Campaign Creations

AA7Dragoon wrote:

Sodon wrote:

AA7Dragoon wrote: Sodon, on one hand you are alluding to some kind of "principle" stating it is a "horrible idea" to put "people" together who are attracted to one another.  What is this "principle" you speak of?  Is it a theory or philosophy of what following?  On the other hand, you're saying I completely took you out of context but refuse to clarify or state concisely your true opinions on the matter.

If someone states it is a "horrible idea" to have women mixing with men or other gay soldiers, most likely they would choose not to have such integration in the military.  If you are in support of gays in the military and women in the armed forces, then I completely confused what you said and I am sorry for it.

I will not state my true opinions, because thus far you have made it clear that any kind of disagreement with you, however slight or tangential, is enough to be slandered and insulted.

The entire point of that long post, whose message you have completely disregarded (much like my first few), is that this "principle" I put forth has nothing to do with bigotry, regardless of whether I believe it or not. Your slander of my character was both unnecessary and unfounded.

Since you refuse to understand that, I'm done.

I have not slandered you, Sodon.  If you would clarify yourself, I can explain any differences of views.  

Or you can choose to feel hurt and not try to resolve anything.  If that's easier for you.


Mucky, I understand what mAc is saying.  My question to him is it socially just to enforce this law simply because it is a rule?

Sodon wrote:

AA7Dragoon wrote:This is a convenient excuse to hide the true feelings that Sodon had no problem expressing.  The feelings being that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals as soldiers nor equal members of society.  

As Sodon mentioned. "Self-control doesn't have much to do with it - our biology is meant to work a certain way" so too did the Navy believe that the biology of African-Americans did not allow them to be capable navy soldiers.  This is the same bigotry, only manifested differently in a generation less backward in thinking.  

Now before you reply, you need to take into consideration that I have spent over an hour preparing this post. I take your opinions very seriously and expect any kind of rebuttal to have substance and evidence to disprove my arguments.

You will no doubt be surprised to hear my actual thoughts on the subject. However, you have not earned the privilege of hearing them. In fact, you have not earned the privilege to hear me debate with you or for you at all.

AA7, I stated in my original post that one problem with allowing homosexuals to fight with other men is that it opens up avenues of sexual attraction that may be inappropriate in combat situations. I also explicitly noted that the same problem exists with heterosexual men and women. I also referred to the biology of sexual attraction, which demands irrational behavior as part of the reproductive process. At no point did I denigrate you or even homosexuals in general. You feel I have by suggesting homosexuals may be incapable of controlling their behavior, but you must acknowledge that I also suggested heterosexuals would be equally incapable of controlling their behavior around the opposite sex - hence the frequent references to women in the military. On this principle, I was, in fact, quite fair.

If you are taking the above paragraph as an argument or defense, stop. I am simply restating my original posts in order to emphasize an important point: I did not denigrate homosexuals as a special group in society, and I did not personally attack anyone in this thread.

The same, however, can not be said of you. Your otherwise well argued post is rife with references to me, to my "true feelings" and to my "bigotry." These references have only one base: that I disagreed with you.

I balk at you now, sir, in particular because of the hypocrisy of your knee-jerk reaction. You took what is, in all likelihood, prevalent homophobia in society and military administrations and applied them to me, when I gave no evidence of such feelings at all, except that I disagreed with you. The actual content of my argument became, and has since been, irrelevant.

You have done me wrong, AA7.

It may be that I am actually, aside from this "principle" that I have my doubts about, on your side. Or I may not be. However, until you acknowledge the insult you so wrongly delivered to me, and acknowledge that, as of yet, I have given you no grounds, no "evidence," by which you may accuse me and slander me in your argument as you did, and, to be blunt, modify your post to reflect the reality of my position, you can consider me completely and ardently against you.

You do not know my true feelings. You have no right to accuse me of bigotry. And until you account for the grossly misrepresented way you took my posts, you do not get the privilege of claiming that you will take replies to your argument seriously. And you will not get a serious reply either, at least not from me.