found it preposterous that you would expect someone to be able to explain it, even if their only qualification was being American. Obviously, enough of us have a problem with it that it's at the forefront of political discourse. What you said just came off as very hoity toity... "Well I'M not an American, so I don't understand." See what I mean?

Oh and Ned Stark holds the answer to your question. "Someone, somewhere" does not equal a majority, a widespread understanding, or even a deciding factor.

A long time ago there were two cowboys alone on a trail.
Then they discovered they can sleep with another male.

Now they're having butt sex
Cowboy butt sex

Sadamahee (4x)

SADAMAHEE

krupintupple: Di Atribe: krupintupple: I'm not an American Farker ™, so I don't really understand something here. How does someone's sexual orientation effect their ability to serve - and potentially die - protecting the country they love?

You think that all Americans feel that way? Do you think that just because someone is American that they will be able to explain that to you? Please get real. We all think it's retarded.

no reason to be rude, i was simply curious. clearly, someone, somewhere thinks this way or it wouldn't be. it is official policy, is it not?

Official policy is Dont Ask Dont Tell, so it isnt a question of a gay persons ability to serve in the unit, but of an out gay persons ability to do so.

Di Atribe: I, for one, can't figure out who's fighting so hard against this.

Hint: Take the survey to the halls of the pentagon. The numbers will be muuuuuch lower there.

Di Atribe: krupintupple: no reason to be rude, i was simply curious. clearly, someone, somewhere thinks this way or it wouldn't be. it is official policy, is it not?

I'm not being rude. I just found it preposterous that you would expect someone to be able to explain it, even if their only qualification was being American. Obviously, enough of us have a problem with it that it's at the forefront of political discourse. What you said just came off as very hoity toity... "Well I'M not an American, so I don't understand." See what I mean?

Oh and Ned Stark holds the answer to your question. "Someone, somewhere" does not equal a majority, a widespread understanding, or even a deciding factor.

that is fair. i should've said, "someone who is better informed on this matter than i am", so i will admit fault in my delivery.

perhaps what grates me the most is that your country, constitutionally, is much more free than mine; we have a monarch-sovereign, who we need to petition if we want to change some of the rules. we need to constantly ask her if it is alright to attempt to govern ourselves. you do not. you have a series of checks and balances, designed by the founding fathers to prevent the tyranny that a monarch can all too easily bring. your rights have been enshrined for over two-hundred years - ours since 1982; and only once we could agree upon it, and only then if our sovereign (who lives in another country) agreed that we were able to agree that we should have the right to partially enstate some rights and laws to govern ourselves.

so, in light of all of this, it strikes me as odd that the US military - an armed force of the most constitutionally free nation on this planet - has such a backward discrimination policy. i'm not trying to flame or sound like a moron, but i just found it shocking and, naturally, should've started with "someone who knows more about this please explain it to me."

krupintupple: so, in light of all of this, it strikes me as odd that the US military - an armed force of the most constitutionally free nation on this planet - has such a backward discrimination policy. i'm not trying to flame or sound like a moron, but i just found it shocking and, naturally, should've started with "someone who knows more about this please explain it to me."

I believe the old party line was that anyone who was found out to be gay would be so embarrassed if it were to be discovered - homosexuality being evil and deviant and all - that they'd be an easy target for blackmail and all sorts of other security related bullshiat. Of course that's all hogwash, but still - there's living, breathing taxpayers who believe it's true to this very day. Some of them probably right here in this thread!

Well, i'm sure they're behind the end of something

Hey, if you can get gays into the military, the conservatives figure you could just put them on the front line of any dangerous situation.

Gay generals? NO.
Gay cannon fodder? CERTAINLY.

by the way

+1 for the subtle headline, subsucker

And I'm sure they'll be more than willing to put their lives on the line for a country that forbids them from marrying the ones they love.

Every year, hundreds of half naked muscular young men shimmy up a greased obelisk in Annapolis.

If I want a machine gun shoved up firmly up my asshole, than dammit I deserve that right!

CONservatives know where the Money is. they can't keep those Defense Contractor companies humming along if there aren't any Wars to feed them. and to have War, you need Troops, Gay or not.


Principles are important to republicans. but Money is most important.

all part of the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.