Hello:

There seems to be a spate of events related to our discrimination against gay people recently. A college student taped his gay roommate having sex and broadcast it... The gay student killed himself...

Here is an interview with Anderson Cooper (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/09/29/anderson_cooper_anti_gay_shirvell/index.html)with a crazy LAWYER who works for the ATTORNEY GENERAL in his state. He's being investigated now, but I can't believe he hasn't been fired...

Don't ask, don't tell is about to fall. TWO federal judges ruled against it in just the past month... Nope. It's over. What we're seeing is the last gasp of a dying philosophy. Bummer for you righty's, huh?

excon

In the original 'MASH' movie they miked a tent where Hot Lips and Frank Burns were “doing it”. In ' American Pie' they used a webcam to record one of their buddies sexual encounters.

I don't think the Rutgers tragedy is much different than a college prank that went bad.

Dharun Ravi, 18, of Plainsboro and Molly Wei, 18, of Princeton have been charged with invasion of privacy .

Let's think this through . 2 freshmen students who I presume were immigrant or 2nd generation children of immigrants webcam a roommate's sex as a pranking . The evidence of discrimination is that one of them ,Ravi made comments on line that his roommate was making out with a dude.
This happened at one of the liberal bastions of higher learning in NJ .

Now ,if (as you call it) discrimination against gay people ... is a dying philosophy;you would've thought the first place it would've been buried was on a liberal campus.

The real issue here is a lack of respect among our youth ,regardless of their sexual preferences . Already four teen students, as young as 13 and as old as 18, have taken their lives this school year because of ridicule and bullying .
Since 2003 in the United States, at least a dozen youths between 11 and 18 have killed themselves after some form of cyberbullying.

So why is this different than taping a man and women having sex ? They were having sex and someone taped them,
If they were ashamed of what they were doing, they should not have been doing it them HUH ?

so why is this different than taping a man and women having sex ? they were having sex and someone taped them,
If they were ashamed of what they were doing, they should not have been doing it them HUH ?

The difference is the left has labeled this tragedy a hate crime.

The difference is the left has labeled this tragedy a hate crime.
Was it? If not, what was the motivation? Have the two perps been interviewed?

I don't think the Rutgers tragedy is much different than a college prank that went bad.

Now ,if (as you call it) discrimination against gay people ...is a dying philosophy;you would've thought the first place it would've been buried was on a liberal campus.Hello again, tom:

Certainly, there will be holdouts. You may be one of them. But, as a national policy, it's ending.

I agree it's a prank gone bad - really bad. So what? Does that mean they're not culpable?? I remember as a young lad in the boy scouts, we were cleaning bark off a tree to make a totem pole. I took the blade kind of thing and just jokingly ran it across my friends leg. I cut a gash a couple inches long. Should I have been held culpable?? You betcha.

excon

so why is this different than taping a man and women having sex ? they were having sex and someone taped them,
If they were ashamed of what they were doing, they should not have been doing it them HUH ?
The difference was the young man committed suicide over it.
It wasn't only taped but it was streamed over the internet for anyone and everyone to see. The kid found out about it, filed a complaint, then jumped off the GW Bridge.

I don't know if this is as much about discrimination against gays as Excon (& Ellen DeGeneres) appear to believe it is. In my opinion I think it is more about cyber bullying which leads a teen to commit suicide. There have been at least 4 cases prior to this one that I am aware of. Do you remember that young teen who hanged herself? We saw the same amount of outrage over Megan Meier's death that we are seeing over Tyler Clementi's death. Suicide of Megan Meier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier)

In the original 'MASH' movie they miked a tent where Hot Lips and Frank Burns were “doing it”. In ' American Pie' they used a webcam to record one of their buddies sexual encounters.

First, these are movies, FICTION. Second, In MASH, the people were all adults thrust into a situation that cried for letting off steam. Third, in American Pie the boy was aware the webcam was running. So I don't believe either example is valid.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree with excon that this shows the "war" ending. Just as the election of President Obama doesn't mean that prejudice and bigotry has ended in America.

Scott ;I don't know if these kids ever saw Mash . But
I'm fairly certain that they have seen American Pie ,and may very well have been influenced by it. You left off the key part of my observation... that it was a college prank and not intended as some form of gay bashing.

Scott ;I don't know if these kids ever saw Mash . But
I'm fairly certain that they have seen American Pie ,and may very well have been influenced by it. You left off the key part of my observation .....that it was a college prank and not intended as some form of gay bashing.

I don't understand what you're getting at Tom. American Pie is a movie. It's fiction. It's for entertainment. What does that have to do with real life?

Prank or not, it resulted in a human committing suicide. It was a cruel thing to do, even if it wasn't a hate crime, or gay bashing, but just a prank. I hope the two people that committed this crime have many years to think about what they did, behind bars.

Prank or not, it resulted in a human committing suicide. It was a cruel thing to do, even if it wasn't a hate crime, or gay bashing, but just a prank.

Granted . My comments are about the OP which suggests that the motive was gay bashing . I'm guessing that it was not. Excon also suggests that this incident demonstrates that "discrimination against gay people"... is a dying philosophy" . I was simply pointing out that if it was motivated by anti-gay attitudes then it hardly demonstrates a changing attitude.

I'll go further... if it takes a judicial decision to change DADT then that also fails to demonstrate changing attitudes. If indeed there were changing attitudes in the military then a judicial decision would not be necessary.

gay bashing . I'm guessing that it was not.
So the two students had webcams scattered through the dorm in order to catch on film ANYone having sex in a dorm room??

I don't think so!

There was ONE webcam, and it was in this particular guy's room. It was there because he was gay. His activities were being watched and Twittered about. When the time was ripe, the webcam was turned on to film.

Here's an article from The Guardian --

One [of the accused] was Dharun Ravi, [Clementi's] roommate at college, the other Ravi's friend Molly Wei, who had a room on the same corridor. On the evening of Sunday 19 September, according to the account given by police, Clementi asked his roommate to give him some time alone in the room they shared.

Ravi agreed, and went down the hall into Wei's room. There, he allegedly logged onto Wei's computer and used it to access through Skype a webcam he had set up on his own computer back in the room he shared with Clementi.

It is not known whether what happened next was accidental or preconceived, but Ravi and Wei are alleged to have watched Clementi in what authorities described as a "sexual encounter" with another man.

It is claimed that Ravi then streamed the video live, and that same night broadcast to the 150 followers of his Twitter feed details of his voyeuristic escapade, outing Clementi in the process: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."

Two evenings later, Ravi tweeted: "Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9.30 and 12. Yes it's happening again."

Perhaps this incident (along with several others recently) will build sympathy for gays and the enormous stressors they have living among the rest of us so-called "normals."

I'll go further .....if it takes a judical decision to change DADT then that also fails to demonstrate changing attitudes. If indeed there were changing attitudes in the military then a judicial decision would not be necessary.Hello tom:

That's not the way it works here... If we waited for attitudes in the south to change, there would STILL be TWO sets of facilities down there - one for white people and one for black. The court leads - the nation follows.

Now, I agree with you, in that it SHOULD be the way YOU say it is... But, it ain't.

excon

Hello tom:

That's not the way it works here..... If we waited for attitudes in the south to change, there would STILL be TWO sets of facilities down there - one for white people and one for black. The court leads - the nation follows.

Now, I agree with you, in that it SHOULD be the way YOU say it is.... But, it ain't.

excon

So then attitudes aren't changing as you claim .The court is forcing social change. I'll give you my evidence. Wherever gay marriage has been put to the ballot ;it has been defeated.

WG
Are you saying that if his roomy was asking for the room for a straight sex trist,that he wouldn't have set up the webcam prank ?

"I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."

That sounds like a prank, not a hate crime. Granted, there should be a price to pay, but the vigilantes and opportunists need to back off and let the justice system do its job.

Don't ask, don't tell is about to fall. TWO federal judges ruled against it in just the past month...

A judge slapped an injunction on DADT . I was going to give the old Andrew Jackson line about the judge made the ruling ,let him enforce it... but I see the Obama Administration beat me to it.
Obama administration appeals gay marriage ruling | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012)

Hello again, tom:

Gay marriage and DADT aren't the same issue. Obama does NOT support gay marriage - he said so. He DOES support ending DADT - he said so. The INJUNCTION against DADT wasn't appealed, and I don't think it will be.

Nope. This is the last gasp of an ancient human emotion.

excon

Just thought I'd let you know that Iowa voters fired a shot in the war...


Iowans dismiss three justices (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101103/NEWS09/11030390/Iowans-dismiss-three-justices)

Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their seats Tuesday in a historic upset fueled by their 2009 decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry.

Vote totals from 96 percent of Iowa's 1,774 precincts showed Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit with less than the simple majority needed to stay on the bench.

Their removal marked the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained since 1962, when the merit selection and retention system for judges was adopted.

The decision is expected to echo to courts throughout the country, as conservative activists had hoped. "It appears we're headed for a resounding victory tonight and a historic moment in the state of Iowa," said Bob Vander Plaats, the Sioux City businessman who led a campaign to remove the justices because of the 2009 gay marriage ruling. "The people of Iowa stood up in record numbers and sent a message ... that it is 'We the people,' not 'We the courts.' "

If they were ashamed of what they were doing, they should not have been doing it them HUH ?

I think its less of feeling ashamed and more of an understanding of societies stand on this behavior. Knowing full well ridicul was on the way and his life would be different at that school from that moment on. I don't think he was ashamed, he just understood that society in general won't let this go lightly.

Hello again,

Cool. Now you can love your country AND the guy in your foxhole.

excon

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UJMJ) - ART. 125. SODOMY (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-125.htm)

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UJMJ) - ART. 125. SODOMY (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-125.htm)
That could be you and your wife!

Hello again, tom:

Me and couple buddies wanted to spend the weekend in Jacksonvile, Florida, so we drove down from Charleston, S.C. where our ship was stationed at the time. On the way, we stopped for lunch. My BLACK shipmate had to wait in the car, though.

The restaurant that did that, had a law on the books that allowed them to do it - just like the sodomy law you cite. When congress signed the Civil Rights Act, those laws changed - just like the sodomy law you cited will surly change.

excon

I guess there is no more justification for the law ;no legitimate state interest to make moral judgement... or is there a line in the sand even libertarians will not cross ?

How about the case of Columbia Professor David Epstein who is accused of incest with his adult daughter ? Does the state have a compelling interest there ? They are 2 consenting adults .

Epstein faces up to four years behind bars if convicted.

Columbia professor is charged with incest, accused of bedding young relative for 3 years (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/12/09/2010-12-09_columbia_professor_is_charged_with_incest_accus ed_of_bedding_young_relative_for_.html#ixzz18eQAeB OQ)

If they were permitted to marry then they would at least solve the estate tax issue.

What does incest have to do with same-sex marriage or gays serving in the military?

It has everything to do with it. The justification for the 'right' is that the 'state' has no business legislating morality .

I just wonder what line in the sand there is if any .

The justification for the 'right' is that the 'state' has no business legislating morality Hello again, tom:

Nahhh, tom... It's just that what you consider immoral, the nation doesn't any more. I think it's immoral to waterboard somebody... You think it's just hunky dory.

excon

So there are lines in the sand... it's just a matter then of shifting standards... I'll say it again;when given a vote ,the people of the country have consistently voted against things like gay marriage. But it has been evident since the Texas case that the Courts will ignore the will of the people and impose their own version of morality on the nation. Evidently lame duck Senators are willing to do the same .

I find it very interesting that the Democrats waited for a lame duck session ;after the elections ,to do this legislation. I find it also very interesting that Joe Manchin of West Va. who faces another election campaign in 2 years opted to go shopping rather than to vote on this issue.

You should also be pleased however that social issues are not a defining issue with tea party Senators. 2 Senators supported by the tea party voted for the repeal . (Kirk and Brown)

So there are lines in the sand ....it's just a matter then of shifting standards..... I'll say it again;when given a vote ,the people of the country have consistently voted against things like gay marriage. Hello tom:

Shifting standards?? Nahhh... We're still the good people we've always been. What changes is our ASSESSMENT of how we stack up against those standards... This vote says we were on the wrong side of 'em. You believe it's immoral for gay people to participate in the public process.. The PUBLIC now realizes that it's immoral to deny their participation...

In terms of shifting standards, though... We ALWAYS knew that waterboarding was torture, and it ALWAYS will be. It's YOUR side that made a humongous shift on that... Personally, it's easier to live a life if these standards DON'T change..

excon

Since it's now okay to be an open "gay" in the military be prepared to read lots of friendly fire accidental killings in the papers and on the net where no one was indicted for accidentally killing a gay. If the gays were smart they'd only do desk duty jobs and stay out of the fighting arenas where they are bound to "catch" a few stray bullets. Real men serving in the military don't like gay folks regardless if there is a law against it. You can't force anyone to go against their moral principals regardless if it's against the law. You'll see.

Since it's now okay to be an open "gay" in the military be prepared to read lots of friendly fire accidental killings in the papers and on the net where no one was indicted for accidently killing a gay. ...You'll see.
See: Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)

see: Psychological projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)

What has that got to do with what I said? The men or women in the military who are straight really don't like gay folks. Who is to say that the gay folks won't conveniently become "friendly fire fodder"?

The men or women in the military who are straight really don't like gay folks.
Do you have stats to back that up?

Gay people live and work among us civilians too. Should we just do away with all of them, military and civilian?

WG,
Sometimes people troll forums to get others riled up with their comments.

WG,
Sometimes people troll forums to get others riled up with their comments.
I've read many of Twink's posts and know how she thinks. (Hmmm, Twink's thinks... )

WG,
Sometimes people troll forums to get others riled up with their comments.

Lol

lol

So far today according to NK, I'm a hater and Twinkie is projecting and trolling. Ironic isn't it?

Since it's now okay to be an open "gay" in the military be prepared to read lots of friendly fire accidental killings.... You'll see.Hello again,

My friend twink speaks the truth. The hate DOES run that deep. However, in spite of their virulent disagreement with the new rules, I hope our men in uniform aren't murderers. We'll see.

Nonetheless, as a nation, we're to be commended for FINALLY recognizing a civil right, instead of succumbing to homophobia. Is there any doubt, gay marriage is next?

excon

Sigh...

The rhetoric has gotten way out of hand... on everything. All year it was "Tea Party racism." Now it's the hatred of gays runs that deep? Bullsh*t, Americans are by and large past racism and we don't hate gays. Stop fueling these unnecessary fires.

Our military will deal with this the way they deal with anything else, with honor.

Now it's the hatred of gays runs that deep? Bullsh*t, Americans are by and large past racism and we don't hate gays. Hello again, Steve:

In YOUR Pollyanna world, it's so... But in the real world where twink and I live, she's spot on.

excon

In YOUR Pollyanna world, it's so... But in the real world where twink and I live, she's spot on.

If you'll remember, I don't live in a Pollyana world, I live in Texas which has been a minority-majority state since 2005, AS A MINORITY in the Hispanic neighborhood in which I've lived for roughly 43 of my 50 years. I also have a bisexual daughter and a number of gay relatives and friends. I don't know if you've noticed but we're not running around hating on each other, we're family friends, neighbors and coworkers. If you can't get along in your liberal part of the world it ain't my fault, so don't 'project' your problems on the rest of us.

I also have a bisexual daughter and a number of gay relatives and friends. I don't know if you've noticed but we're not running around hating on each other, we're family friends, neighbors and coworkers. Hello again, Steve:

You wouldn't be saying, would you, that because YOU have a gay friendly family, that there AREN'T homophobes out there who would LOVE to drag a faggot behind his truck until dead?? Are your blinders THAT BIG?? Dude!!

excon

Here we go again, that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You think because I don't qualify everything I say with "yeah, there are exceptions" that you must beat me over the head with the EXCEPTION.

Again, enough of that bulls*t rhetoric. We may not agree on everything but we agree that lynching gays and blacks is a horrible hate crime. So you have a choice, you can keep hammering the wedge in between us, keep portraying us as a bunch of backwoods rednecks that hate gays and blacks or you can acknowledge the very visible progress that's been made in race relations and acceptance of gays.

In other words, like the majority of Americans, I know I'm not a racist or a homophobe, it's time to acknowledge that fact. I don't believe there are going to be a rash of "friendly fire" incidents in the our military against gays. Our military will respond with honor.

General Amos, who was against DADT repeal responded thusly:


“Above all else, we are loyal to the Constitution, our Commander in Chief, Congress, our Chain of Command, and the American people,” said Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, in a prepared statement released Sunday.

… “As stated during my testimony before Congress in September and again during hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, the Marine Corps will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new policy. I, and the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, will personally lead this effort, thus ensuring the respect and dignity due all Marines.

“On this matter, we look forward to further demonstrating to the American people the discipline and loyalty that have been the hallmark of the United States Marine Corps for over 235 years.”

And if a bunch of Islamic jihadists get their a$$es kicked by some gay dudes, all the better if you ask me.

Hello again,

My friend twink speaks the truth. The hate DOES run that deep. However, in spite of their virulent disagreement with the new rules, I hope our men in uniform aren't murderers. We'll see.

Nonetheless, as a nation, we're to be commended for FINALLY recognizing a civil right, instead of succumbing to homophobia. Is there any doubt, gay marriage is next?

excon

OK , congratulations to the lame duck Dems in overturning a Democrat policy. Well done!

ok , congratulations to the lame duck Dems in overturning a Democrat policy. Well done !!Hello tom:

You diminish the accomplishment - because it's big.

excon

Low hanging fruit. You can tell it's unimportance by the size of his self congratulatory presser.

His base certainly sees it that way and this will only placate them temporarily.

low hanging fruit. You can tell it's unimportance by the size of his self congratulatory presser. Hello again, tom:

Your poo pooing the accomplishment (TWICE, I might add), betrays your true feelings... You can't fool me. We've been acquainted for a while now...

I suspect you feel like the moral underpinnings holding your country together, are being whittled away.. I understand how you feel. I felt the same way when I saw my country become torturers.

excon

PS> Merry Christmas, my friend.

Let me see, we really need to pick someone new to hate, if the way against illegal mexicans is over, if the war against drugs is lost, and we can't hate gays.

I vote for the French, I mean who really likes french food anyway, and they don't speak english, yep, lets give up the other wars and go after them

who really likes french food anyway
At least eat french fries. My son works for the U.S.'s biggest frozen potato/fries supplier to fast-food places, restaurants, and grocery stores.

Let me see, we really need to pick someone new to hate,
Why?

We have to have groups to raise money, spend money on advertising both for and against. So you realise how much money is spent on gay rights, both for and against, if that war has ended, an entire section of our economy may close.

are you just unAmerican, Americans have always had an enemy to go after, British ( they even forced churches to close during the Revolution. Then the Indians, then Mexico, then Germany and Japan, then hippies, and drugs and rock and roll, then gays,

So there will always be someone or something that is not being accepted because of some value.

I guess it should be the Christian, since it is moral values that are the issue with people not being moral. That makes them excluded.

Nonetheless, as a nation, we're to be commended for FINALLY recognizing a civil right, instead of succumbing to homophobia. Is there any doubt, gay marriage is next?

excon

So as a nation are we now going to have separate facilities for those that come out? Or is the trampaling of others rights more important? If they don't create the separate then the issues will be forced sexual harassment.

The powers that be need to make all the needed changes before any of this takes effect or they will sink in their own mess.

Next week the Rainbow league is going to be demanding the standard issue cammo be changed to pink and fusia tones...

And charge that the Straight members of the Military are discriminating against them by refusing to date them and have sex with them.

I guess it should be the Christian, since it is moral values that are the issue with people not being moral. that makes them excluded.Nah, the new war should be on immoral people then, not christians, since we know that christians (a) haven't cornered the market on morality, and (b) there are just as many christians who do immoral things as non-christians. You guys keep on warring and wasting money.

Or is the trampaling of others rights more important? Hello again, dad:

The only difference between NOW and in the future, is that a gay person won't have to hide. Straight soldiers are NOW taking showers with gay people, even though they don't know it. KNOWING it, won't confer additional rights on the straight soldier.

excon

Next week the Rainbow league is going to be demanding the standard issue cammo be changed to pink and fusia tones...

Of the ten or so (wonderful) gay people I know, none of them would demand this. All blend very nicely and seamlessly into the work world and social whirl. I found out about most of them when I met their SO.

I vote for the French, I mean who really likes french food anyway, and they don't speak english, yep, lets give up the other wars and go after them

I like a nice Beaujolais.

Hello again, dad:

The only difference between NOW and in the future, is that a gay person won't have to hide. Straight soldiers are NOW taking showers with gay people, even though they don't know it. KNOWING it, won't confer additional rights on the straight soldier.

excon

I beg to differ on you with this one. But when you have a person that has come out then they will need to be held separate just like the sexes have been held separate. It's the same type of thing. How do you see it different??

I beg to differ on you with this one. But when you have a person that has come out then they will need to be held seperate just like the sexes have been held seperate. Its the same type of thing. How do you see it different???
Do blacks or Asians shower separately from whites?

How do you see it different???Hello again, dad:

The homophobes in our military have no right to be protected from being offended...

excon

Do blacks or Asians shower separately from whites?

No, its not about race. The men don't shower with the women do they ?

No, its not about race. The men dont shower with the women do they ?
Women are a different race from men?

Women are a different race from men?

Your much smarter then that. So why play a game?

Unless everything is made into unisex then it should be held separate. If you don't like it so be it. But forcing it on people will bring nothing but trouble.

You're much smarter then that. So why play a game?
I was just joining up with yours.

Unless everything is made into unisex then it should be held separate. If you don't like it so be it. But forcing it on people will bring nothing but trouble.
I'm not sure what this means.

I was just joining up with yours.

I'm not sure what this means.

What I am stating is that when the military allows for gay's to be open then separate facilities should be made so they have their own. Like now how they separate men and women facilities. Sleeping quarters, showers and bathrooms.

What I am stating is that when the military allows for gay's to be open then seperate facilities should be made so they have thier own. Like now how they seperate men and women facilities. Sleeping quarters, showers and bathrooms.
Would straight men worry about sleeping in the same tent with gays? I'm straight and would share a tent with a lesbian. I'd even take a shower with her with no problems.

Would straight men worry about sleeping in the same tent with gays? I'm straight and would share a tent with a lesbian.

If your in the field your in the field. The traditional way of the military is that you do what has to be done. Most barracks are not tent cities. Its an apples and oranges thing when comparing in the field to your home station of deployment.

If your in the field your in the field. The traditional way of the military is that you do what has to be done. Most barracks are not tent cities. Its an apples and oranges thing when comparing in the field to your home station of deployment.
Barracks. Tents. Battlefield. Anywhere. I have no problem living with lesbians. I would draw the line at gay guys -- not because they're gay, but because they're guys.

Barracks. Tents. Battlefield. Anywhere. I have no problem living with lesbians. I would draw the line at gay guys -- not because they're gay, but because they're guys.

Why does that matter? If they are gay and open about it then they aren't attracted to you right ?

Why does that matter? If they are gay and open about it then they arent attracted to you right ?
The guys? The straight ones would be attracted to me and might not have any boundaries. Or so you think regarding gays toward straights -- attracted to straights and no boundaries.

The guys? The straight ones would be attracted to me and might not have any boundaries. Or so you think regarding gays toward straights -- attracted to straights and no boundaries.

Exactly. :)

exactly. :)
But gays DO have boundaries, just like most males do toward females.

How many times a day are you hit on by gay males? (They're everywhere among us.)

But gays DO have boundaries, just like most males do toward females.

How many times a day are you hit on by gay males? (They're everywhere among us.)

Im not talking about daily activities. I was only addressing the more private ones.

Im not talking about daily activities. I was only addressing the more private ones.
I showered with lesbians in gym class in high school and college, and no one ever hit on me. Had I showered with the guys, I suspect there would have been some problems.

Do you think gays lie in wait for straights (during private activities)?

I showered with lesbians in gym class in high school and college, and no one ever hit on me. Had I showered with the guys, I suspect there would have been some problems.

Do you think gays lie in wait for straights (during private activities)?

Do I think the lay in wait?? No, but because of the attraction gay men have towards same sex there may be a thrill involved that you wouldn't encounter with a straight person.

Do I think the lay in wait ??? No, but because of the attraction gay men have towards same sex there may be a thrill involved that you wouldnt encounter with a straight person.
Sort of like what we women have to deal with regarding straight men?

And the gay men are attracted to straight men, but lesbians aren't attracted to straight women?

Sort of like what we women have to deal with regarding straight men?

And the gay men are attracted to straight men, but lesbians aren't attracted to straight women?

Your beating a dead horse here.

To use your words: Sort of like what we women have to deal with regarding straight men??

I wasn't aware you were undressing in front of so many men. I guess this must be an occupational hazzard ?

You're beating a dead horse here.
No, you are. You're saying every straight guy who takes a shower with a gay guy is in grave (sexual) danger.

I wasn't aware you were undressing in front of so many men. I guess this must be an occupational hazzard ?
If I were, I'd apparently be having the same problems you straight guys are having with gay men.

I never said grave sexual danger. I used the words sexual harassment.

FAQs - Workplace Harassment (http://www.strategichr.com/shrsweb2/harassment_01.shtml)

Anyway. Im about to log off as Santa is making the midnight rounds and I have a lot of driving to do. Have a great rest of the evening / morning.

Merry Christmas.

I never said grave sexual danger. I used the words sexual harassment.
I'm guessing the same percentage of gay guys will harass in military life as do in civilian life.

Anyway. Im about to log off as Santa is making the midnight rounds and I have a lot of driving to do. Have a great rest of the evening / morning.
Oh! You've already been to my house! We opened all the gifts you brought, so now I'll eat some of the See's chocolates you brought.

Merry Christmas! Thanks for the discussion!

Hello again, dad:

I'm different than you. I don't care who thinks I'm attractive as I go about by daily life. I'm absolutely certain that I turn on gay guys. It doesn't offend me. Yes, when I was in the Navy and in the can, I'm CERTAIN that I showered with gay's. I don't know, for sure, because I never saw anybody with a boner in the shower, which is what I think YOU think will happen...

There are straight men who feel threatened if they think a gay guy is turned on to them... I guess they think their masculinity is threatened... Those people couldn't possibly take a shower with a gay guy even if the gay guy NEVER gave him a glance.

The majority of MEN would NOT feel threatened in that situation, but you think we should protect the few that do. That's just not going to happen.

excon

PS> Merry Christmas

Hello again,

See? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconstitutional_n_827134.html)I told you.

excon

I guess next he will claim elections are unconstitutional and then he can be president for life. Sound familiar ? He has lost his mind if he thinks he is supreme ruler of this United States.

Last I heard we were still suppose to be a system of checks and balances not a lock step society.

He's already declared the Senate, House and Supreme court... to be subservient to his delusions of Omnipotence... rather than co-equal branches.


Obamas essentually acting like a dictator now rather than just a blowhard egomaniac.

Hello dad:

A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law.

The American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".

George W. Bush signed 750 of them. Here's a list (http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm).

excon

DOMA is Federal law passed by Congress and signed into law .It has not been stuck down in Courts. He is shirking his duty with this decision and showing contempt of Congress in doing so .

I did not know Zero was now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Oh wait ;that's right... he's Chief Executive... not Chief Justice. His job is to enforce the law .

He truly is an imperial President . He makes laws without Congress ;enforces the ones he choses ,and makes definitive judicial declarations on the law as if he is the Pope speaking ex cathedra .

Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator considers a Palin Presidency ;a Mark Levin AG ,and the issue of enforcing Roe v Wade :


Barely twenty-four hours after her inauguration as America's first woman chief executive, President Sarah Palin announced today that Attorney General Mark Levin has been instructed to stop defending Roe v. Wade and abortion in a wave of fresh lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.

Said the Attorney General:

"Roe v. Wade contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of unborn children and their potential intimate and family relationships -- precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

"Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 40 years since the Supreme Court created a so-called 'right to privacy,' which has no constitutional basis and no tangible form," Levin said in a statement. He noted that various Supreme Court justices have previously ruled that laws authorizing the taking of the life of an unborn child are unconstitutional and that Congress has forbidden the federal government from paying for abortions.

At the White House, a spokesman said Palin herself was never one to be "grappling" with her personal view of abortion, and has always personally opposed Roe v. Wade as "unnecessary and unfair."

Levin wrote to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that Palin has concluded Roe v. Wade fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination. "The unborn, perhaps the most vulnerable minority group in history, have a severe history of discrimination," added the new attorney general.

The attorney general also said the Justice Department had defended the law in court until now because the government was able to advance reasonable arguments for the law based on a less strict standard.

On Wednesday, Levin said the president has concluded that, given a documented history of discrimination against the unborn, classifications that include genetic detection of sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny than the department had been applying in legal challenges to the act up to now.

The attorney general said the department will immediately bring the policy change to the attention of two federal courts now hearing separate lawsuits targeting Roe v. Wade.

The decision brought an angry response from Planned Parenthood. In what sources say was a heated phone conversation with the head of the pro-abortion group, one shocked Justice Department career attorney said the Attorney General was heard to say:

"Get off the phone you big dope."


The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Attorney General Mark Levin: Won't Enforce Roe v. Wade (http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/24/attorney-general-mark-levin-wo)

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Attorney General Mark Levin: Won't Enforce Roe v. WadeHello tom:

Here's what's REALLY happening.. He's going to ENFORCE DOMA, he's just not going to defend it in court.

In any case, some people (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0610c.asp) thought the Bush signing statements were the acts of a dictator... You could include me in that group.

excon

The good part of this is that DOMA will not get phoney insincere representation from the Holder Justice Dept. Other legal organizations like Landmark Legal Foundation will take the lead.

The good part of this is that DOMA will not get phoney insincere representation from the Holder Justice Dept. Other legal organizations like Landmark Legal Foundation will take the lead.Hello again, tom:

Then it should work out for you.

excon