Don't ask Don't Tell is dead...

[Vertnut]

But they dont know it...now they will and if the fags have the right to be open about it, we have the right to say that we dont want them in the same shower as us...and now fags will have more confidence to be open about it and throw it in our faces that we cannot say anything about it.
You sure seem to be championing the fags cause...did you join under DADT?

This is EXACTLY what the supporters of this DO NOT understand! Not everyone KNEW they were gay. I don't expect them to wear pink tutu's to the shower, but there will be no discretion. Let the lawsuits begin!

[davbrucas]

Straight people are already showering and bunking with gays.

But they dont know it...now they will and if the fags have the right to be open about it, we have the right to say that we dont want them in the same shower as us...and now fags will have more confidence to be open about it and throw it in our faces that we cannot say anything about it.
You sure seem to be championing the fags cause...did you join under DADT?

[YALE]

I'm just curious how housing/bunking will be affected. Showers. etc.

Straight people are already showering and bunking with gays.

[Vertnut]

I'm just curious how housing/bunking will be affected. Showers. etc.

I'm thinking "soap-on-a-rope" will become government issue...

[GhostTX]

I'm just curious how housing/bunking will be affected. Showers. etc.

[ceyko]

Like Yale said, DADT or not...the gays were still already in and it didn't make much of a difference then. I don't see why them being open about it would affect that much, aside from some added prejudice against them.

I hope you're right. Really I do.

You currently have the gays who are used to the old ways. Over a period of time you'll have the open and possibly flaming queers joining. I don't think making a call on it NOW is a proper measure of how it's going to all pan out. I'd say make that call in about 2-3 years.

Then the eye fucking and sexual harrassment may increase male to male...etc

Like I've posted before, MY mind is not going to change on this matter. I still really hope I'm dead wrong and it all turns out 100% perfect. I just foresee problems. Sexual harrassment and beat downs to start with - if the homos don't keep their mouths/attitudes in check.

[Vertnut]

They really can't. New laws can't be used like that. Take the Ledbetter Act. The lady it's named after waited too long to sue her employer for paying her less than male counterparts under the laws on the books at the time, so she's SOL. The new law is only applicable to situations after its passing. That would be like going back and cutting everyone ever a check because Congress voted to raise the minimum wage.

Discrimination suits seem to have different guidelines, and with the judges we have in place (along with the attorney general we have), I'm very concerned. We just payed $60 billion in "restitution" to black farmers.

[YALE]

If you guys are good, I'm good. I don't have the perception that you guys have, and my issues were more about the logistics of many coming back and filing lawsuits for benefits and back-pay.

They really can't. New laws can't be used like that. Take the Ledbetter Act. The lady it's named after waited too long to sue her employer for paying her less than male counterparts under the laws on the books at the time, so she's SOL. The new law is only applicable to situations after its passing. That would be like going back and cutting everyone ever a check because Congress voted to raise the minimum wage.

[Vertnut]

You all seem much more concerned about it than just about anybody in my entire battalion. Doesn't seem to affect anyone too much aside from the passing joke. The pentagon's surveys reflect the same.

Like Yale said, DADT or not...the gays were still already in and it didn't make much of a difference then. I don't see why them being open about it would affect that much, aside from some added prejudice against them.

If you guys are good, I'm good. I don't have the perception that you guys have, and my issues were more about the logistics of many coming back and filing lawsuits for benefits and back-pay.

[exlude]

You all seem much more concerned about it than just about anybody in my entire battalion. Doesn't seem to affect anyone too much aside from the passing joke. The pentagon's surveys reflect the same.

Like Yale said, DADT or not...the gays were still already in and it didn't make much of a difference then. I don't see why them being open about it would affect that much, aside from some added prejudice against them.

[YALE]

No it won't affect that much. Except perhaps the lives of those serving. Are we to have segregation in the military now? I have every right not to want a gay man being able to look at me in the shower/changing room/whatever. No woman would want to shower with random straight men, so why should she have to shower with some dike that might be interested in her? Guess our kenyan friend just doesn't care what repercussions his actions have on others. After all, he's not in the military, right? He's nothing but a fraud. For being a "muslim" he sure is tolerant of gays.

Yale! I'd like a reply to my statement please.

First of all, everyone agrees that gays are already in the military, right? Sounds like every person in the military has most likely already showered with, and slept in the same room with a gay. WTF does this change about that?

SIDE BAR: Were you on the old board?

[Vertnut]

Obviously nothing is going to change your mind. Doesn't defeat my point though.

Most people change when they get a little older. Jimmy Carter changed my mind, and Obama has confirmed that I was right back then.

[GSRGuy94]

Obviously nothing is going to change your mind. Doesn't defeat my point though.

[Vertnut]

All I had to do was Google "Koran infidel," and this was the 2nd link to come up.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=9801&CATE=1426

So like I said, and if you bother to read that passage, the Koran doesn't say to kill everybody that isn't Muslim. It says to defend yourself from those that persecute you. It is the Muslim extremists that bend the Koran to their individual beliefs. Sounds awfully familiar... And before you ask, no I am not Muslim. And I'm not gay either.

There are a shitload of muslim extremists' that interpret that by butchering all walks of life. Remember when they knocked our buildings down? The cheers from muslims world-wide? I'm still thinking you're a muslim with a little "sugar in your tank"...We can argue this all week long, but you won't change my mind.

By the way, when the REAL congress comes in next month, anything can (and might) change.

[GSRGuy94]

All I had to do was Google "Koran infidel," and this was the 2nd link to come up.

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=9801&CATE=1426

Islam is a fourteen-hundred years old way of life. One simply can't take the scripture of Islam, which is the Qur'an (also spelled Koran), and make sweeping generalizations about the religion, particularly when one lacks the qualifications to interpret the Qur'an.

The Qur'an makes reference to different groups of non-Muslims. First, the Qur'an recognizes the natural diversity of humanity, "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." (Qu'ran, 49:13)

There is also the recognition that human beings are religiously and ethnically diverse, "For, had God so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community; however, He lets go astray him that wills [to go astray], and guides aright him that wills [to be guided]; and you will surely be called to account for all that you ever did!" (Qur'an, 16:93)

What then does the Qur'an say about "infidels?" First, what does the term infidel mean? It is not a Qur'anic term. It is a term that Christians have historically applied to non-Christians, particularly Muslims. Christian doctrine simply did not recognize the legitimacy of Islam. Hence, Muslims were "infidels," and usually placed in the same category as "pagans" and "savages."

The Qur'an speaks of "kuffar," or those who disbelieve, or cover up the truth, or deny the truth of God and His messengers. However, it is incorrect to translate "kafir" as infidel. The Qur'an also does not label all non-Muslims as kuffar, or unbelievers.

The Qur'an talks about a group of non-Muslims called "Ahl al-Kitab," or People of Scripture. These are people who have received divine revelation, particularly Christians and Jews. Therefore, the Qur'an automatically recognizes previous Abrahamic faiths and accords special status to the adherents of Christianity and Judaism. What is ironic is that Christian and Jewish doctrine makes no provision for the recognition of Islam; however, Islam recognizes both Christianity and Judaism as divinely-revealed religions. But it is Islam that is always accused of intolerance!

The Qur'an is the culmination of the Abrahamic tradition. Thus, Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the completion of God's message to humanity. Muslims also believe that the Qur'an has been preserved in its original form since its revelation over 1400 years ago. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has not been altered by human hands. For Muslims, this is a miracle and proof of God's concern for humanity.

Let's look at one of the most misunderstood passages of the Qur'an:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out..."

Most people usually only quote the first part.

Here's the entire passage:

"And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors." (Qur'an, 2:190-192)

Let's look at the interpretation of the above verses. First, examine the historical context. These verses were revealed at a time when Islam was under siege, when the small Muslim community was fighting for its very existence against powerful polytheists. The biography of the Prophet Muhammad, Allah bless him and give him peace, makes it very clear that the Prophet preached peacefully for the first 13 years of his mission. He left Mecca for Medina to make a new start. Even when the polytheists in Mecca were persecuting Muslims and looting their houses, the Prophet hesitated to fight. He only took up arms when God gave him permission:

"Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them." (Qur'an, 22:39)

So like I said, and if you bother to read that passage, the Koran doesn't say to kill everybody that isn't Muslim. It says to defend yourself from those that persecute you. It is the Muslim extremists that bend the Koran to their individual beliefs. Sounds awfully familiar... And before you ask, no I am not Muslim. And I'm not gay either.