2 women share 1st kiss at US Navy ship's return

[æonpax]

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — A Navy tradition caught up with the repeal of the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule on Wednesday when two women sailors became the first to share the coveted "first kiss" on the dock after one of them returned from 80 days at sea.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta of Placerville, Calif., descended from the USS Oak Hill amphibious landing ship and shared a quick kiss with her partner, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell of Los Angeles. The crowd screamed and waved flags around them.

Both women, ages 22 and 23 respectively, are fire controlmen in the Navy. They met at training school and have been dating for two years. ~ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45753034/ns/us_news-life/ ~


http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3853/111221navyhomecomingkis.jpg

While I am overjoyed to see the US Military's abolishment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a part of me says that showing two men kissing, would have sent a much stronger message. Still, it's progress.

[Long Duck Dong]

so its two ladies sharing a kiss..... and its not * as good a message * as two males kissing... ????

I see two people that love each other, sharing a kiss when they are able to hold each other again..... I see affection, I see love and desire, I see a couple enjoying each others company.....

that is about as good a message as we need to send to people.... that we love and can be loved as people, not just as LGBT people, but as normal human beings.......

*devaluing * a personal sharing of affection as not as good as the sharing of affection by gender, is something that stinks of personal agenda pushing.... and takes away from a aspect of LGBT that needs to be seen by people.. and that is that we have feelings, emotions, we care, we love and we want that to be recognized...... and thats regardless of sexuality and gender......

we are people that are LGBT, not LGBT that are people

[æonpax]

so its two ladies sharing a kiss..... and its not * as good a message * as two males kissing... ????

I see two people that love each other, sharing a kiss when they are able to hold each other again..... I see affection, I see love and desire, I see a couple enjoying each others company.....

that is about as good a message as we need to send to people.... that we love and can be loved as people, not just as LGBT people, but as normal human beings.......

*devaluing * a personal sharing of affection as not as good as the sharing of affection by gender, is something that stinks of personal agenda pushing.... and takes away from a aspect of LGBT that needs to be seen by people.. and that is that we have feelings, emotions, we care, we love and we want that to be recognized...... and thats regardless of sexuality and gender......

we are people that are LGBT, not LGBT that are people

That’s what I like about your opinions, they are always so utterly out of context. To the more educated LGBT mind, the bigotry and hatred against gay people is directed mainly against men. Two women kissing, however passionate and meaningful, is also very acceptable to the heterosexual community…a point that went way, way over your head.

Two men kissing, would show a much more graphic display of commitment by the US Military and send a clear message to all gay men that the military is serious about accepting gay men to proudly serve in their ranks. It is also abundantly clear you did not read the article I linked to.

Secondly, I would add your opinion only reflects what you think, as mine does. You do NOT in any way shape or form represent the LGBT community.

Think before you comment.

[Long Duck Dong]

That’s what I like about your opinions, they are always so utterly out of context. To the more educated LGBT mind, the bigotry and hatred against gay people is directed mainly against men. Two women kissing, however passionate and meaningful, is also very acceptable to the heterosexual community…a point that went way, way over your head.

Two men kissing, would show a much more graphic display of commitment by the US Military and send a clear message to all gay men that the military is serious about accepting gay men to proudly serve in their ranks. It is also abundantly clear you did not read the article I linked to.

Secondly, I would add your opinion only reflects what you think, as mine does. You do NOT in any way shape or form represent the LGBT community.

Think before you comment.
.
to people like me that understand 80+ days away from ya partner and the desire to show them that goddam we missed them, its a kiss between two people that love each other..... but I quess people like me, understand that not every public display of affection has to be about sending a message to some stranger that they do not care about.....

this is their moment, their chance to hold each other and say I love you... a special moment in time...... and thats something I understand and respect.....but I do not see the need to push a agenda with everything a LGBT person does..... there comes a time when we need to stop doing everything to get in the face of everybody else, and think about ourselves and the ones we love......

two men kissing I would view the same way, but people like you would take the magic out of it for the two guys and turn it into a statement, a LGBT agenda..... and make reluctant * heros * out of people that just want to show their partner they miss them and they love them.......

thats the trouble when we reduce people to being LGBT, we turn them from people, into statements.....

[darkeyes]

that is about as good a message as we need to send to people.... that we love and can be loved as people, not just as LGBT people, but as normal human beings.......



I agree with u here Duckie and no doubt æon does 2..but it isnt a case of agenda pushing, but a recognition of a fact that until lovers, irrespective of gender or sexuality should be able to act publicly in just the same way upon return from a long absence or even upon meeting, the lgbt still has work to be done... it isnt that we are people who happen to be lgbt, but we are people who love and date.. who we love and shouldnt matter but that in todays world it is more acceptable for 2 women to do this than 2 men..

[DuckiesDarling]

I agree with u here Duckie and no doubt æon does 2..but it isnt a case of agenda pushing, but a recognition of a fact that until lovers, irrespective of gender or sexuality should be able to act publicly in just the same way upon return from a long absence or even upon meeting, the lgbt still has work to be done... it isnt that we are people who happen to be lgbt, but we are people who love and date.. who we love and shouldnt matter but that in todays world it is more acceptable for 2 women to do this than 2 men..

Fran? Who is really saying that it is more acceptable for 2 women to do the picture than 2 men? Oh yeah, the ones with an agenda to push. Sorry, that doesn't wash. Why not be proud of the fact that true love was captured in that picture, not omg two lesbians, but two lovers. It is a moment that should be celebrated for what it is not denigrated for what it isn't.

[darkeyes]

Fran? Who is really saying that it is more acceptable for 2 women to do the picture than 2 men? Oh yeah, the ones with an agenda to push. Sorry, that doesn't wash. Why not be proud of the fact that true love was captured in that picture, not omg two lesbians, but two lovers. It is a moment that should be celebrated for what it is not denigrated for what it isn't.You go out into the wider heterosxual world and ask that one Darlin' darlin.... don't ask it of me... I don't make their rules I just try in me own lil way to have their rules changed.. I agree with you.. to me they are 2 lovers... u tell that to the big bad world... dont take issue with me..

[æonpax]

.
to people like me that understand 80+ days away from ya partner and the desire to show them that goddam we missed them, its a kiss between two people that love each other..... but I quess people like me, understand that not every public display of affection has to be about sending a message to some stranger that they do not care about.....

this is their moment, their chance to hold each other and say I love you... a special moment in time...... and thats something I understand and respect.....but I do not see the need to push a agenda with everything a LGBT person does..... there comes a time when we need to stop doing everything to get in the face of everybody else, and think about ourselves and the ones we love......

two men kissing I would view the same way, but people like you would take the magic out of it for the two guys and turn it into a statement, a LGBT agenda..... and make reluctant * heros * out of people that just want to show their partner they miss them and they love them.......

thats the trouble when we reduce people to being LGBT, we turn them from people, into statements.....


1) ""Sigh""...Read the article and look at the video....I have a hyperlink to it. I will post it again; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45753034/ns/us_news-life/

2) IF you would have read the the article, it was reported that the two women had been dating for two years and unless the symbolism behind a kiss has changed, a "reasonable person" would assume the two are in love. Your droning on about it sounds a lot like "Captain Obvious" to me.

3) "LGBT Agenda?" Pray tell, what is an "LGBT agenda?" Is equal rights for gays some kind of sinister plot the LGBT is up to? Please explain your statement.

4) The entire article has a clear political message to it. Had you actually read at it, under the headline, it states; "Kiss marks first time on record that a same-sex couple was chosen for homecoming tradition ." You may not agree but this is news, which is the breaking down of the long held barrier the US Military had against gay service people. Hopefully, in time, this will be so common, it will not be newsworthy, but now it is.

5) "reluctant * heros *? (shakes head) Look at the video on the news article where the two Navy women are talking to a reporter. "Reluctant?" I don't think so.

6) I'm tempted to post some LGBT sites that are linking to this MSNBC news article but clicking on hyperlinks doesn't appear to be something you can do. Other mainstream sources are also picking this up...except for faux news.

7) My OPINION is that I would have rather seen two males for the reasons I already explained. Disagree with that all you want, that's why forums like this exist. However, when a person who obviously chooses not to get all the facts, that are readily available, starts going off on a pontificating tangent without all those facts, those statements become meaningless.

[DuckiesDarling]

You go out into the wider heterosxual world and ask that one Darlin' darlin.... don't ask it of me... I don't make their rules I just try in me own lil way to have their rules changed.. I agree with you.. to me they are 2 lovers... u tell that to the big bad world... dont take issue with me..

Fran, I do go out in the real world and I have plenty of friends that are bi and gay and I have my entire life. To me they are just friends, their sexuality doesn't play a part. It seems to me that no matter how much people say they want equality, they don't want equality they want equality PLUS whatever group they represent. I want everyone to be able to love everyone with no restrictions and no condemnations but it can't happen as long as people insist that some group is better because of gender, race or religion. I see it here on this forum and I damned sure see it in the real world because I belong to the real world. One where the only group I care to belong to is called Human.

[darkeyes]

Let me put it this way Darlin' darlin'.. I can go out with my partner and walk down the street holding hands.. I can kiss her what is obviously a lovers kiss, and we can cuddle what are obviously lovers cuddles.. we can lie canoodling in a public park.. or snog on a beach (weather permitting.. this is Scotland for God's sake) with barely a word from anyone other than a few tuts.. it isnt as safe or approved of as if we were a heterosexual couple but compared to what it was like back in the mid 90s it is amazing progress for women..

However.. if we were 2 guys doing the same things.. the likelihood is that more serious disapproval than a few tuts would be headed our way.. probably a fair bit of intimidation and a good chance of a good kicking or worse... it is better for guys than it was, but it remains a long way from giving non str8 guys an acceptance in the way non str8 women are increasingly accepted...

.. it isn't a matter of wanting any more or better treatment or privilege than anyone else... it is simply a matter of getting the same treatment for all no matter who and what they are...

[Long Duck Dong]

it remains a long way away cos we endorse the idea that two males kissing, is not acceptable...... we keep pushing it as a issue and enforcing the idea that its not acceptable, in our own communities.....

unfortunately we have people in our own communities that are not accepting of PDA by other LGBT, so its not just a heterosexual aspect, and remarkably most of my hetero friends are more accepting of LGBT PDA than some of the LGBT friends... well former friends.... lol I have the attitude of treat others as we want to be treated.... so yeah, I walked away from a few lgbt friends.....

even in NZ, there is still the *harsh * reality of anti lgbt sentiment..... and if it was two males kissing, it may fuel the idea that the nz navy was full of gays and fags.... something that I know is still part of the *friendly * navy v's army v's air force... tho when I was in the NZ army, it was more of a joke than a serious issue, lol... I think my platoon had more LGBT in it than the whole bloody NZ navy lol.....

I do know for a fact that sexual harassment of females in the navy is more of a problem than LGBT serving in the navy in NZ..... hard to say if they have the same issue in the US or the UK, but there was more opposition to females serving in the armed forces of NZ cos of the issues with sexual harassment than there was with LGBT serving in the armed forces

[darkeyes]

.. it isn't a matter of wanting any more or better treatment or privilege than anyone else... it is simply a matter of getting the same treatment for all no matter who and what they are...

No JC.. I dont mean everyone should get a good kicking or worse either...:eek:

Whew.. the things peeps pick us up on..:rolleyes:

[12voltman59]

I get the point that Aeon is making about who is kissing---let's face it and like it or not or accept it or not---in the context of the great cultural machine out there---it is uber chic and "ohhh so hott" that a couple of cute chicks are kissing---but with two guys kissing it's: "OMFG!! Two dudes kissing!!!! Holy Fuck, Batman---that is go GAY and Sooooo fucking GRRROSSSSS!!!!"

We can make all kinds of highfaluting arguments about the way things should be and such---but with our mass culture---this is the way it is.

Of course---I am not talking about the rightwing cultural warrior types who would put all of us in the clink for having ever done what many of us do--I am sure that Sen. John McCain and many others with his mindset on gays being allowed to serve would find that this story plays into their view that this sort of thing is a sign of moral decay or something of that nature.

As far as the popular culture is concerned---It's cool that some chicks are kissing and it would be pretty fucked up that two guys would be seen doing the same thing.

[Diva667]

Not only two women but two women who meet societies definition of what it is to be pretty. Not that the two ladies in question have anything to hide, they are gorgeous, imo.

However I just get this sneaking feeling that this so called "lottery" was rigged.
The first image after DADT's repeal is this one? Not two fairly butchy females? Not a butchy female and a femme female? Not two men? Call me suspicious, but my feeling is that it was rigged with or without their knowledge.

http://dailyturd.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/i-support-gay-marriage-if-both-chicks-are-hot.gif

Straight men are generally ok with this type of lesbianism, just check out the number of lesbian porns that are made exclusively for straight guys.

[darkeyes]

Not only two women but two women who meet societies definition of what it is to be pretty. Not that the two ladies in question have anything to hide, they are gorgeous, imo.

However I just get this sneaking feeling that this so called "lottery" was rigged.
The first image after DADT's repeal is this one? Not two fairly butchy females? Not a butchy female and a femme female? Not two men? Call me suspicious, but my feeling is that it was rigged with or without their knowledge.

http://dailyturd.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/i-support-gay-marriage-if-both-chicks-are-hot.gif

Straight men are generally ok with this type of lesbianism, just check out the number of lesbian porns that are made exclusively for straight guys.

U may well be right Diva but that isnt that important.. it is a very small first step no moren that, and it will become and is becoming more commonplace in society as a whole.. on occasion, we do see men sharing a public display of affection.. it is rare and will be for some time to come.. but when I was 14 or 15, it was never seen, or if it was there was hell to pay and gay men paid a very heavy price for it..they do even now, but slowly we break down the barriers and what Duckie calls PDA between men will become less rare.. that is and has to be part of our agenda... there is nothing wrong with having an agenda.. part of the lgbt agenda is equality for all to express their sexuality without fear and without criticism.. and that includes PDA being accepted for and between gay and bisexual men just as it is for heterosexual people and is becoming increasingly for lesbian and bisexual women now... and just incidentally, lest we forget, as it should be for those who are trans... we too often forget them in our chit chat do we not..?:)

[æonpax]

I get the point that Aeon is making about who is kissing---let's face it and like it or not or accept it or not---in the context of the great cultural machine out there---it is uber chic and "ohhh so hott" that a couple of cute chicks are kissing---but with two guys kissing it's: "OMFG!! Two dudes kissing!!!! Holy Fuck, Batman---that is go GAY and Sooooo fucking GRRROSSSSS!!!!"

We can make all kinds of highfaluting arguments about the way things should be and such---but with our mass culture---this is the way it is.

Of course---I am not talking about the rightwing cultural warrior types who would put all of us in the clink for having ever done what many of us do--I am sure that Sen. John McCain and many others with his mindset on gays being allowed to serve would find that this story plays into their view that this sort of thing is a sign of moral decay or something of that nature.

As far as the popular culture is concerned---It's cool that some chicks are kissing and it would be pretty fucked up that two guys would be seen doing the same thing.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the (2000 – 2005) singing girl duo from Russia called, t.A.T.u., but they played up to the titillation some men have for young (or old) women whom sexual engage each other. During t.A.T.u.'s five years together, the two diminutive girls, tapped into a ready audience, routinely playing to 50,000 fans and selling more than 5 million copies of their debut album. Their music wasn’t bad, or in my opinion, good, but they sold themselves on sexuality.

As it turned out, the girls were not lesbian or bisexual, they were just talented and shrewd enough to jump on the money wagon, cash in and bail out. (see: The Sarah Palin Theory) This kind of sexuality was picked up by female teens in the US and some even to this day, like to pretend they are lesbian/bisexual in order to gain attention from guys.

This is my synopsis so feel free to blow it off…..

…but none the less, it proved, at least in a US cultural aspect, how accepting girl/girl sex is, as opposed to boy/boy sex. Even now, what do you think the odds are of two singing and youthful appearing boys playing up to each other, sexually like t.A.T.u did, at gaining public acceptance and financial success are? How does less than zero sound?

The image the US Navy presented was disingenuous. The safe route for them was to manipulate a more accepting girl/girl relationship to show their commitment to gays in the military. The problem here is that gay males in the military far outnumber gay females. The US public still is not ready to see overt “mano y mano” sexuality.

This was the point I was hoping to make. There is a hypocrisy here.

[csreef]

I am gald that there was the "kiss". But I still say our socitey gives more latitude towards women kissing openly then it would if there we saw two male sailors kissing.

If it were two male officers kissing,there would be public uproar, and I think their Naval careers would quitely go nowere.

[dafydd]

I kind of agree with Aeon here. 2 men would have given a clearer message on the historical repeal, however I'm not sure if it would have been easy to find a couple to do it. So I understand why they might have chosen 2 women as the photo op. If in fact I doubt they they really had a choice.

Look, the sight of 2 men kissing in public is so extremley rare anyway, and/or to even see it printed in the media, that it almost seems ludicrous that the US forces, who until now, have been shamefully lacking in their equal ops policies, should suddenly lead the way and lead by a mile.
It's 2011 and only NOW, gays and lesbians can serve America's armed forces? WTF? ....
And on top of that, forget people's opinions about LGB serving in the mitlitary, *any* male physical affection in public (gay or otherwise) is culturally imprinted on our western minds as wrong/strange. Not so with women.
Now think, all of a sudden, the gay officers who have been shat on for years with the threat of expulsion are going to suddenly run down to meet their lovers and smoch with them for an international photo shoot......?

when was the last time you saw ANY gay couple kiss in public?
I don't even see gay couples in the heart of the gay district in London, Soho, kiss in public. Or even hold hands...

Even without the safe context of the event, id imagine that most of the gay men who serve were just counting their blessings the lying and fear was finally set to end; im sure the last thing they wanted was to 'come-out' to the nation.

d

[Realist]

I don't care about the rhetoric.........just glad they've got somebody to love.

[Gearbox]

Maybe hetero's fear being a minority of a group?
Those lesbians look like actor/models advertising for hetero males&lesbians to join the navy. It's a damn good advert too!:rolleyes:
But if it were 2 burly males, I've no doubt that it would send a clear message to all young gay males to join up for some m-m action. I know I'd be up for it (if I were young.lol).

2 women at it= Great for hetero males! 2 men at it = Not safe for hetero males!
It's a hetro male world after all! One which male heterosexuality NEEDS mollycoddling for some ridiculous reason.

[Long Duck Dong]

so much for gender equality, equal treatment of LGBT, support for LGBT couples etc

interesting how we can not really be supportive of the LGBT in the public eye, without finding issues with it.... and how its not * good enuf * but instead we are finding issues with something that no LGBT could do for 18 years......

will the LGBT community ever be happy with anything ?????

after 18 years, the military personnel can publically show affection for the same gender, and instead of support for the couple and giving thanks to all those whom fought to gain the right for LGBT to be *one of the crowd *... we find issues with how they are * too good looking * and * not the right gender *

so thank you to all the people hetero and LGBT that advocated and fought for the military personnel to have the chance and the right to not hide in shame... but stand tall and proud as military personnel and as LGBT..... and to the LGBT military personnel that have stood strong in the face of adversary... and won one of the most important battles we could..... the right to be ourselves.....

I salute you all, give a warm heart felt thanks, and bide you all, a blessed time with your families and loved ones.........

[elian]

I was happy to hear about this on the radio this morning, hey - I'll take two female servicewomen who love each other kissing in public as a sign of progress any time.

BTW, the Army also redesigned their sexual harassment training and part of it has a "scene" where one lady touches another one inappropriately after having a little too much to drink. Since at least 60% of straight men are turned on by two ladies kissing it's just a lot easier for their eyes and brains to comprehend at this point in time.

Give these guys some credit, you have to take small steps first - in 5 or 10 years two men can kiss on the dock and people will be just as excited.. When the armed forces were racially integrated it didn't happen overnight either.

Of course I'm sure that while the immediate crowd seemed enthusiastic about it there will be some national group who will take this news story and use it to defame the character of LGBT service members and proclaim the increased "moral deprivation" of our society.

..again..be happy for small steps..I can't imagine ANY service member trying this without fear of retribution even a year ago..

[drugstore cowboy]

Of course they allowed two women to kiss, imagine the anger, uproar, and how everyone would have reacted including the media if it had been a bisexual man or a gay man kissing another man.

People are not threatened by Lesbianism and for a lot of men apparently they are turned on by seeing two women kiss.

[chapear]

In my opinion, it will make headway when 2 people can show affection for each other regardless if they are both male, both female, or whatever they may be and it not be made a big deal. Just my 2¢

[darkeyes]

when was the last time you saw ANY gay couple kiss in public?
I don't even see gay couples in the heart of the gay district in London, Soho, kiss in public. Or even hold hands...


d

Last summer I was lay on the grass in Princes Street Gardens with my best friend and her partner enjoying one of the few warm sunny days we had.... about 15 metres away were two guys harming no one, but obviously more than just good friends.. Jo and Alice were lying on the grass talking to me stroking each others hair and faces lovingly and a bobby walked by, gazed at them for longer than he probably should, but said nothing... he even smiled... he did not however stay quiet when he spotted the two guys doing much the same thing, but told them to stop.. he wasnt nasty or brusque, nor did he threaten them with arrest but we could clearly hear him say such a display of public affection was inappropriate in such an attraction as the gardens.. the guys didnt argue but did get up and leave..

..all around us were heterosexual couples doing far more than were these two guys without comment from him or anyone else... this is what men face.. once it would have been arrest and prosecution and still is sometimes.. now more commonly it is a gentle word about "inappropriateness" but it is still discrimination and harrassment.. so I suppose in a sense that too is progress from days past..

[elian]

The last time I saw two guys in love kissing in public was on a park bench at the national mall in Washington DC - I think it was around 1992. Nobody there seemed to mind because everybody just goes about their business anyway.

The fact that straight people can't abide two men treating each other with affection is why I've always thought it sucks to be gay..even now when LGBT enjoy more freedom than ever before.

Some men apparently just can't stand the thought of another man giving up all of his unearned power and privilege to be "like a woman" - is if that is what was really happening.. and of course that doesn't say much for what some men think of women does it? But oh, no - they can be all about "getting that pussy" and screw the rest.. <grumble grumble..sighs>

Especially this time of year it's depressing when you see all sorts of straight people in love holding hands and kissing in public for Christmas and New Years. The other time of year I find hard is Valentine's Day..but I've taken to standing on the corner advocating "Freedom to Marry" legislation every year on Valentine's Day and that at least makes me feel as though I am standing up for something. Frankly I don't even care if you call it marriage or not, I just want the same basic human rights, and the same civil rights under the law.

[æonpax]

I kind of agree with Aeon here. 2 men would have given a clearer message on the historical repeal, however I'm not sure if it would have been easy to find a couple to do it. So I understand why they might have chosen 2 women as the photo op. If in fact I doubt they they really had a choice. <snipped for brevity>

I actually picked up train of thought from another forum I belong to. Two gay male vets were making a good case as to why not two men. While the Navy claims the two women were picked via a lottery, those associated with the US military, doubt it.

There is a more somber side to this issue though.....


http://i.imgur.com/punN3.jpg

[elian]

I actually picked up train of thought from another forum I belong to. Two gay male vets were making a good case as to why not two men. While the Navy claims the two women were picked via a lottery, those associated with the US military, doubt it.

There is a more somber side to this issue though.....


http://i.imgur.com/punN3.jpg

I am glad that stone exists in the world, maybe it will get some people to THINK about what they are really doing.

I was too young to remember Vietnam but I did watch the History Channel special "Vietnam in HD" - those boys, especially the infantry went through hell and back.

After watching that special for hours, there were only two parts that I cried over.. The first one was when the soldiers lost the support of the American people. The second was watching some footage of POWs finally returning home.

In my mind for ANY person to question the loyalty and character of a servicemember over their sexual orientation (who they choose to love) ought to be a crime, period.

[Realist]

When I was in the Army, from '59-'62, I was in love with another soldier. We had to take extraordinary measures to be together. And, we could never give the impression that we were attracted to each other.

Planning, extreme caution, and stealth, were our most important allies. Even in Germany, where the civilians were much less sensitive to gays and bisexuals, there was a danger. Someone might have seen us and mentioned what they saw to a military person.....who might tell.

My GF was OK with my relationship with him, but she's the only one who knew.

I know of at least one case of soldiers being caught having sex and were sentenced to lengthy confinements for their "Perversions".

Leavenworth is NOT a retirement home!

That was over 50 years ago...change is excruciatingly slow!

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

lol You GO Ladies! But make it quick. I have a feeling the next "Commander and/in Chief" will have other idea, and alot of things are going to change. But have tremendous fun til then..;):cool:
Cat

[keefer201]

Maybe hetero's fear being a minority of a group?
Those lesbians look like actor/models advertising for hetero males&lesbians to join the navy. It's a damn good advert too!:rolleyes:
But if it were 2 burly males, I've no doubt that it would send a clear message to all young gay males to join up for some m-m action. I know I'd be up for it (if I were young.lol).

2 women at it= Great for hetero males! 2 men at it = Not safe for hetero males!
It's a hetro male world after all! One which male heterosexuality NEEDS mollycoddling for some ridiculous reason.

You make a clear case as to why the military does not want openly gay members in its branches. Serving in the military is not about" male to male action".........WTF! I really want to see what happens, worse case scenario, when plasma and blood on the field of battle can not be given because the supply has been destroyed due to HIV. The military is not a place where social experiements happen, it is a place where people serve their country not their sexual appetites.

[darkeyes]

You make a clear case as to why the military does not want openly gay members in its branches. Serving in the military is not about" male to male action".........WTF! I really want to see what happens, worse case scenario, when plasma and blood on the field of battle can not be given because the supply has been destroyed due to HIV. The military is not a place where social experiements happen, it is a place where people serve their country not their sexual appetites.

Chill Keefer babes.. no need 2 worry 2 much.. ur military along wiv those of countries wich have long since allowed non str8 peeps 2 become soldiers sailors an airmen will still b pretty effective at slaughtrin' peeps wetha or not they have it away wiv each otha...

..but hey babes.. its Crimbo.. peace an' gud will 2 all men.. u want a barney ova it.. it will havta wait till afta the New Year.. Fran is on 'er own personal crusade of gud will 2 all men an it goes on till round the 5th of Jan an' 'er equilibrium will not b disturbed nor her gud humour an peace of mind upset until then at the earliest...:bigrin:

[dafydd]

You make a clear case as to why the military does not want openly gay members in its branches. Serving in the military is not about" male to male action".........WTF! I really want to see what happens, worse case scenario, when plasma and blood on the field of battle can not be given because the supply has been destroyed due to HIV. The military is not a place where social experiements happen, it is a place where people serve their country not their sexual appetites.

Your post has a certain creative canter to it, though it is utterly bonkers. I think your comment makes a clear case as to why people who object to gays in the military shouldn't be taken seriously. In fact your comment just adds to the belief that those opinions are based on homophobic/outdated attitudes towards gay men. Lives lost because of HIV contaiminated blood on the field of battle? Are you high?
Shame on you for not supporting the rights of your fellow queers, you big bisexual you.

D

[BiDaveDtown]

You make a clear case as to why the military does not want openly gay members in its branches. Serving in the military is not about" male to male action".........WTF! I really want to see what happens, worse case scenario, when plasma and blood on the field of battle can not be given because the supply has been destroyed due to HIV. The military is not a place where social experiements happen, it is a place where people serve their country not their sexual appetites.

When you donate blood if you can donate it, it's tested for HIV and other diseases.

Your "worst case scenario" is not going to happen and you're ignorant of the fact that most people in the world who have HIV are heterosexual and that it's primarily spread through heterosexual sex when HIV is spread via sexual contact.

There are a lot of heterosexuals who are HIV+ and don't know it since they don't get tested, they don't have safer sex, and they think that HIV is something that only bisexual and gay men, and IV drug users need to worry about which is BS.

Other countries have lesbian, bisexual, and gay soldiers openly serving in their military and nothing bad has happened. In the United States we've had LGB military personnel serving for hundreds of years and LGB people should be allowed to be open about their sexuality just like heteros are in the military.

If this were the 40s you'd be all for racial segregation in the military. :rolleyes:

[dafydd]

When you donate blood if you can donate it, it's tested for HIV and other diseases.

Your "worst case scenario" is not going to happen and you're ignorant of the fact that most people in the world who have HIV are heterosexual and that it's primarily spread through heterosexual sex when HIV is spread via sexual contact.

There are a lot of heterosexuals who are HIV+ and don't know it since they don't get tested, they don't have safer sex, and they think that HIV is something that only bisexual and gay men, and IV drug users need to worry about which is BS.

Other countries have lesbian, bisexual, and gay soldiers openly serving in their military and nothing bad has happened. In the United States we've had LGB military personnel serving for hundreds of years and LGB people should be allowed to be open about their sexuality just like heteros are in the military.

If this were the 40s you'd be all for racial segregation in the military. :rolleyes:

right on. and let's not forget that gays have been serving in the military, and risking their lives for your country since we started fighting wars. The only difference is now their effectiveness may be increased because they (and they're close straight military colleagues) aren't stressed with the worry of them getting discharged. The military is only set to increase it's 'operational effectivness' as a result of the repeal.

[Long Duck Dong]

You make a clear case as to why the military does not want openly gay members in its branches. Serving in the military is not about" male to male action".........WTF! I really want to see what happens, worse case scenario, when plasma and blood on the field of battle can not be given because the supply has been destroyed due to HIV. The military is not a place where social experiements happen, it is a place where people serve their country not their sexual appetites.

you raise a interesting point..... cross contamination in CCC or AFF situations, is a very real reality, specially if two or more are WIC and there is blood for miles....even if we have safe blood on hand, there is still the risk of cross contamination from another source, such as a wounded enemy, specially on the battlefield

there are times that shipping tested blood / plasma from the us to the battlefield is not a option, so the medics rely on what is available at the time..... and that can be a real serious risk.......

[keefer201]

When you donate blood if you can donate it, it's tested for HIV and other diseases.

Your "worst case scenario" is not going to happen and you're ignorant of the fact that most people in the world who have HIV are heterosexual and that it's primarily spread through heterosexual sex when HIV is spread via sexual contact.

There are a lot of heterosexuals who are HIV+ and don't know it since they don't get tested, they don't have safer sex, and they think that HIV is something that only bisexual and gay men, and IV drug users need to worry about which is BS.

Other countries have lesbian, bisexual, and gay soldiers openly serving in their military and nothing bad has happened. In the United States we've had LGB military personnel serving for hundreds of years and LGB people should be allowed to be open about their sexuality just like heteros are in the military.

If this were the 40s you'd be all for racial segregation in the military. :rolleyes:

You obviously have never been in combat nor wounded. Nuff said.

[æonpax]

You make a clear case as to why the military does not want openly gay members in its branches.
1) Serving in the military is not about" male to male action".........WTF!
2) I really want to see what happens, worse case scenario, when plasma and blood on the field of battle can not be given because the supply has been destroyed due to HIV.
3) The military is not a place where social experiements happen, it is a place where people serve their country not their sexual appetites.

Why do you say such inane things? Homophobic much? Allow me to digress.

1) Who said it was? Oh yeah, the US Teaparty says that.

2) Are you saying gay males in the US military (maybe 5% - http://www.urban.org/publications/411069.html ) all have HIV and those that actually do, will willingly donate that blood, knowing full well it will kill their members of their own unit? Do you have proof? research? No, just your homophobic right-wing rantings.

3) Since when is being gay, a “social experiment?” That's one of those cliché phrases the ultra conservative religious types use.

3a) Are you also saying that gays join the military primarily for sex, as opposed to serving a country in a capacity where dying for it, is a high likelihood?

There is an article here; "Tea Party Nation Upset Over Lesbian Naval Officers’ Kiss" ( http://lezgetreal.com/2011/12/tea-party-nation-upset-over-lesbian-naval-officers-kiss/ ) commenting on another teaparty homophobe who says the exact same things you do.

You people are to be pitied.

[æonpax]

right on. and let's not forget that gays have been serving in the military, and risking their lives for your country since we started fighting wars. The only difference is now their effectiveness may be increased because they (and they're close straight military colleagues) aren't stressed with the worry of them getting discharged. The military is only set to increase it's 'operational effectivness' as a result of the repeal.

I generally do not like posting entire articles and lists that can be easily hyperlinked to but as certain people don't know how to click on a link, like this one; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service I'm going to post it here;

Countries that allow gay people to serve


Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Belgium
Bermuda
Canada
Republic of China
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Republic of Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Thailand
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay

[Diva667]

A couple points -

HIV is not restricted to male/ male sex acts it can be contracted by any sex act in which fluids are shared (especially blood to blood.) Anyone can contract HIV, even straight military members who happen to engage in risky sex with opposite sex partners.

HIV will get you discharge under a medical discharge, whether you are straight or gay , you can not currently serve if you are HIV positive.

Gay men and women (as well as transgender folks) have often served this country in times of peace and in war. Being in the closet is no preventative for HIV, or other STI's. And yet no one has come forth with reports of HIV transmission via the method you describe.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QCcMTHCBJ4c/TQXcprLfD_I/AAAAAAAADqc/3K0igrASrTM/s1600/Cat%2BPushing%2BWatermelon%2BOut%2Bof%2Blake.jpg

[Long Duck Dong]

A couple points -

HIV is not restricted to male/ male sex acts it can be contracted by any sex act in which fluids are shared (especially blood to blood.) Anyone can contract HIV, even straight military members who happen to engage in risky sex with opposite sex partners.

HIV will get you discharge under a medical discharge, whether you are straight or gay , you can not currently serve if you are HIV positive.

Gay men and women (as well as transgender folks) have often served this country in times of peace and in war. Being in the closet is no preventative for HIV, or other STI's. And yet no one has come forth with reports of HIV transmission via the method you describe.


so they screen for it out of boredom ????

untested blood / plasma is the primary transference of hiv / aids...... and untested blood / plasma transference is very common on the battlefield.

ex nz military, infantry regiment..... there are those that serve and those that talk about what happens out there..... the difference is that some of us know the truth and others rely on google and the internet for their truth

[keefer201]

Why do you say such inane things? Homophobic much? Allow me to digress.

1) Who said it was? Oh yeah, the US Teaparty says that.

2) Are you saying gay males in the US military (maybe 5% - http://www.urban.org/publications/411069.html ) all have HIV and those that actually do, will willingly donate that blood, knowing full well it will kill their members of their own unit? Do you have proof? research? No, just your homophobic right-wing rantings.

3) Since when is being gay, a “social experiment?” That's one of those cliché phrases the ultra conservative religious types use.

3a) Are you also saying that gays join the military primarily for sex, as opposed to serving a country in a capacity where dying for it, is a high likelihood?

There is an article here; "Tea Party Nation Upset Over Lesbian Naval Officers’ Kiss" ( http://lezgetreal.com/2011/12/tea-party-nation-upset-over-lesbian-naval-officers-kiss/ ) commenting on another teaparty homophobe who says the exact same things you do.

You people are to be pitied.

I will tell you who said it; ME. Eight years USMC. Two combat actions and wounded in action. That's who said it.

[sammie19]

I will tell you who said it; ME. Eight years USMC. Two combat actions and wounded in action. That's who said it.

So you are a medical expert and HIV infected from your battlefield wounds are you?

In this country it isnt an issue and hasnt been since the day the ban on gays serving was lifted. In a decade there are exactly nil cases of battlefield infection of HIV just as there were nil cases in the decade before when gay and bi's were there but officially banned.

Also as far as we are aware there were also nil cases of servicemen fucking on the battlefield or even on duty and ending up in the pokey or kicked out of the service before or after the ban was lifted.

In all the countries which allow gay and bi's to serve the same story is found. No evidence to back up the hysteria which homophobes are so fond of stirring up.

[elian]

I have never been in active service but it seems foolish to me to think that men would be any more sexually active now then they have ever been in the armed forces; gay people have ALWAYS served. As far as I know the regs still apply.

What we are talking about now is that they don't have to blatantly lie outright, which is a good thing because the Army values honor and integrity..and now those men and women do not have to feel as though they are violating that ethos simply for being who they are.. A lot of them up until this point have denied a part of who they were and gotten on with the job because they take their duty seriously. This isn't grammar school..this is someone's life and livelihood..I think they'll know when it's appropriate to keep it in their pants.

[keefer201]

So you are a medical expert and HIV infected from your battlefield wounds are you?

In this country it isnt an issue and hasnt been since the day the ban on gays serving was lifted. In a decade there are exactly nil cases of battlefield infection of HIV just as there were nil cases in the decade before when gay and bi's were there but officially banned.

Also as far as we are aware there were also nil cases of servicemen fucking on the battlefield or even on duty and ending up in the pokey or kicked out of the service before or after the ban was lifted.

In all the countries which allow gay and bi's to serve the same story is found. No evidence to back up the hysteria which homophobes are so fond of stirring up.

then with all due respects, Sammie......I offer you up for combat.

[DuckiesDarling]

So you are a medical expert and HIV infected from your battlefield wounds are you?

In this country it isnt an issue and hasnt been since the day the ban on gays serving was lifted. In a decade there are exactly nil cases of battlefield infection of HIV just as there were nil cases in the decade before when gay and bi's were there but officially banned.

Also as far as we are aware there were also nil cases of servicemen fucking on the battlefield or even on duty and ending up in the pokey or kicked out of the service before or after the ban was lifted.

In all the countries which allow gay and bi's to serve the same story is found. No evidence to back up the hysteria which homophobes are so fond of stirring up.

I think several of you are missing the point of Keefer's post. There are several areas around the world "hot spots" if you will where there is no steady supply of *safe* blood yet there is a growing need for blood and plasma every day. To say there is no risk because you deem there to be no risk is the height of stupidity and proves some people I heretofore thought were intelligent to be talking out of their collective asses. There is a wide world out there that you won't find on google, you won't find in books, it's a world where people die at the drop of a hat from things that aren't fired from a gun. It doesn't take much, just one drop of infected blood and HIV can spread.

[RockGardener]

so they screen for it out of boredom ????

untested blood / plasma is the primary transference of hiv / aids...... and untested blood / plasma transference is very common on the battlefield.

ex nz military, infantry regiment..... there are those that serve and those that talk about what happens out there..... the difference is that some of us know the truth and others rely on google and the internet for their truth

Do you think that I've never served? Then you'd be wrong. I have served and dealt with dead bodies as a result of military action.

Life is too precious to live it in a closet.

[elian]

I suppose I could choke on a Christmas Sausage and die too, the world is full of dangerous things. I'm not sure how there is a direct link between who a person feels attracted to and how that impacts the medical supply of blood. I mean, it's not as if STRAIGHT people are immune to HIV or anything..

Here in PA we had a local private school deny admission to a student because they were known HIV positive. Coincidentally it was also around the same time as "World AIDS day" so one of the local radio stations hosted a program talking about HIV which I thought was very informative.

http://www.witf.org/smart-talk/more-hiv-testing-encouraged-on-world-aids-day

If it bothers you to have this potentially unregulated supply of blood on the battlefield I guess what we need is to have an instant medical scanner available which can test for HIV - more technology, used for a good purpose - instead of more ignorance and fear.

..and if you're dying that badly, would you rather die right there, or would you want to live with a blood borne illness?

[dafydd]

I will tell you who said it; ME. Eight years USMC. Two combat actions and wounded in action. That's who said it.

Dude, and now you have a SpongeBob Square Pants signature. What happened to you?
:tongue:

[æonpax]

I will tell you who said it; ME. Eight years USMC. Two combat actions and wounded in action. That's who said it.

If you had any credibility, I might give you the benefit of the doubt sir...but alas, you don't. I will say my baby brother is here, with his family, and just for shits and giggles, I asked him to read your replies in this thread. He spent 5 years in Iraq (regular Army) and comments were less than congenial. (see pic below)

I could link to sites which provide statistics, documentation and research but you and another person here, disregard "internet facts" (whatever that is) that don't agree with your opinions, ideology and/or view of life. I did consider constructing a reply that was dripping in sarcasm but in the back of my mind, I heard this voice...


...My dear,'Christmas Day...

...so with that in mind, as Tiny Tim has said; God Bless us, everyone.
`
`


http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/4250/mebro09.jpg
He demanded I block out his face and ID...I don't blame him.
`

[Diva667]

Do you think that I've never served? Then you'd be wrong. I have served and dealt with dead bodies as a result of military action.

Life is too precious to live it in a closet.

Sorry I posted this when I was over at Rock & Marie's - I thought I was logged off.

But I know Marie has also served in the USAF , She does not have HIV and she is trans. Would allowing her to serve openly have changed that? I doubt it.

[Diva667]

I think several of you are missing the point of Keefer's post. There are several areas around the world "hot spots" if you will where there is no steady supply of *safe* blood yet there is a growing need for blood and plasma every day. To say there is no risk because you deem there to be no risk is the height of stupidity and proves some people I heretofore thought were intelligent to be talking out of their collective asses. There is a wide world out there that you won't find on google, you won't find in books, it's a world where people die at the drop of a hat from things that aren't fired from a gun. It doesn't take much, just one drop of infected blood and HIV can spread.


And only gay people can get HIV or other blood borne illnesses?

HIV isn't even a death sentence anymore...

Lots of hysteria and homophobia here.

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltn6vjc67U1qg4iu0o1_500.png

[Gearbox]

You make a clear case as to why the military does not want openly gay members in its branches. Serving in the military is not about" male to male action".........WTF! I really want to see what happens, worse case scenario, when plasma and blood on the field of battle can not be given because the supply has been destroyed due to HIV. The military is not a place where social experiements happen, it is a place where people serve their country not their sexual appetites.
A ship full of gay males/women having promiscuous sex with each other every night they get free time, would not magically create HIV!
A ship full of straight women/males assuming to practise celibacy 24/7 is no reason to leave blood&plasma samples go unchecked before transfusion either.
Battlefield casualties are in the hands of the medics before,after & during battle. Worse case scenario: they assume anything!

Merry Christmas!:)

[DuckiesDarling]

And only gay people can get HIV or other blood borne illnesses?

HIV isn't even a death sentence anymore...

Lots of hysteria and homophobia here.

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltn6vjc67U1qg4iu0o1_500.png

No one says only Gay people get HIV, Diva never paint me as a homophobe, transphobe or any othe kind of phobe beyond arachnophobe. I truly believe that all people should have the same rights, not one group having better rights because they are different, but ALL that's ALL as in everyone on this planet we call home should have the same rights to live love and be happy. Is that clear enough? And yes, HIV is a death sentence still in a lot of countries. There are a lot of places where the lack of medical care is enough to turn a tiny infection to a raging killer. Those are the places I'm talking about with casualties and the need for *unsafe* blood come into play. I haven't seen a lot of comments being made on this board that are in any way homophobic. I see a lot of bitching because the two people who won the lottery happened to both be female AND attractive. I said it before and I'll say it again, it should be celebrated for what it was not denigrated for what it wasn't. Is that plain enough speaking for you?

[pepperjack]

I suppose I could choke on a Christmas Sausage and die too, the world is full of dangerous things. I'm not sure how there is a direct link between who a person feels attracted to and how that impacts the medical supply of blood. I mean, it's not as if STRAIGHT people are immune to HIV or anything..

Here in PA we had a local private school deny admission to a student because they were known HIV positive. Coincidentally it was also around the same time as "World AIDS day" so one of the local radio stations hosted a program talking about HIV which I thought was very informative.

http://www.witf.org/smart-talk/more-hiv-testing-encouraged-on-world-aids-day

If it bothers you to have this potentially unregulated supply of blood on the battlefield I guess what we need is to have an instant medical scanner available which can test for HIV - more technology, used for a good purpose - instead of more ignorance and fear.

..and if you're dying that badly, would you rather die right there, or would you want to live with a blood borne illness?
Speaking of World Aids Day, read in a local paper that most HIV cases are spread through heterosexual sex; assumed it was credible because the person being quoted worked at the community health department.

[pepperjack]

A couple points -

HIV is not restricted to male/ male sex acts it can be contracted by any sex act in which fluids are shared (especially blood to blood.) Anyone can contract HIV, even straight military members who happen to engage in risky sex with opposite sex partners.

HIV will get you discharge under a medical discharge, whether you are straight or gay , you can not currently serve if you are HIV positive.

Gay men and women (as well as transgender folks) have often served this country in times of peace and in war. Being in the closet is no preventative for HIV, or other STI's. And yet no one has come forth with reports of HIV transmission via the method you describe.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QCcMTHCBJ4c/TQXcprLfD_I/AAAAAAAADqc/3K0igrASrTM/s1600/Cat%2BPushing%2BWatermelon%2BOut%2Bof%2Blake.jpg

That picture is very funny; thanks for the good chuckle. Would make a good poster illustrating tenacity, determination.:bigrin:

[keefer201]

Dude, and now you have a SpongeBob Square Pants signature. What happened to you?
:tongue:

I can't help it, Daf.......the little yellow fellow just amuses the hell out of me. Or, maybe it's my way of protesting my boys getting older. ;)

[Long Duck Dong]

Do you think that I've never served? Then you'd be wrong. I have served and dealt with dead bodies as a result of military action.

Life is too precious to live it in a closet.

no, I do not think that.... I am thinking that people are so full of their own opinions that often they are blind to anything and everything beyond their own thinking..... and as long as they can use the internet or arguments that are limited to their experiences, than that reality applies to everybody and the rest of the world......

I am not a fucking idiot, I watched my sister end up with hiv / aids and die, from a single sexual encounter... and I watch people argue how the stats say that the odds of that is very limited......
stats and odds, odds and stats...... yeah what ever..... they do not make a difference when its somebodies life that is changed forever.......

so what if marie served and you served and never got hiv / aids, its like the common cold, it means you both never got hiv / aids and I guess that is really comforting to all the people that do have hiv / aids......

my father, stepfather and I have served, neither of us have aids.... but 5 of ex service people I know, have aids...... it proves nothing....... other than we can all get hiv / aids, doesn't mean we are going to......

got any links to the hiv / aids screening system for iraq or afghanistan ??? using arguments like the us screens for hiv / aids and donated blood is checked in the us.... doesn't mean that a person is safe on the battle field....

man gets hiv from tattoo in bali (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8394619)

they screen for hiv / aids in australia... yet this guy got hiv in bali...... guess that kinda reinforces my point... they can screen all they want in the us... but out on the battlefield and in places like iraq and afghanistan... the risk of cross contamination is very high.... cos I am not convinced the taliban have hiv / blood screening in their caves, or give a fuck when it comes to suicide bombs in market places.......


seriously, I sit on the fence on a lot of issues, I see both sides of the issue and I acknowledge that fact, in a lot of cases...... does it make my statements any more valid than the next persons ??? no it doesn't..... but it doesn't make me one sided or tunnel visioned.......

it makes me a person that can read all the sites in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that I have lost friends to aids, including Eve_van_Grafhorst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_van_Grafhorst) ......

so yeah tell me I am wrong according to facts, and fiqures and personal opinions, and I will point to the gravestones of those I have lost..... cos percentages and stats and odds do not make the hurt any easier to bear.....

[pepperjack]

no, I do not think that.... I am thinking that people are so full of their own opinions that often they are blind to anything and everything beyond their own thinking..... and as long as they can use the internet or arguments that are limited to their experiences, than that reality applies to everybody and the rest of the world......

I am not a fucking idiot, I watched my sister end up with hiv / aids and die, from a single sexual encounter... and I watch people argue how the stats say that the odds of that is very limited......
stats and odds, odds and stats...... yeah what ever..... they do not make a difference when its somebodies life that is changed forever.......

so what if marie served and you served and never got hiv / aids, its like the common cold, it means you both never got hiv / aids and I guess that is really comforting to all the people that do have hiv / aids......

my father, stepfather and I have served, neither of us have aids.... but 5 of ex service people I know, have aids...... it proves nothing....... other than we can all get hiv / aids, doesn't mean we are going to......

got any links to the hiv / aids screening system for iraq or afghanistan ??? using arguments like the us screens for hiv / aids and donated blood is checked in the us.... doesn't mean that a person is safe on the battle field....

man gets hiv from tattoo in bali (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8394619)

they screen for hiv / aids in australia... yet this guy got hiv in bali...... guess that kinda reinforces my point... they can screen all they want in the us... but out on the battlefield and in places like iraq and afghanistan... the risk of cross contamination is very high.... cos I am not convinced the taliban have hiv / blood screening in their caves, or give a fuck when it comes to suicide bombs in market places.......


seriously, I sit on the fence on a lot of issues, I see both sides of the issue and I acknowledge that fact, in a lot of cases...... does it make my statements any more valid than the next persons ??? no it doesn't..... but it doesn't make me one sided or tunnel visioned.......

it makes me a person that can read all the sites in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that I have lost friends to aids, including Eve_van_Grafhorst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_van_Grafhorst) ......

so yeah tell me I am wrong according to facts, and fiqures and personal opinions, and I will point to the gravestones of those I have lost..... cos percentages and stats and odds do not make the hurt any easier to bear.....

Very strong post LDD!

[Diva667]

I think several of you are missing the point of Keefer's post. There are several areas around the world "hot spots" if you will where there is no steady supply of *safe* blood yet there is a growing need for blood and plasma every day. To say there is no risk because you deem there to be no risk is the height of stupidity and proves some people I heretofore thought were intelligent to be talking out of their collective asses. There is a wide world out there that you won't find on google, you won't find in books, it's a world where people die at the drop of a hat from things that aren't fired from a gun. It doesn't take much, just one drop of infected blood and HIV can spread.


No one says only Gay people get HIV, Diva never paint me as a homophobe, transphobe or any othe kind of phobe beyond arachnophobe. I truly believe that all people should have the same rights, not one group having better rights because they are different, but ALL that's ALL as in everyone on this planet we call home should have the same rights to live love and be happy. Is that clear enough? And yes, HIV is a death sentence still in a lot of countries. There are a lot of places where the lack of medical care is enough to turn a tiny infection to a raging killer. Those are the places I'm talking about with casualties and the need for *unsafe* blood come into play. I haven't seen a lot of comments being made on this board that are in any way homophobic. I see a lot of bitching because the two people who won the lottery happened to both be female AND attractive. I said it before and I'll say it again, it should be celebrated for what it was not denigrated for what it wasn't. Is that plain enough speaking for you?

These two statements are in deep conflict.


Keefer's statement is about not allowing gay people to serve openly in the military, and you are stating that you support that stance, am I correct?

[elian]

What were we arguing about/for??

I'm sorry for your loss LDD, a gay friend of mine took me to visit a gay couple he was good friends with for years. They got out a photo album and decided to start looking through it and page after page - all they could say is "remember that guy..." it was actually very sad because a lot of them at least 1/4 of the album had passed away from partying a little "too" hard in the 70's and early 80's.

The only way my friend figures that he survived was that he was always a top..of course even that is no guarantee but I guess in this case he was lucky.

This is a wonderful time of year to celebrate peace as best we can but it also sometimes brings up memories of those who have passed that we love dearly - for all those who are suffering remember that you are always loved..there is always someone, somewhere that loves you.

I am sorry I am so argumentative around Christmastime, you are right - I shouldn't try so hard to repeat the same ideas over and over again but I wouldn't be doing that if I REALLY knew the answer - I'm just trying to learn.

I try not to think of those who have passed as gone, but rather "gone home" .. what they stood for, the legacy they leave us is in their memories and in that sense they are never truly gone.. You might think that I am smoking the crack but I honestly do believe that I have spiritual friends who still look in on me from time to time so I just refuse to believe that "there's nothing after" except maybe an end to Earthly suffering.

Why does it have to be so hard to love one another? The thing the world (and everything on it) needs more than anything else right now is love..I'm not kidding..

[DuckiesDarling]

These two statements are in deep conflict.


Keefer's statement is about not allowing gay people to serve openly in the military, and you are stating that you support that stance, am I correct?

To be put it bluntly, NO

[Long Duck Dong]

So you are a medical expert and HIV infected from your battlefield wounds are you?

In this country it isnt an issue and hasnt been since the day the ban on gays serving was lifted. In a decade there are exactly nil cases of battlefield infection of HIV just as there were nil cases in the decade before when gay and bi's were there but officially banned.

Also as far as we are aware there were also nil cases of servicemen fucking on the battlefield or even on duty and ending up in the pokey or kicked out of the service before or after the ban was lifted.

In all the countries which allow gay and bi's to serve the same story is found. No evidence to back up the hysteria which homophobes are so fond of stirring up.

maybe you wanna research NZ military history then before you post...... cos its happened here in nz, in the nz navy.......

the only people that tend to know about them are military servicemen and women..... but what what we know, we are only the people that are in the military and in some cases, indirectly involved with the issue... so we would not know anything......

not all military court proceedings are released to the general public..... so of course you can not find info... but people like me that served, happen to know about things that the general public don't...... lil hint, you could try reading the forums where a few of the members have talked about having sex in the military, so it does go on... they are just very careful not to be caught.....

[æonpax]

`

Personal human tragedy does not change the fact that spread of HIV, at least in the US military, is NOT a valid reason for prohibiting gay men and women form serving. The facts here, as reported by the US government, are abundantly clear on this issue: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22US+armed+forces%22+HIV

`

[Long Duck Dong]

`

Personal human tragedy does not change the fact that spread of HIV, at least in the US military, is NOT a valid reason for prohibiting gay men and women form serving. The facts here, as reported by the US government, are abundantly clear on this issue: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22US+armed+forces%22+HIV

`

maybe you could show where people are saying that personal human tragedies is a reason to stop LGB people serving.... cos I can not see it in the thread.......

or am I forced to assume that you were having link posting withdrawals and needed to make up a issue so you could post another link

[æonpax]

maybe you could show where people are saying that personal human tragedies is a reason to stop LGB people serving.... cos I can not see it in the thread.......

or am I forced to assume that you were having link posting withdrawals and needed to make up a issue so you could post another link

Reading is something some people, appear to do with filters on. Please, show me where I implied that? My statement stands by itself. I must assume you either read things into words that are just not there or are choosing to pretend that the objections to gays serving in the military, in regards to HIV, do not exist. Either way, that's your problem.

Were you to actually read the sources the link provides, it's about statistics and research from the US Military as to the extent of HIV and HIV prevention and the measure of any HIV transmissions in the US armed forces.

The spread of HIV in the US military, via homosexuals, has been monitored and is not a problem. In congressional hearings leading up to the the overturning of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" the military did not challenge it based on health issues in regards to HIV. Those objections came from civilian religious groups whom in my opinion, are homophobic.

[Long Duck Dong]

Personal human tragedy does not change the fact that spread of HIV, at least in the US military, is NOT a valid reason for prohibiting gay men and women form serving.

in fact I was unsure as to what the hell you were referring to so I questioned it, and rather than assist with a intelligent answer, you go on a drawn out heap of crap about people reading with filters.....

now I am struggling a litle with your inability to communicate with the human race due to your superior intelligence and inability to comprehend that we use english and if we are not sure, we will ask the poster about what they have posted...... such as what I did......

and a google search link is hardly what I would call a link to military stats and research, most earth people would have provided a link to the actual sites that we were referring to.... as a google search can reveal any number of sites that are not really relevant to what you are saying.....

there are plenty of objections to LGBT serving in the military.... but I have yet to find any reliable site that lists personal tragedy as one of the reasons.... but I quess earth people do not see that as a reason to exclude people from serving.....

[æonpax]

Personal human tragedy does not change the fact that spread of HIV, at least in the US military, is NOT a valid reason for prohibiting gay men and women form serving.

in fact I was unsure as to what the hell you were referring to so I questioned it, and rather than assist with a intelligent answer, you go on a drawn out heap of crap about people reading with filters.....

now I am struggling a litle with your inability to communicate with the human race due to your superior intelligence and inability to comprehend that we use english and if we are not sure, we will ask the poster about what they have posted...... such as what I did......

and a google search link is hardly what I would call a link to military stats and research, most earth people would have provided a link to the actual sites that we were referring to.... as a google search can reveal any number of sites that are not really relevant to what you are saying.....

there are plenty of objections to LGBT serving in the military.... but I have yet to find any reliable site that lists personal tragedy as one of the reasons.... but I quess earth people do not see that as a reason to exclude people from serving.....


There are lots of things you appear to be struggling with, dealing with FACTS and reality are high among them, not to mention your obvious fear of technology. I understand your rejections and inability to accept such things are due to your ideology, which I will make an allowance for. Nonetheless, as I said before, that's your problem. I can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink.

My phrase has to do with argumentative fallacies, specifically the use of "pathos" as a substitute for facts and proof. Everyone has personal tragedies and as such, those things should be respected. But, to use it in lieu of empirical knowledge, is not only disingenuous, but false.

Again, I must point out, a part is never greater than it's sum total. While they are truly regrettable, such individual incidences, when taken into context of a much, much larger picture, may represent your feelings and opinions but are not substantial or preponderant enough to sustain an argument that objects to gays in the military.

[Long Duck Dong]

There are lots of things you appear to be struggling with, dealing with FACTS and reality are high among them, not to mention your obvious fear of technology. I understand your rejections and inability to accept such things are due to your ideology, which I will make an allowance for. Nonetheless, as I said before, that's your problem. I can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink.

My phrase has to do with argumentative fallacies, specifically the use of "pathos" as a substitute for facts and proof. Everyone has personal tragedies and as such, those things should be respected. But, to use it in lieu of empirical knowledge, is not only disingenuous, but false.

Again, I must point out, a part is never greater than it's sum total. While they are truly regrettable, such individual incidences, when taken into context of a much, much larger picture, may represent your feelings and opinions but are not substantial or preponderant enough to sustain an argument that objects to gays in the military.

lil hint.... I do not oppose LGBT in the military, I used to be in the NZ military and my support of LGBT in the military is something I have posted about before in the site.......

the hiv / aids virus, like bullets and bombs, do not discriminate on the grounds of gender or sexuality..... people do that when they say things like two males kissing is a better *message * than two females......

if the LGBT want to see more tolerance and understanding.... they are not gonna find it here and thats a message you and others are pushing dammed near every time you post.....

[bigbadmax]

In the U.K's armed forces it is a no touch rule.simple. does not matter whether you are m/f,f/f,or m/m.

Used to piss me off when they first repealled the gay question...not the fact that they repealled it but that trainees were walking down the main drag hand in hand IN UNIFORM...standards people, its a fighting force not a meat market...unless you are a para or a booty! lol

As far as kissing on return from duty...to damn right, given time im sure they would have got more intimate, but behind locked doors.

I remember returning from the 2nd gulf war with a hardon that hadnt had any action for 5 months... wife was more desperate than me and boy did we enjoy it.

Its not the question of legallity, nor of rights but that of standards.

For info....You can still serve with HIV in uk forces....looked after one(male that was raped in brazil) and served with one(female nurse who caught from sharps injury).

bbm

[tenni]

I agree with the OP that two muscular, masculine appearing men kissing would have shown a stronger message than two pretty women kissing. Thanks for pointing that out.

[void()]

ts a fighting force not a meat market
Its not the question of legallity, nor of rights but that of standards.


Agree with you on this. In the service aspect, when on duty one should hold to duty and not self gratification. Off duty or down time, "piss off mate, I'll do as I like."

Lots of people have trouble accepting that people can keep these two different ideas in their heads simultaneously. They seem to imply or infer a person who is one may not be something else as well.

Monkeys can be trained for pulling triggers. Not being derogatory here, but there quite a bunch whom seemed little more than a monkey in Hondorus. Most of them would have rather been playing dirt footie, climbing trees, hoping vines and generally enjoying a lazy tropical life. They were trained up well enough in three weeks.

Alexander the Great had a taste for the boys. He was also a married man, to a nice enough wife. He conquered his known world. And when he could conquer no more, he wept.

Short and sweet, I think folks whom think military should be exclusive are boneheaded jerks. Know damn well a gay man's finger can pull the trigger the same as a straight man's. Same gay man can die from fighting the same as the straight guy. Gay man, woman in combat, butterfly person they can all be as courageous as any straight person and serve the same as them.

People are people for fuck's sake. Why can we not seem to get over ourselves and accept that? Is it too simple?

Not directed at you max, just in general. I'll hush because of rambling. Get so bloody arssed over rubbish, toss me a pint.

[æonpax]

I agree with the OP that two muscular, masculine appearing men kissing would have shown a stronger message than two pretty women kissing. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll assume that you just woke up and are a bit groggy from yesterdays festivities. My words, verbatim, are;




While I am overjoyed to see the US Military's abolishment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a part of me says that showing two men kissing, would have sent a much stronger message. Still, it's progress.

[tenni]

If there is a slight difference in semantics, I will remove that I agree with you and state that what I wrote is my own opinion. :bigrin:

[elian]

..and like I said the first time, the US military is around 236 years old and the people who serve NOW (as of this year) don't have to lie about a fundamental part of who they are as a person.

It makes an old soul rejoice to think of two ladies showing love for each other on a dock after a mission..the command structure probably did condone this action and in about 5 or 10 more years it will probably be passable for men too..you can't please everybody.

Have you ever noticed that popular opinion seems to swing like a pendulum? I know it's frustrating to have to wait for something as basic as human rights but I think it's a good thing in general. If change happened instantaneously then Hitler could have gotten everything he wanted overnight.

As a man who finds other men attractive I think it sucks that certain people are homophobic when it's obvious that men love people too but it's not like men are completely helpless in society either - ask any woman. .. just bide time and attitudes will change.

[Diva667]

LDD & DD, You are arguing about something that has nothing to do with allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Which has many of us confused.

Yes, HIV, ( and other blood borne pathogens ) will always be an issue in combat situations , regardless of whether we are allowed to serve openly in the military. Because the odds are in favor of infection and transmission of disease in a situation where you may have open wounds and blood transfer. Civilians, terrorists, and other enemy combatants may have HIV as well.

But that is not what is at issue here, and I would ask that you please stay on topic, instead of confusing the issue. If you wish to discuss the incidence and likelihood of HIV transfer in combat without disallowing LGBT folks from service, maybe we would all be better off if you started a new topic?

[Gearbox]

I think people are interpreting the two pretty women kissing pic in different ways.

For some it's a MASSIVE achievement for LGBT rights etc.:)

And for others it's the same old bolox yet again, that 'homosexual acceptance' is portrayed by two pretty women having a kiss. While the menfolk are off camera doing their nails or something 'really homosexual', NOT the 'nice homosexual' stuff that 2 pretty women do, but the 'nasty homosexual' stuff that two men do.:rolleyes:

What is NOT there speaks volumes more than what IS there for some.

[keefer201]

LDD & DD, You are arguing about something that has nothing to do with allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Which has many of us confused.

Yes, HIV, ( and other blood borne pathogens ) will always be an issue in combat situations , regardless of whether we are allowed to serve openly in the military. Because the odds are in favor of infection and transmission of disease in a situation where you may have open wounds and blood transfer. Civilians, terrorists, and other enemy combatants may have HIV as well.

But that is not what is at issue here, and I would ask that you please stay on topic, instead of confusing the issue. If you wish to discuss the incidence and likelihood of HIV transfer in combat without disallowing LGBT folks from service, maybe we would all be better off if you started a new topic?

When were you appointed as hall monitor? Who makes up the "many of us" in your confusion? One thing I've noticed about the homosexual population here in these threads; you will go to any length to try and stuff your opinions down all of our throats. Facts don't matter in the least. What seems to rule in your logic is googling up stories that seem to fit your opinions. I have never seen such intollerant babblers in all my existance.

[keefer201]

I think people are interpreting the two pretty women kissing pic in different ways.

For some it's a MASSIVE achievement for LGBT rights etc.:)

And for others it's the same old bolox yet again, that 'homosexual acceptance' is portrayed by two pretty women having a kiss. While the menfolk are off camera doing their nails or something 'really homosexual', NOT the 'nice homosexual' stuff that 2 pretty women do, but the 'nasty homosexual' stuff that two men do.:rolleyes:

What is NOT there speaks volumes more than what IS there for some.

As much as I do not agree with open homosexuality in the armed services, Gearbox makes a great point here. Also to note that the two females fit more of the "lipstick" lesbian model. Let's give a shout out to the nasty looking bull dykes who will never get their fifteen minutes of fame.

[keefer201]

I'll assume that you just woke up and are a bit groggy from yesterdays festivities. My words, verbatim, are;



Now Tenni, you have been schooled by the ascerbic bitch; go sit in the corner and only speak when she gives you permission.

[Gearbox]

As much as I do not agree with open homosexuality in the armed services, Gearbox makes a great point here. Also to note that the two females fit more of the "lipstick" lesbian model. Let's give a shout out to the nasty looking bull dykes who will never get their fifteen minutes of fame.
Well I wouldn't have put it quite like that!:bigrin: But I have my suspicions about that 'lottery' too.:rolleyes:

[bigbadmax]

Slavery abolished 1834 in the British Empire in majority
Slavery abolished 1865 in all states.

Gays allowed to serve OPENLY in UK forces 2000
Gays allowed to serve OPENLY in US forces 2011

Welcome to the land of the free, and home of the repressed. :tongue:

[tenni]

In Canada, Bisexuals, Gays & Lesbians have been permitted to serve openly since 1991.

In some respects, this US "news item" is very old in many countries. In many countries, permitting GLB to openly serve has been a pre cursor to permitting same sex marriage. In Canada, same sex marriage with all equal rights as heterosexuals happened province to province until finally the feds agreed to make it uniform across Canada in 2005 to comply with the Constitution Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“In just about all of these countries there is research and anecdotal evidence that illustrates there is no problem, no decrease in cohesion among units, nor a diminishing effectiveness of the troops,” said Belkin, an expert in the area of civil-military relations whose research has been published in the military publications “International Security” and “Armed Forces and Society.”

In 2000, Belkin co-authored an exhaustive 44-page study on Canada, which, after a series of lawsuits in 1991, changed its policies to allow gays to openly serve in the military. Belkin’s study, which at the time was regarded as the most comprehensive academic study of homosexuality in a foreign military ever completed, concluded that the change in policy had “not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.”

http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010/02/03/where-gays-do-serve-openly-in-the-military/

[drugstore cowboy]

The idea that bisexual and gay men should not be allowed to serve in the military at all because of HIV in blood is nothing but biphobia, homophobia, and Poz phobia.

As others have said just because someone is bisexual or gay, and a man this does not mean that they are going to be HIV+. I mean WTF this is NOT the 80s or even early 90s anymore, it's going to be 2012 you should know this by now about HIV and not be blinded by homophobia or biphobia, or be Poz phobic.

A lot of straight people are HIV+ and are getting infected with HIV yet ignorant people still like to pretend that HIV is a disease that only effects bisexual and gay men and IV drug users.

Bisexual and gay men, and even bisexual women and lesbians, as well as trans people have been serving in the United States military ever since it was created. Heterosexuals have always been allowed to be open about their sexuality and openly serve in all branches of the military, the same rights should be given to LGBT people.

[tristancir]

I saw that. Good for them. While some may feel this was not in-your-face enough, I'm thinking that taking things in steps is the right way to go.

It seems to escape some people are really turned off by male-male activities. That's going to be the case no matter what you do. And this entire process has a big PR angle to it. So I congratulate the military for being wise about how to move forward.

[elian]

the 'nasty homosexual' stuff that two men do..


As much as I do not agree with open homosexuality in the armed services

Hmm, do you all think that since this ban is repealed that somehow soldiers are going to lose their minds and all start humping the shit out of each other? I don't understand this, give the people who serve in the armed forces some credit please - they are there to do a job..it would be nice if they didn't have to worry about a dishonorable discharge while they're in harm's way for their country.

I know. I know, "Well why do we even have to talk about sex at all then, it shouldn't matter - they're just flaunting it." You know how many times I've heard that argument? Tell it to the suicidal gay folks who feel they have nothing to live for and then see what you learn.

Believe me, things are changing, I'm sorry they aren't changing fast enough for some of you - again slow change, although frustrating - is a GOOD thing - that means it's more likely to stick around and become institutionalized.

[sammie19]

There is a nasty feeling about this thread together with an intolerance emanating much less from those accused than from the accusers.

[mikey3000]

That’s what I like about your opinions, they are always so utterly out of context. To the more educated LGBT mind, the bigotry and hatred against gay people is directed mainly against men. Two women kissing, however passionate and meaningful, is also very acceptable to the heterosexual community…a point that went way, way over your head.

Two men kissing, would show a much more graphic display of commitment by the US Military and send a clear message to all gay men that the military is serious about accepting gay men to proudly serve in their ranks. It is also abundantly clear you did not read the article I linked to.

Secondly, I would add your opinion only reflects what you think, as mine does. You do NOT in any way shape or form represent the LGBT community.

Think before you comment.
Your typical, in your face attitude is exactly what devalues same sex relationships. This is what the straight community resents about the gay community.

I don't think two women kissing is any less worthy than two men kissing.

[DuckiesDarling]

LDD & DD, You are arguing about something that has nothing to do with allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Which has many of us confused.

Yes, HIV, ( and other blood borne pathogens ) will always be an issue in combat situations , regardless of whether we are allowed to serve openly in the military. Because the odds are in favor of infection and transmission of disease in a situation where you may have open wounds and blood transfer. Civilians, terrorists, and other enemy combatants may have HIV as well.

But that is not what is at issue here, and I would ask that you please stay on topic, instead of confusing the issue. If you wish to discuss the incidence and likelihood of HIV transfer in combat without disallowing LGBT folks from service, maybe we would all be better off if you started a new topic?

Interesting that the thread was started because SOMEONE felt that the two attractive women kissing was not a good enough image for the ending of Don't Ask Don't Tell. I said it before I'll say it again, don't knock it because of what it wasn't, celebrate what it was. To be honest reading some of the posts it kinda smacks of jealousy. So what if the ladies were attractive, why is that not a good look for LGBT?

[bigbadmax]

Maybe they should have been naked,riding on a donkey and hitting each other with celery....

Then the RSPCA/SPCA or DEFRA/FDA or Health and safety bods might give cause for complaint.....


In all actuallity those complaining are doing what the ultra conservative minority want you to do.....argue amongst ourselves.

Its history,its been and now its gone, how you yanks say....period!

[DuckiesDarling]

Maybe they should have been naked,riding on a donkey and hitting each other with celery....

Then the RSPCA/SPCA or DEFRA/FDA or Health and safety bods might give cause for complaint.....


In all actuallity those complaining are doing what the ultra conservative minority want you to do.....argue amongst ourselves.

Its history,its been and now its gone, how you yanks say....period!

ROFLMAO, Max Just *hugs*

[Long Duck Dong]

LDD & DD, You are arguing about something that has nothing to do with allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Which has many of us confused.

Yes, HIV, ( and other blood borne pathogens ) will always be an issue in combat situations , regardless of whether we are allowed to serve openly in the military. Because the odds are in favor of infection and transmission of disease in a situation where you may have open wounds and blood transfer. Civilians, terrorists, and other enemy combatants may have HIV as well.

But that is not what is at issue here, and I would ask that you please stay on topic, instead of confusing the issue. If you wish to discuss the incidence and likelihood of HIV transfer in combat without disallowing LGBT folks from service, maybe we would all be better off if you started a new topic?

maybe because I am not opposing LGBT in the military, is why its confusing you.... I am talking about a aspect that any military person can face, while supporting LGBT in the military

besides, and yes I am being sarcastic, if you get confused to the point that you post under somebody elses name, then I am not surprised that the thread is confusing you

[æonpax]

I saw that. Good for them. While some may feel this was not in-your-face enough, I'm thinking that taking things in steps is the right way to go.

It seems to escape some people are really turned off by male-male activities. That's going to be the case no matter what you do. And this entire process has a big PR angle to it. So I congratulate the military for being wise about how to move forward.

You hit the nail on the head. Among those who can think beyond the tips of penis, my original post was idealistic and meant to spur discussion on whether or not publishing a picture of two men kissing (regardless of looks) would have been the appropriate thing to do.

It should be “self evident” men enjoy looking at two attractive females kiss. The social media of TV and movies reflect it ( ex: Madonna/Spears kiss) and well as the porn industry, which says 30% of their multibillion dollars in sales, are of so-called “lesbian sex.”

Idealistically, I still maintain showing a male/male kiss would have showed a deeper commitment by the US military…however…we do not live in an ideal world. Pragmatically, showing a male/male kiss could very well have caused more damage than good.

I know, or have met, more than enough straight guys who support gay rights as well as gays in the military. But most have a caveat with that; “Don’t throw male sex in my face.” While I don’t necessarily agree, I understand that objection and would not want to alienate those supporters. The US is just not ready to accept public male kissing and perhaps they never will.

Practically, the US Navy showing two attractive women kissing, was the smart move. In this case and in regards to gay rights; a half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

[æonpax]

Slavery abolished 1834 in the British Empire in majority
Slavery abolished 1865 in all states.<snip>

I might add, slavery was abolished in the US only after a Civil War which saw the butchering of hundreds of thousands of lives.

[dafydd]

Maybe they should have been naked,riding on a donkey and hitting each other with celery....

Then the RSPCA/SPCA or DEFRA/FDA or Health and safety bods might give cause for complaint.....


In all actuallity those complaining are doing what the ultra conservative minority want you to do.....argue amongst ourselves.

Its history,its been and now its gone, how you yanks say....period!

I still believe the issue is not the selection of images but the lack of selection of images, the fact that no gay male office wanted to pose for the camera.

But your point about the naked celery weilding donkey riders (unintentionally I'm sure) agrees with the point the OP was talking about. Of course, they wouldn't have naked celery weilding donkey riders. It wouldn't look good. Which raises the OPs questions of : Should it look good? Why does it need to look good?
see how they naturally follow......

The thread was started due to a very fair and interesting comment that wanted to go deeper into the reasonings behind the images we see. It's obvious that though the law has gone, it's effects will be felt for a very long time. It is not history.

Given the fact that we never see gay men kissing/hugging (due to repression/homophobia), the decision *to show* a male army couple to represent the repeal of a repressive/homophobic law, of massive cultural and social importance, seems a no brainer.
If the editor did have that photo available and didn't use it...forget that promotion...he hasn't got the eye. Could have been one of New York Times photo of the year, as significant and controversial (and paper selling) as 'The Falling Man' was for 9/11.
Simply put it's not the right choice editorially. And if he didn't have a choice of photo....why no choice?

The thread also raises the issue that we must not be blind to a heirachy of acceptability, that often occurs wheh LGBT are afforded the right to be open in any given arena. So homosexuality is good now, but only if you're a certain type of homosexual. And you can come to our school, but only if you drink from that water fountain.... You gays can do this, but don't go being too gay about it..We don't mind who u are, but we don't have to like what u do. A lot of people find it easier to 'like/accept' what women do over what men do: gaywise.

Scratch that surface and you'll also see that a thin lesbian is more acceptable than a fat lesbian, and that a white thin lesbian is better than a black thin lesbian, and that white thin lesbians who have sex appeal to straight men are the most acceptable of them all.

Sure, its great this story could even be told. We need people to celebrate. But as a community we're right in the middle of fighting for our lives. It's not about scepticism, it's just that the people handing out all the medicine are the people who made us sick to begin with.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning anything, especially the representation of gays and lesbians. To suggest that this victory should be enough for now, is something that DOES play into the hands of the homophobes and bigots. DADT was as bad as telling a black person to drink from a different water fountain. It destroyed a lot of peoples lives. I bet those men who survived, who celebrated at the repeal and then saw that picture, in some ways felt a secret heaviness in their heart. Despite the law change, and the public celebrations, and the crowds of people and the reports in the papers, they still couldn't see *any gay men in the forces*.

If this picture WAS selected over a gay male kiss, then it's not an image that reflects a full victory. Because by omitting a better editorial choice an editor inadvertenty reminds us of how we're still being defeated. Even if it was the couple to have a photo taken, that still reminds us of what we don't have rather than what we do.

It would also be interesting to compare the opinions on this topic of thin white attractive lesbians to non-'thin white attractive lesbians'.

This type of thread is important to the site.
and there is nothing wrong with thin, white, attractive, lesbians ....etc etc.


D

[Gearbox]

Hmm, do you all think that since this ban is repealed that somehow soldiers are going to lose their minds and all start humping the shit out of each other? I don't understand this, give the people who serve in the armed forces some credit please - they are there to do a job..it would be nice if they didn't have to worry about a dishonorable discharge while they're in harm's way for their country.
I was referring to a m-m kiss same as with the ladies. Pretty kissy ladies being 'Soft core homosexuality'-wise, and handsome kissy men being way too 'hard core homosexual', apparently. Funny how you got the idea about gays on a sex rampage isn't it?:rolleyes:

[mikey3000]

Sure, its great this story could even be told. We need people to celebrate. But ...
D

No buts. We as a community have got to learn to celebrate eachother's victories. Baby steps.

[DuckiesDarling]

No buts. We as a community have got to learn to celebrate eachother's victories. Baby steps.

Exactly, Mikey. thank you for posting that so succintly.

[Long Duck Dong]

the issue remains, were there any gay / bi males that wanted to stand in public and kiss.....?

most of the stance in the thread hinges on the understanding that there were gay / bi males that wanted the first kiss, and if there were none, then most of the statements about pandering to the public and putting forward the right * look* are nothing more than people with wishful thinking and expressing a opinion about something that MAY have not been possible at all....

so we see remarks like the lottery was rigged.... which sounds like * the military rigged the lottery to have two les / bi females that are good looking, having the first kiss, cos we can not find any overweight butch dykes on board or any gay / bi males, so we will rig the lottery to have two attractive females share a kiss....

surely the navy / military can not hold a legit lottery and have a les / bi female win...... thats simply not a option.... cos it involves lgbt and therefore it can not be a simple and legit run lottery run by the naval officers....
the powers that be are plotting against us and doing everything they can to devalue the LGBT in the military, doing things such as rigging lotteries.....
yes I am being sarcastic there........

all I am seeing in the thread is that a number of people can not be happy about the fact that the LGBT can serve in the us military now and be visible and that a lgbt female won a lottery for the first kiss, a naval tradition.....

obama took too long to repeal DADT
two females is not the right look
they are attractive
they are not gay / bi males
they have to be lesbians, they can not be bisexuals
the navy is rigging lotteries so the female could win
the powers that be, are not getting the * right* message

I can not help but notice that there are mainly two groups finding issue with the kiss....one are the anti lgbt crew.... the other.... is some of the lgbt community, and most of their issue rests on the assumption that there was a rigged lottery so that good looking ladies could kiss.....

what next ? we get a LGBT president and people start complaining cos the president is the wrong gender and not sending the right message to the public, therefore the elections were rigged to choose a person that was fit and healthy and intelligent ????

its hard to be proud of being lgbt and part of a lgbt community when all they can do, is complain about ANYTHING positive....

[void()]

You hit the nail on the head. Among those who can think beyond the tips of penis, my original post was idealistic and meant to spur discussion on whether or not publishing a picture of two men kissing (regardless of looks) would have been the appropriate thing to do.

Still say people are people. Probably, would have been the same bickering had it been two guys. I glad to see forward progress.


There is a nasty feeling about this thread together with an intolerance emanating much less from those accused than from the accusers.

Fair point, taken. Apologies. Let aversion to ignorance overstate itself. Will try being careful in the future.

[mikey3000]

Exactly, Mikey. thank you for posting that so succintly.

I'm learning that the disease of the 21st century is lack of satisfaction. Nothing is ever enough. Freedoms, money, choices. We have to learn to savour what we have, to appreciate it, before we reach higher. Or all victories become meaningless and hollow.

:2cents:

[drugstore cowboy]

obama took too long to repeal DADT

Actually this is true.

Obama and his administration could have easily stopped the witch hunts of gay, bisexual, and lesbian military personnel before DADT was ended, yet they did not do anything.

Obama and his administration edited out the non-discrimination clause in the DADT bill that finally was signed and passed, and this still would have made it impossible for gay, bisexual, and lesbian servicemembers to serve openly in the military yet heterosexuals have always had this right and privilege which they take for granted.

It was not until the Pentagon said that gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians can serve openly in the military that this major error on the Obama administration's part was corrected.

I am not a Republican or ultra Conservative but Obama and his administration are NOT 'fierce advocates' for LGBT rights at all even if they want to pretend that they are and the Barry comes out with the whole defending of DOMA and "Gawd's in the mix" BS and even on the campaign trail he and Biden said the usual bullshit about how "Marriage is between a man and a woman".

Even though DADT has been repealled, military personnel who are bisexual or gay men and who are sexually active can still be kicked out for having sex with the same gender even if they're legally married or in a civil union with a civilian or military personnel partner because the military considers sex that bisexual and gay men have with each other to be 'sodomy'.

Nobody does this bigotry and bullshit with heterosexuality or heterosexual servicemembers.

[drugstore cowboy]

when was the last time you saw ANY gay couple kiss in public?
I don't even see gay couples in the heart of the gay district in London, Soho, kiss in public. Or even hold hands...

Just because two men are partnered together it doesn't mean that they're "gay" or a "gay couple" since many bisexual men partner to gay men or to other bisexual men, and in both cases they are not both "gay" men in a couple or a "gay" couple.



The last time I saw two guys in love kissing in public was on a park bench at the national mall in Washington DC - I think it was around 1992. Nobody there seemed to mind because everybody just goes about their business anyway.

The fact that straight people can't abide two men treating each other with affection is why I've always thought it sucks to be gay..even now when LGBT enjoy more freedom than ever before.

You and daffy need to get out more.

I haven't always lived in the SF bay area but even when I've lived in small towns and even larger cities in different parts of the country bisexual and gay men who were together were NOT afraid to show public affection to each other and this was in the 70s, 80s, and even today.

My partner and I are not afraid to show each other public affection even when we're not here in SF.

Most straight people do not care if someone is bisexual or gay and a man. Or if they are dating or in a relationship with someone of the same gender and show affection by holding hands or kissing and hugging in public.

[tenni]

No buts. We as a community have got to learn to celebrate eachother's victories. Baby steps.

Ok Mikey
Celebrate what both Canada and Britain plus many other countries have. It is not as much a baby step but merely walking in our footsteps in catch up mode. Been there done that.
Look at all the anal drama that's been created over the obvious and overdue.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Wow...this thread is full of fail.

We have the first time an openly gay couple gets to have the first kiss, and we have 4 pages of bickering because it wasn't enough. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: The worst thing to ever happen to the LGBT "community" is the LGBT "community".

And just to correct an error:


Even though DADT has been repealled, military personnel who are bisexual or gay men and who are sexually active can still be kicked out for having sex with the same gender even if they're legally married or in a civil union with a civilian or military personnel partner because the military considers sex that bisexual and gay men have with each other to be 'sodomy'.

This is factually incorrect. The portions of the UCMJ that cover sodomy (and, just due to a difficulty in wording, bestiality) have been removed from the UCMJ.

Also to correct an error:


Most straight people do not care if someone is bisexual or gay and a man. Or if they are dating or in a relationship with someone of the same gender and show affection by holding hands or kissing and hugging in public.

This is untrue. It's just not true in the slightest. While most people in the nation are for gay marriage, they don't want to see affection between two men. You might not like this fact, but it's so very, very true. Yes, it's better than it was. And it will continue to be better. But, if some young man reads your words and then goes down main street of Pasadena Texas, or Beaumont (who only 4 years ago took down the sign that read: Don't let the sun set on your black ass in Beaumont), or even Houston holding hands kissing their man, they are heading for a world of hurt.

Yes, we need to work for a better world. We need to accept that it IS better than it was. But let's be realistic, too.

Pasa

[æonpax]

....Even though DADT has been repealled, military personnel who are bisexual or gay men and who are sexually active can still be kicked out for having sex with the same gender even if they're legally married or in a civil union with a civilian or military personnel partner because the military considers sex that bisexual and gay men have with each other to be 'sodomy'...

This appears to be inaccurate. Please read the following laws;

1 - Text of H.R. 6520 [111th]: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-6520

2 - § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

3 - The US Supreme Court ruled all state sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003. LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003) 41 S. W. 3d 349, - http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

There is nothing in the US Armed Forces code even mentioning sodomy much less associating it with homosexuality. This is not to say that there are still certain elements within the US Military and the civilian political spectrum who still tacitly and illegally enforce sodomy laws...there are. However, those whom associate homosexuality with sodomy, by far, happen to be from the religious right.

[elian]

I was referring to a m-m kiss same as with the ladies. Pretty kissy ladies being 'Soft core homosexuality'-wise, and handsome kissy men being way too 'hard core homosexual', apparently. Funny how you got the idea about gays on a sex rampage isn't it?:rolleyes:

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your response..and I wouldn't have resorted to profanity if there weren't already 3-4 pages of response to this thread.

When our adversaries think of LGBT rights all they think of is their worst sexual fantasy of two men humping, two ladies licking, "double your chances for a date" or drag queen with too much rouge. They associate actual people with those sex acts and somehow they start to think of the people as less moral.

We aren't sex crazed animals - we are human beings worthy of dignity and respect. I stand up for the rights of LGBT people because *I* know that it isn't about the "sex" at all, but "who you choose to love". You can control who you have sex with, it's a lot harder to control who you love.

I may have read too much into this but it seemed like there was insinuation that LGBT folks are somehow going to be more openly promiscuous now that this legislation was passed. It is incredibly frustrating to me that someone would insinuate that a military service member is "less moral" because they are LGBT, so I hope I was just overreacting.

Those with doubts about 'unit cohesiveness" should remember what gay advocates tell parents of gay children, "They are still the same person they were BEFORE you knew they were gay." Regs and the UCMJ are still there so I really doubt that soldiers are going to risk being punished for having sex openly.

Until everyone no longer feels minority pressure from society debates like this are likely to continue. I do hope there comes a day when we question why the sexual orientation of someone even matters.

Bill Clinton took a hard stance on gays being able to openly serve in the Military, destroyed a lot of his political momentum and ended up CREATING don't ask don't tell as a political compromise. I think Obama did the right thing by setting the tone for the policy and then letting the pentagon figure out how they were going to work it out. Also, 15 years ago may have simply been too soon. Lesbian and gay rights are openly sought. supported in television, popular music, celebrities and other media a lot more openly now than in the 90's. We are starting to recognize as a society, ever so slightly the impact of what happens when people are bullied.

Do you all remember "Men on Film" ? This was actually "breakthrough" TV in the 90's..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PK6QkZG_Y0

..but do you really want to go back there?..be happy for the victories we have, this news story isn't some cartoon, these are two REAL ladies in love with each other .. keep working at it - change will come.

[Katja]

I don't think anyone has covered themselves with glory in this thread. Can we not just be thankful for one small step however contrived and move on?

We all know there is much to be done but sniping at one other will get us nowhere, especially when much of that sniping is blatantly anti homosexual and much a digression and a different issue from the one under discussion.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Sure, its great this story could even be told. We need people to celebrate. But ...
D
No buts. We as a community have got to learn to celebrate eachother's victories. Baby steps.


Why didn't you quote to the end of my sentence, where I talked, as u do about community and how I recognise how important these fights are? you cut off my quote Bobbit style, just before you and i agree!
Actually there should be lots of 'buts'. <ok yes i know how post this is going to read:). 'Buts' that have directly benefited you and the confidence around who you are as as bisexual.The buts are the stuff that move things forward and dare to create a world for LGBT people which is infinitely more subtle and complex than the default generic profiles that are available. The buts have me reminding my colleagues not to forget the B in our charity work: "How does this project include Bisexuals, how does that project enable bisexuals to feel xyc..." In many cases a common complaint made against lesbian and gay intiatives is "But what about bisexuals in all this?"
Nah forget the bisexuals, we should be thankful we gave your project any funding at all! anyway the L and G are the most important bits right..its not like there are many true B's out there.....
quite common to hear.
but.....

What a curiously cavalier statement you have made.
I can celebrate *and* question. And there's a lot of people who throw themselves into a fever of celebration because its easier then fighting.
Parties are fantastic ideas, but I always hated the way people thought that all gay men did was party, party, party....
...so let's celebrate sure, I'm there with you...but maybe a week or two down the line, I'll be having a nagging thought: equality is equality, and I want nothing less than that.


I'm learning that the disease of the 21st century is lack of satisfaction. *Nothing is ever enough. *Freedoms, money, choices. *We have to learn to savour what we have, to appreciate it, before we reach higher. *Or all victories become meaningless and hollow.
:2cents:

no they become meaningless when they make people forget that there's more left to fight for.
Comparing the need for equal rights to the desire for more money is bonkers. And lastly blue eyes, the disease of the 21st century LGBT community isn't lack of satisfaction. It's a strange bag of extremes. For some suffer from too much complacency and others are fixated on constant attack.
I'm glad I keep coming back to those less than perfect buts. They need sorting out once in a while.

d

[keefer201]

[QUOTE=æonpax;217971]
This appears to be inaccurate. Please read the following laws;

1 - Text of H.R. 6520 [111th]: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-6520

2 - § 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

3 - The US Supreme Court ruled all state sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003. LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003) 41 S. W. 3d 349, - http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

There is nothing in the US Armed Forces code even mentioning sodomy much less associating it with homosexuality. This is not to say that there are still certain elements within the US Military and the civilian political spectrum who still tacitly and illegally enforce sodomy laws...there are. However, those whom associate homosexuality with sodomy, by far, happen to be from the religious right.[/QU

The UCMJ does outlaw sodomy and within the last couple of weeks Congress has been dealing with the rules on it as to lift the ban on it would also lift restrictions on bestiality. Now, how many of us here want to champion sex with animals in the armed services?

[dafydd]

Just because two men are partnered together it doesn't mean that they're "gay" or a "gay couple" since many bisexual men partner to gay men or to other bisexual men, and in both cases they are not both "gay" men in a couple or a "gay" couple.




You and daffy need to get out more.



hah you have no idea... :) but why should you.

Yeah...I've got a pretty good handle on what I'm talking about regarding public displays of affection.....more than you'd expect...

Why don't you send me a picture of you and your partner holding hands somewhere non-SF...? I'll pop it on my website...genuinely .. I'd like you to write something to go with it too... there's quite a few others who did the same thing, maybe a few hundred others, from all over the world. my crazy campaign of 2009.

I also find it funny when accused of being sniping and picking holes in small victories. Never said anything less than how great those victories were. Ever. I'm at the front helping organise and win them.
That's because I want to keep pushing. And I'll have some part to play (however small) in the next victory to come, as I hope everyone here does too.

D

[Long Duck Dong]

The UCMJ does outlaw sodomy and within the last couple of weeks Congress has been dealing with the rules on it as to lift the ban on it would also lift restrictions on beastilality. Now, how many of us here want to champion sex with animals in the armed services?

yeah i thought that some of the links that aeon posted, were incorrect.. the supreme court ruling applied to a issue in texas on the grounds of privacy, the military code of conduct still ruled sodomy as unacceptable behievour.... and with the key word of the SCOTUS rulng, being privacy, it creates one mofo of a loophole that could be used

military-defense-bill-repeals-sodomy-ban-120811/ (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/12/ap-military-defense-bill-repeals-sodomy-ban-120811/) ....

8th dec 2011
The bill, which the Senate passed 93-7 last week, would repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that states any person who engages in “unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy.” Those found guilty of sodomy would be subject to court martial.

[æonpax]

(1) yeah i thought that some of the links that aeon posted, were incorrect.. the supreme court ruling applied to a issue in texas on the grounds of privacy, the military code of conduct still ruled sodomy as unacceptable behievour.... and with the key word of the SCOTUS rulng, being privacy, it creates one mofo of a loophole that could be used

military-defense-bill-repeals-sodomy-ban-120811/ (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/12/ap-military-defense-bill-repeals-sodomy-ban-120811/) ....

(2) 8th dec 2011
The bill, which the Senate passed 93-7 last week, would repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that states any person who engages in “unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy.” Those found guilty of sodomy would be subject to court martial.

(1) Ye gods, you really should not post something if you are confused on an issue.

Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which I linked to, applies to all 50 states but with a provision that "members of the U.S. Armed Forces may still be prosecuted for sodomy under special criteria. Now allow me to show you what "special criteria" legally means;



In both United States v. Stirewalt and United States v. Marcum, the court ruled that the "conduct [consensual sodomy] falls within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court,"[13] but went on to say that despite the application of Lawrence to the military, Article 125 can still be upheld in cases where there are "factors unique to the military environment" that would place the conduct "outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence."[14] Examples of such factors include rape, fraternization, public sexual behavior, or any other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline. Convictions for consensual sodomy have been overturned in military courts under the Lawrence in both United States v. Meno and United States v. Bullock.[15] - http://www.enotes.com/topic/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States#Military_since_20 03 NB: for a more detailed report, see: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30113.pdf

Now I hate to burst your pretty little bubble but men kissing is not sodomy and since the change in sodomy laws in 2003, not a single US serviceman has been prosecuted under Article 125, Military Code of Justice, in regards to sodomy.

(2) Careful here. The Senate passed the bill but it still has to go to the House of Representatives (which it hasn’t) and be signed into law by the President. If you actually read the link you posted, you’d find that the uber conservative right wing wants to group sodomy with bestiality, to wit;


“Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said in a statement.
“As part of the defense authorization bill, liberals are pushing to make sodomy a legal activity under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In its haste to make gay sex an official part of military life, the left could be unintentionally repealing the ban on bestiality too.” - http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/12/ap-military-defense-bill-repeals-sodomy-ban-120811/

The Family Research Council is one of the largest anti-gay organizations in the US. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/family-research-council

For someone who claims to support gay rights, you sure have an odd way of showing it.

[keefer201]

(1) Ye gods, you really should not post something if you are confused on an issue.

Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which I linked to, applies to all 50 states but with a provision that "members of the U.S. Armed Forces may still be prosecuted for sodomy under special criteria. Now allow me to show you what "special criteria" legally means;



Now I hate to burst your pretty little bubble but men kissing is not sodomy and since the change in sodomy laws in 2003, not a single US serviceman has been prosecuted under Article 125, Military Code of Justice, in regards to sodomy.

(2) Careful here. The Senate passed the bill but it still has to go to the House of Representatives (which it hasn’t) and be signed into law by the President. If you actually read the link you posted, you’d find that the uber conservative right wing wants to group sodomy with bestiality, to wit;

[/INDENT]

The Family Research Council is one of the largest anti-gay organizations in the US. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/family-research-council

For someone who claims to support gay rights, you sure have an odd way of showing it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/13/congress-keeps-sodomy-ban-in-defense-bill/

[æonpax]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/13/congress-keeps-sodomy-ban-in-defense-bill/

Look at the first sentence in the article;



The House-Senate conference committee has kept the military’s current policy on sodomy in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.

Then read the last sentence;



The House and Senate must both approve the final version of the bill before it heads to the president’s desk.

Your point?

[mikey3000]

Why didn't you quote to the end of my sentence, where I talked, as u do about community and how I recognise how important these fights are? you cut off my quote Bobbit style, just before you and i agree!
Actually there should be lots of 'buts'. <ok yes i know how post this is going to read:). 'Buts' that have directly benefited you and the confidence around who you are as as bisexual.The buts are the stuff that move things forward and dare to create a world for LGBT people which is infinitely more subtle and complex than the default generic profiles that are available. The buts have me reminding my colleagues not to forget the B in our charity work: "How does this project include Bisexuals, how does that project enable bisexuals to feel xyc..." In many cases a common complaint made against lesbian and gay intiatives is "But what about bisexuals in all this?"
Nah forget the bisexuals, we should be thankful we gave your project any funding at all! anyway the L and G are the most important bits right..its not like there are many true B's out there.....
quite common to hear.
but.....

What a curiously cavalier statement you have made.
I can celebrate *and* question. And there's a lot of people who throw themselves into a fever of celebration because its easier then fighting.
Parties are fantastic ideas, but I always hated the way people thought that all gay men did was party, party, party....
...so let's celebrate sure, I'm there with you...but maybe a week or two down the line, I'll be having a nagging thought: equality is equality, and I want nothing less than that.



no they become meaningless when they make people forget that there's more left to fight for.
Comparing the need for equal rights to the desire for more money is bonkers. And lastly blue eyes, the disease of the 21st century LGBT community isn't lack of satisfaction. It's a strange bag of extremes. For some suffer from too much complacency and others are fixated on constant attack.
I'm glad I keep coming back to those less than perfect buts. They need sorting out once in a while.

d

Now don't get mad at me, Dafydd. I meant to harm. I took a little poetic license with your quote because for me, that's where I would have ended it.

See, maybe I am rather naiieve, but some folks (not saying you) prefer to divide up the community into, "us, them, and maybe them too." But where I come from, the LGBTQ2S community is just that, a community. I don't know any different. I am an active member of my community and I enjoy the closeness. During the summer, on the patio of my favourite restaurant, it's nothing to have gays, lesbians, bi's and trans folks all together for an evening, and I think this diversity should be celebrated in our own community.

I still stand, though, that the picture of two women kissing is just as valid as two men.

:)

[Pasadenacpl2]

The pic of two women was a major step. It is not the same step as two men.

But that doesn't take anything away from the picture, the event, or the historical nature of it for our nation and our military. People need to quit bitching that it's not enough when good things happen.

But, But, Pasa! They didn't have a maaaaan do it! It's not reeeeeaaally gay if it's not two men!

Yes, yes, I know. Society accepts dykes more than gay men. It's ok. Really. It's a good step. Shhh Shhh....it'll be ok. Really.

But, Pasa! I like to complain. If I listen to you, I won't have anything to complain about!

No, you're gifted enough. You'll find something to complain about, I'm sure.

Pasa

[Gearbox]

The pic of two women was a major step. It is not the same step as two men.

But that doesn't take anything away from the picture, the event, or the historical nature of it for our nation and our military. People need to quit bitching that it's not enough when good things happen.

But, But, Pasa! They didn't have a maaaaan do it! It's not reeeeeaaally gay if it's not two men!

Yes, yes, I know. Society accepts dykes more than gay men. It's ok. Really. It's a good step. Shhh Shhh....it'll be ok. Really.

But, Pasa! I like to complain. If I listen to you, I won't have anything to complain about!

No, you're gifted enough. You'll find something to complain about, I'm sure.

Pasa
I know! Lets complain about all the bitching from the LBGT Spindoctor police.:bigrin:

Dear me! Must we edit all our criticisms and replace them with "Oh that's simply wonderful! Hurrah for progress!" to please you?

Hello! It's a forum! Not the LGBT appreciation fanclub! If you'd like to post opinions, that's your right. But it's EVERYBODY ELSE'S right too!
You may not agree, and you may not like it?
But "Shhhhh!"?:rolleyes: It's not 1984 you know! You can have an opinion here!;)

[dafydd]

he
I still stand, though, that the picture of two women kissing is just as valid as two men.

:)

This is exactly where this thread has totally lost the plot. The discussion is not about which same-sex couple is more valid. I don't know where that came from.

Of course 2 women kissing and 2 men kissing are equally valid and powerful in themselves. No one is arguing against that.
We're talking about the differences in discrimination that gay male couples and lesbian couples face, in the context of acceptable/controversial images. As bisexuals we might have a unique perspective (that isn't found in any gay or lesbian forum debate) because we may also have personal experiences with straight couples to compare. This is why its an interesting topic.

The thread is not littered with moaning people banging on. But it's made to look like that when every so often, pithy posts pop up, with smileys and winks and exclamation marks, sharing a virtual eye roll at all the fussy militants who are unable to just chill and enjoy the sun.

It's hit a nerve with me I admit. It's partly due to a build up of emotion since my I lost my girl, a lack of sex, and because feeling 'silenced by saints' has been a big gripe of mine for a while : There are lots of LGBT communities that think they are above criticism, simply because they are disenfranchised.
Well, what better way to empower people than to listen to their complaints? I've seen it happen where gays are shoehorned into being grateful because someone has tossed them a loaf of bread whilst everyone gets to eat steak.
"Please sir can i have some more?", <with our quiet little voices, don't want to push it.>
what about instead..?

"Give me what they're having or I'll scoop out your eyes and fill in the sockets with gruel"

I'm neither in, nor out of any community also, but though I despise some of the sheep-like thinking, I am thankful that they're there. (And that you're here for me to get frustrated with for all of 5mins.)

I just need to get laid. *Big time*.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
D

[tenni]

daffyd
Ok..so some are discussing the difference of acceptability of two women versus two men kissing as an image.

Why is it that on a bisexual website we have men who say they are bisexual calling two men kissing "gay men"...duh..couldn't we leave out the "gay" ? Isn't it possible that they are two bisexual men kissing? :eek::bigrin:

or a bisexual man and a gay man?:bigrin:

Guess some are in favour of bi erasure on a bisexual website?:(

[dafydd]

daffyd
Ok..so some are discussing the difference of acceptability of two women versus two men kissing as an image.

Why is it that on a bisexual website we have men who say they are bisexual calling two men kissing "gay men"...duh..couldn't we leave out the "gay" ? Isn't it possible that they are two bisexual men kissing? :eek::bigrin:

or a bisexual man and a gay man?:bigrin:

Guess some are in favour of bi erasure on a bisexual website?:(

I guess some people have to poke holes in everything...why can't you just be thankful that we're even allowed to have the word bisexual in the domain without this constant obsession with being included in everything? ...it's people like you, wanting equality for everyone right now, that upset the folk who are going to give it someday. Let's just be happy with the prominent domain name www.bisexual.com, rather than expect people to acknowledge the existence of bi men in every single post, okay?

(tenni, you're totally right of course! and good call. I'll adjust my language. Though it really is me just not thinking clearly, rather than the start of some plan to erase bisexuals from earth's records.
Fair comment, and total respect for pointing it out...if only it didn't almost invalidate itself by being undermined by hyperbole and finished off with a mean insult (I'm saddened you you distrust my bisexuality. ...may I ask .. ...is it my walk?) You see, I wasn't *meaning* to offend anyone with my mistake. You were.


d

[tenni]

"may I ask .. ...is it my walk?)"

daffyd
hmm your walk? I may be coming over in a few months. Maybe we might meet in a London pub..I'll check out your walk to see :bigrin::bigrin:

I'm not sure that I know a bisexual walk though.;)

No offense intended. I just noticed two male posters referred to "kissing men" as gay. It caught my attention. I think that even bisexuals can practice bi erasure without intending to. We have been mostly raised to think in the binary.

As far as offending those who are going to give equality. Well....equality for bisexuals may be much further off than equality for gays..imo. Bisexuals don't seem to be asking for anything "special" that differs from gays from what I read. We can not even focus long enough to think what bisexuals need that gays don't. A good enough number of posters here say we are the same as gays as far as our needs are concerned. Maybe we need this woman kissing a woman and a man to put us in the public eye clearer?...:)

[mikey3000]

While I am overjoyed to see the US Military's abolishment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a part of me says that showing two men kissing, would have sent a much stronger message. Still, it's progress.


This is exactly where this thread has totally lost the plot. The discussion is not about which same-sex couple is more valid. I don't know where that came from.

Of course 2 women kissing and 2 men kissing are equally valid and powerful in themselves. No one is arguing against that.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
D

Actually I think the OP's main intention from post one was to be divisive. It is a pattern of hers. By her own admission, her intension was to create a dialogue here. Well, to me that's preaching to the choir. She did create a dialogue, but as you can see, that dialogue deteriorated into a pissing match, as most of her posts do, and she sits all smug and satisfied.

That is my intension, pointing out those who enjoy dividing our community because they feel they don't fit in anywhere.

.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Guess some are in favour of bi erasure on a bisexual website?:(

Or some use gay as an umbrella term to mean all of the LGBT community (as in...not straight) and don't have a bug up their ass all the time about bi erasure.

Just a possible alternative explanation.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

The thread is not littered with moaning people banging on. But it's made to look like that when every so often, pithy posts pop up, with smileys and winks and exclamation marks, sharing a virtual eye roll at all the fussy militants who are unable to just chill and enjoy the sun.

I think you're misreading the intention of those who say stuff like that (me included).

I am NOT saying "be satisfied with this and be happy you even got that much."

I AM saying, however, that we should celebrate this, fully and completely and yes, enjoy the sun. THEN, after we celebrate, after we acknowlege that our world is getting better all the time, we can roll up our sleeves and move on to the next challenge.

But that's not what happens. What happens is a bunch of pissing and moaning about how it wasn't enough. You want to just take it? You want to go in and take it by force? Sure...be my guest. And while you do that hundreds of thousands of gays (I'll use that as an umbrella term) will be beaten back into the closet.

We cannot win this fight, this challenge, by force. We can only win this by taking the baby steps and celebrating the accomplishments as they come.

Pasa

[pepperjack]

Actually I think the OP's main intention from post one was to be divisive. It is a pattern of hers. By her own admission, her intension was to create a dialogue here. Well, to me that's preaching to the choir. She did create a dialogue, but as you can see, that dialogue deteriorated into a pissing match, as most of her posts do, and she sits all smug and satisfied.

That is my intension, pointing out those who enjoy dividing our community because they feel they don't fit in anywhere.

.

Whatever her motives were, you've got to admit, she created a very stimulating thread; challenges stimulate strengths people.

[tenni]

"Or some use gay as an umbrella term to mean all of the LGBT community (as in...not straight) and don't have a bug up their ass all the time about bi erasure.

Just a possible alternative explanation."

Yes, I can understand that interpretation. It reinforces the GL attempt to bi erasure.


ie
We are all the same. There is no need to be concerned about bisexual issues. Our issues are the same. Don't worry.. Bisexuals are really Gay.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Or....it's not an ATTEMPT at bi-erasure at all. Perhaps...just perhaps...people just aren't that damned concerned about it.

There is a HUGE difference between bi-erasure and using an umbrella term. I'll try to spell it out for you using small terms.

Bi-erasure is the idea that there is an active attempt to erase bisexuals. It means doing this specifically to attempt to achieve this goal.

Not giving a damn is passive. I say gay because people understand that I mean "anyone not straight." It's easy. It takes no effort. Everyone (except a few people on this site) knows what I mean. I also use terms like "queer" for the same purpose. If I need more specificity, I'll say 'bi' or 'lesbian' or whatever.

There is no conspiracy, here. Just a bunch of people who don't wig out because the "proper" tag isn't being used.

Pasa ~ bisexual, Poly, Leather Dom....the labels go on and on.

Edited to add: We should have a term for folks who simply INSIST upon proper tags being used. Label Nazi seems appropriate.

[æonpax]

Actually I think the OP's main intention from post one was to be divisive. It is a pattern of hers. By her own admission, her intension was to create a dialogue here. Well, to me that's preaching to the choir. She did create a dialogue, but as you can see, that dialogue deteriorated into a pissing match, as most of her posts do, and she sits all smug and satisfied.

That is my intension, pointing out those who enjoy dividing our community because they feel they don't fit in anywhere.


As usual, you are wrong. You erroneously conclude that all bisexuals “think the same” hence your trite assumption that a question seeking opinions is “preaching to the choir. Also, I might add that I did not cause this conflict. People like you did. Sorry, but bisexuals come in a wide spectrum of beliefs. The common denominator here is our sexual orientation.

One need look no further than the second post in this thread and the additional off-topic comments about HIV, legal matters, etc, that are anti-gay, to see that there is a distinct prejudice, if not hatred, here against gays.

Furthermore you DO NOT represent the bisexual community here. Out of 135,000 members, only a handful actually post in this forum. It’s rather disingenuous to assume that only those that post here represent bisexuals. I could easily assume that those who post in this forum consistently, feel they own them and actually scare off many other people who would like to post with their opinions but don’t want to run afoul of the “Regs.”

If you do not like a thread, for whatever reason, don’t post in it. Problem solved. If conflict is something you obviously can’t handle, don’t post in that thread. In all threads, there are people who have something to say and people who have to say something. You appear to belong to the latter.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Wow...

Pasa

[darkeyes]

God.. this still on goin'? Shudda stayed away a bit longa (k guys.. cut out the cheerin'):tong:

Wy r peeps gettin quite so hot under the collar? Its happened and they snogged, it was nice, not b4 time, still lots 2 be done.. end of... chill, an put this 2 bed...:)

[dafydd]

Actually I think the OP's main intention from post one was to be divisive. It is a pattern of hers. By her own admission, her intension was to create a dialogue here. Well, to me that's preaching to the choir. She did create a dialogue, but as you can see, that dialogue deteriorated into a pissing match, as most of her posts do, and she sits all smug and satisfied.

That is my intension, pointing out those who enjoy dividing our community because they feel they don't fit in anywhere.

.

"While I am overjoyed to see the US Military's abolishment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a part of me says that showing two men kissing, would have sent a much stronger message. Still, it's progress."

Yes, it was about whether 2 men kissing would have sent a stronger message.....exactly as I read it as.
I didn't read anything machiavellian into the OP in that she was being divisive.
In any case, I don't mind people being divisive if they agitate using a topical issue, without causing outright offense: some of the best discussions get going like that. If you start a thread with your opinion, then surely its divisive by default. That's why these are contentious issues. I'd hate it if we weren't divided every know and again on these topics. I encourage OPs far and wide to start topics which pull out polarised opinions in people and all the opinions in between.
There are enough people here who can seperate a good mass-debate from a load of wank. :rolleyes: And I don't get played with (as much as Id like :()

As an example of a ridiculously contentious OP, have a look at the scandal caused 2 years ago when the BBC posted this question on their news website.
"Should homosexuals face execution?"
Divisive? (or maybe the exact opposite) you had to believe it was written by someone who just had no clue, bless them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/17/bbc-world-service

[dafydd]

I think you're misreading the intention of those who say stuff like that (me included).

I am NOT saying "be satisfied with this and be happy you even got that much."

I AM saying, however, that we should celebrate this, fully and completely and yes, enjoy the sun. THEN, after we celebrate, after we acknowlege that our world is getting better all the time, we can roll up our sleeves and move on to the next challenge.

But that's not what happens. What happens is a bunch of pissing and moaning about how it wasn't enough. You want to just take it? You want to go in and take it by force? Sure...be my guest. And while you do that hundreds of thousands of gays (I'll use that as an umbrella term) will be beaten back into the closet.

We cannot win this fight, this challenge, by force. We can only win this by taking the baby steps and celebrating the accomplishments as they come.

Pasa

Pasa,
Nobody is saying that's not 'enough'.
Everybody is in agreement about how great an accomplishment it is.
Part of that greatness is the realisation of how far we have yet to go... <that's a reasonable thought>
I know *exactly* how to go about winning those kind of victories. I've done it many times. Successfully.
Who said 'by force'? Noone said 'by force'.
Who said 'take it'? Noone.
What do you mean 'beaten back into the closet'? What are you talking about?
Nobody is disagreeing with you. Where are these ACT-UP militants you describe?
I've become a broken record...the more I defend myself here the more I sound like the type of person you're describing. Though that's not the case. This is not why I entered this thread, but now I'm stuck with a pinched nerve and righteous indignation. If we're all going to celebrate then lets have a party where everyone is invited regardless of what they think.

(written with whimsy after a New Year nevermind)

d:flag3:

[dafydd]

"may I ask .. ...is it my walk?)"

No offense intended. I just noticed two male posters referred to "kissing men" as gay. It caught my attention. I think that even bisexuals can practice bi erasure without intending to. We have been mostly raised to think in the binary.

As far as offending those who are going to give equality. Well....equality for bisexuals may be much further off than equality for gays..imo. Bisexuals don't seem to be asking for anything "special" that differs from gays from what I read. We can not even focus long enough to think what bisexuals need that gays don't. A good enough number of posters here say we are the same as gays as far as our needs are concerned. Maybe we need this woman kissing a woman and a man to put us in the public eye clearer?...:)

It *is* important to make sure people are inclusive, and we need more eagle eyes out there. But before you point out perceived bi-erasure (to a bisexual writing on a bisexual forum), make sure that you're a bisexual:

1) who is completely 'out',
2) who does not hide open public affection (kissing, holding hands) with partners of either sex and
3) who talks about the gender of his lovers to whoever without impunity.
I do all three.

Wouldn't anything less than the above be worse than 'bi-erasure'? You can't erase something if people don't know it exists in the first place.

That being said, I would love to meet you for a pint. Let me know your dates! or if you need a place to stay, I have a spare room.
d