Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Tiger Wench on February 02, 2010, 10:36:06 PM
-
I happen to agree with this guy's opinion - especially the bolded part.
http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=3213 (http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=3213)
So just about everything that can be said about the possible repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been said. Y’all can probably guess my position; I think a policy that requires soldiers, who depend on each other for their very lives, to lie to each other is even worse than an outright ban on gay soldiers and just generally a shitty policy that should be canned immediately if not sooner. Lots of other first-world nations, including Israel which has to deal with far more crap than we usually do, have fully integrated forces and they seem to be handling it just fine. Not using skilled, motivated resources available to us for a reason as petty as what they do in their bedrooms is just stupid.
There is one thing that I’d like to address, though. When I’ve seen people speaking out against repealing DADT- or advocating for a return flat-out to a total ban on gay soldiers- they are almost always men, and they very frequently cite some variant on a common theme. Apparently, it would be just horrible if they had to think about other men being attracted to them, and worry about being ogled, and maybe even worry about being raped, because there’s always the one creepy guy that’s willing to cross that line, and we just can’t do that to our soldiers. (Lesbians, as usual, are never mentioned, either because what the wimmens do is boring, or because that’s kind of hot and therefore okay.)
To these men, I have the following reply: welcome to what every single human female on the fucking planet deals with from puberty onward. You don’t like the idea that some man you’re not attracted to might be fantasizing about having sex with you, might be eyeing your fun bits, that there’s even a remote but existing chance he might rape you? Harden. The fuck. Up. Fifty percent of the population has to cope with this every day as a fact of life, and we’re called paranoid deranged feminazi man-haters if we even bring it up outside a feminist consciousness-raising session.
And you know what? It’s true, it’s not healthy to go around concerning yourself that deeply with other people’s sexual feelings and flinching as though they’re about to assault you as long as they’re not actually assaulting you. Even being hit on isn’t an assault even if it’s uncomfortable or even crosses the border into creepy territory. Only assault is assault, and until then whatever perverse sexual lust anybody is harboring isn’t your business unless they make it your business, and the only appropriate response of yours so long as it ISN’T an assault is “no”.
If Tiffani Amber the eighteen year old who happened to be blessed with the genes for a great rack can manage to not crack under such pressure, I think soldiers we expect to send into combat can probably find it within themselves.
Be glad you only have to cope with 5% of the male population instead of 95%, that you’re much more likely to be able to fend off a real assault with your bare hands than we are, and STOP WHINING about the bad nasty men that might want sex with people that might not be interested. When “cry like a little girl” becomes an inappropriate expression because the little girls are handling it better than you are, you know you really do need to put on your big-boy britches.
-
Rump rangers and rear admirals. I am tired of all the gay shit being crammed down your throat if you turn on a TV. Let em out of the closet, if your a fag and your platoon finds out they'll probably do the soap in the sock and take care of you anyways.
-
My point is that the most common excuse for not repealing it is the "OMG, sum dude is gonna check out my package...". WTF ever, dude. Women deal with that every day, from men and from lesbians and we still carry on with our lives - even in the military. Get a better excuse.
I cannot imagine that if you are taking on enemy fire, that whether or not the guy next to you thinks you are HAWT would cross your mind if he is a superior marksman. As long as his uni is regulation, and he can shoot, who gives a crap what strip club he prefers when on leave?
-
My point is that the most common excuse for not repealing it is the "OMG, sum dude is gonna check out my package...". WTF ever, dude. Women deal with that every day, from men and from lesbians and we still carry on with our lives - even in the military. Get a better excuse.
I cannot imagine that if you are taking on enemy fire, that whether or not the guy next to you thinks you are HAWT would cross your mind if he is a superior marksman. As long as his uni is regulation, and he can shoot, who gives a crap what strip club he prefers when on leave?
I don't give a double flying fuck if the guy in my foxhole is gay or not. The motherfucker better be able to circumcise a gnat at 400 meters.
This whole shit about "they may see me in the shower" is a load of shit as well. Have you seen how the standard enlistee lives? In a fucking dorm room, with high speed internet access, and private showers.
All that being said this whole conversation was brought on by a need to shove this down the masses throat. Anyone think there were not homosexuals in the military before DADT?
-
I don't give a double flying fuck if the guy in my foxhole is gay or not. The motherfucker better be able to circumcise a gnat at 400 meters.
This whole shit about "they may see me in the shower" is a load of shit as well. Have to seen how the standard enlistee lives? In a fucking dorm room, with high speed internet access, and private showers.
All that being said this whole conversation was brought on by a need to shove this down the masses throat. Anyone think there were not homosexuals in the military before DADT?
I totally agree, Sani. Just another example of liberals trying to force accommodation on the rest of us. There were gays there before and there will be gays there after, and no policy is gonna change that fact. Another situation where the govt needs to STFU and stay out of it.
-
Another situation where the govt needs to STFU and stay out of it.
I'm not gonna lie. It moved.
-
I'm not gonna lie. It moved.
At the thought of sharing a foxhole with teh gheys?
Sani, you dog you... ;)
XXOXOXO, hon.
-
At the thought of sharing a foxhole with teh gheys?
Sani, you dog you... ;)
XXOXOXO, hon.
It was just that one time.
-
The reason DADT needs to be repealed is because of the reasons you bolded in the original post, in conjunction with the fact that if it comes out that you're gay, even if someone just spreads that rumor about you, you're discharged.
That's fucked up.
Like it was already said, if the guy is a superior marksman, or the famous cases of top Arabic translators who got the boot, then who gives a fuck how he prefers to fuck?
General protocol that prohibits sexual harassment, which already exists, should be enough.
If not, then ban sexual promiscuity of any kind.
-
In this pc world we live in . Not letting queers in the military is one of the few un-pc ideas left. Lets keep it. :thumbsup:
-
I am old school. I still think it is a genetic defect that can be treated. Or a choice.
Either way it's wrong.
-
Just some comments...
To start with, the last time I checked, the military is not a social organization. It's not summer camp. It's not a school. It's not a religion. It's not happy hour. It's nothing like prison. They don't have to abide by the same EEOC regs as corporations. And, they're usually not pre-occupied with promoting “deranged liberal concepts” of fairness and equality among the troops. Social engineering just doesn't belong in the military...
To these men, I have the following reply: welcome to what every single human female on the phuking planet deals with from puberty onward. You don’t like the idea that some man you’re not attracted to might be fantasizing about having sex with you, might be eyeing your fun bits, that there’s even a remote but existing chance he might rape you? Harden. The phuk. Up. Fifty percent of the population has to cope with this every day as a fact of life, and we’re called paranoid deranged feminazi man-haters if we even bring it up outside a feminist consciousness-raising session.
What BULLSHIT… That's a nice, shallow, light-hearted perspective from an Oprah-watching, bon bon gorging, couch sow. Let's try this... How about we start promoting unisex bathrooms and showers in high-schools, colleges and work places? When bimbos of the opinion above start promoting unisex showers, I'll promote gays in the military. I'll be all for it! It's the close-quarters aspect of the military that makes this an issue. If a moderately attractive woman is taking a shower alongside me, I’m gonna “harden up”… It happens… I was born that way. It’s how I roll. I can’t control it. She doesn’t have to dig me, and I don’t have to dig her. She can be married. I can be married. It doesn’t matter. It’s just going to happen. AND, it has the potential for leading to things that don’t belong in the military.
My point is that the most common excuse for not repealing it is the "OMG, sum dude is gonna check out my package...". WTF ever, dude. Women deal with that every day, from men and from lesbians and we still carry on with our lives - even in the military. Get a better excuse.
:taunt: While I don't know you personally, I'm fairly certain that you're smarter than that from your other posts in this forum. We all know that it's a bit more complicated than this silly little summation.
I cannot imagine that if you are taking on enemy fire, that whether or not the guy next to you thinks you are HAWT would cross your mind if he is a superior marksman. As long as his uni is regulation, and he can shoot, who gives a crap what strip club he prefers when on leave?
And, here is where I can agree with you to some extent. I don't think that anybody would disagree with this.
The reason DADT needs to be repealed is because of the reasons you bolded in the original post, in conjunction with the fact that if it comes out that you're gay, even if someone just spreads that rumor about you, you're discharged.
That's phuked up.
Like it was already said, if the guy is a superior marksman, or the famous cases of top Arabic translators who got the boot, then who gives a phuk how he prefers to phuk?
General protocol that prohibits sexual harassment, which already exists, should be enough.
If not, then ban sexual promiscuity of any kind.
The advocate <http://www.advocate.com/ (http://www.advocate.com/)> inserts his two cents... :cents: Let's invalidate the entire policy because of a few extreme cases. Let's destroy the car because the cigarette lighter doesn't work. Let's abort the fetus because it will never have perfect vision without corrective lenses. Let's demolish the entire house because the paint is fading. What about people who are incorrectly convicted of a crime they didn't commit? Do we throw away the entire law to address the mistakes, or do we correct the mistakes?
I am old school. I still think it is a genetic defect that can be treated. Or a choice.
Either way it's wrong.
BINGO! I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that dismisses the genetic defect theory. Throw other sexual proclivities into the mix and discern the differences for me. Pedophile, homosexual, cat-lover, dog-fister… Where are the differences?
-
Just some comments...
To start with, the last time I checked, the military is not a social organization. It's not summer camp. It's not a school. It's not a religion. It's not happy hour. It's nothing like prison. They don't have to abide by the same EEOC regs as corporations. And, they're usually not pre-occupied with promoting “deranged liberal concepts” of fairness and equality among the troops. Social engineering just doesn't belong in the military...
What BULLSHIT… That's a nice, shallow, light-hearted perspective from an Oprah-watching, bon bon gorging, couch sow. Let's try this... How about we start promoting unisex bathrooms and showers in high-schools, colleges and work places? When bimbos of the opinion above start promoting unisex showers, I'll promote gays in the military. I'll be all for it! It's the close-quarters aspect of the military that makes this an issue. If a moderately attractive woman is taking a shower alongside me, I’m gonna “harden up”… It happens… I was born that way. It’s how I roll. I can’t control it. She doesn’t have to dig me, and I don’t have to dig her. She can be married. I can be married. It doesn’t matter. It’s just going to happen. AND, it has the potential for leading to things that don’t belong in the military.
:taunt: While I don't know you personally, I'm fairly certain that you're smarter than that from your other posts in this forum. We all know that it's a bit more complicated than this silly little summation.
And, here is where I can agree with you to some extent. I don't think that anybody would disagree with this.
The advocate <http://www.advocate.com/ (http://www.advocate.com/)> inserts his two cents... :cents: Let's invalidate the entire policy because of a few extreme cases. Let's destroy the car because the cigarette lighter doesn't work. Let's abort the fetus because it will never have perfect vision without corrective lenses. Let's demolish the entire house because the paint is fading. What about people who are incorrectly convicted of a crime they didn't commit? Do we throw away the entire law to address the mistakes, or do we correct the mistakes?
BINGO! I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that dismisses the genetic defect theory. Throw other sexual proclivities into the mix and discern the differences for me. Pedophile, homosexual, cat-lover, dog-fister… Where are the differences?
Wow. That was awesome. The man says what so many of us think but are hesitant to say in this upside down PC world.
Agree with all.
Except the house demolition part. You mean I could have just put a fresh coat on and didn't actually need the bulldozers?
-
So you are saying that it would freak you out if the guy in the shower next to you gets a hard on? Maybe he is thinking about his girl and what he would like to do to her. How arrogant to think it is all about you. Accommodating the differences in gender is one thing. But to say that gays can't be in the military because one of them might find a fellow soldier to be attractive is ridiculous. If he acts on that impulse, then that is against several rules that are already in place regarding fraternization, and he gets punished. End of discussion.
I could turn the "trash the car because the lighter doesn't work" analogy back around on you. You are going to refuse to accept the skills of a highly trained, highly talented individual just because his sexual proclivities are different from yours? If you can be trained to supress your sexual impulses in combat or in close quarters, so can he. Right now, you have the self control (I assume) to be faithful to a wife or significant other and not hump every chick you see. Just because a man is gay does not mean the only thing on his mind is to hump every ass he sees. Why is he less likely to be a professional military man than a straight guy?That just does not hold water.
BINGO! I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that dismisses the genetic defect theory. Throw other sexual proclivities into the mix and discern the differences for me. Pedophile, homosexual, cat-lover, dog-fister… Where are the differences?
Relating homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality. Right. :blink: That is not a slap in the face of being PC – that is a slap in the face of common sense and rationality. Sex between two consenting adults of ANY gender is a far cry from sex with children and sex with animals. You just lost credibility with that comment. You and I typically see eye to eye, but I am just not that narrow minded.
-
Relating homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality. Right. :blink: That is not a slap in the face of being PC – that is a slap in the face of common sense and rationality. Sex between two consenting adults of ANY gender is a far cry from sex with children and sex with animals. You just lost credibility with that comment. You and I typically see eye to eye, but I am just not that narrow minded.
Don't start that.
It REALLY pisses me off when somebody who holds a different (and in my opinion utterly wrong-headed) viewpoint dismisses another's as "narrow-minded." That's the kind of bullshit that leads to PC thinking, is usually based in ignorance or fear and is intended to quash legitimate debate -- often because the person who deems other views as "narrow-minded" knows that their opinion is subject to being broken down as wrong.
When you're talking AU/AL football or KISS vs. Dave Matthews, then it's okay. But not when used in this type of discussion.
That's where credibility is lost, my friend.
What gives you the right to tell me that I'm narrow-minded for thinking that homosexuality is a PERVERSION? It is. We joke about it, but when you get right down to the meat (that's what she said) of the issue, it is a perversion of the natural order of things. Homosexuals themselves have argued that their "preference" is hardwired, that in and of itself makes it a genetic issue. If it IS genetic, then I see it as being no different than mongoloidism or a hair lip or any other genetic defect. The fact that it is a defect means that it can theoretically be cured.
You see, it's either a choice -- and therefore punishable -- or it's a defect -- and therefore cureable.
I don't see homosexuals as any different at all from people who want to fuck sheep, dogs, goats, children, monkeys, fence posts, watermelons or mountain dew bottles. All are sexual deviants.
-
Don't start that.
BLAH BLAH
You disagree with it. Fine. But that is still just an opinion. I can think of a lot of things I would consider deviant behavior, but unless an innocent is harmed by such behavior, I am not going to get all high and mighty about it. I say it is genetic for most men, while possibly a choice for some women, but in either situation, I am not judging, and I am not about to insist that anything that "deviates" from my personal practices be persecuted and "cured".
You are folically challenged. That's probably genetic. Most other people have full heads of hair. Should you be forced to wear a rug or get hair transplants? You must be HEALED!! Deviant!!!
You can't even argue the whole choice thing. Hetero people make equally "deviant" choices in the bedroom. Why should their "anal experimentation" be any different from a gay couple's sexual preferences?
Gay folks are here to stay, and you may as well get used to it. No one says you have to like it, but getting your own panties in a twist over what someone else does that doesn't cause direct harm to you is useless and yes, narrow minded. "Curing" homosexuality went out with the dunking stool and burning witches at the stake. Self- righteous Puritanism at its finest.
-
So you are saying that it would freak you out if the guy in the shower next to you gets a hard on? Maybe he is thinking about his girl and what he would like to do to her. How arrogant to think it is all about you.
I love you, but when you grow a dick and participate in the male showering, then you can talk. I can just imagine if one of the guys popped a hardy in the shower when I was at AU. We took showers after practice every day (high school too). It was an unwritten rule. Keep your eyes up and never look excited.
And your argument blew as soon as you dismissed the co-ed living/showering. If women feel like they are ogled every day and demand separate quarters due to that, then why should a man not be afforded the same respect in terms of having some privacy? Either way, DADT gives gay individuals the right to serve if they so choose, but that right is denied as soon as they show that their choice could affect unit moral. It is the same as some dude posing as a chick and as soon as they find out he has been a female soldier and now they know he is male, do the females really want him around in their intimate places? IT would affect moral.
I would think that the feminazi who wrote that could see the exact correlation.
DADT is the best compromise we have to date.
-
And your argument blew as soon as you dismissed the co-ed living/showering. If women feel like they are ogled every day and demand separate quarters due to that, then why should a man not be afforded the same respect in terms of having some privacy?
Separation by gender is appropriate. Seperation WITHIN a gender is stupid. I lived in a dorm FULL of women at Judson, and I KNOW that several of them were lesbians. We had communal showers and there was not a "shower time for straight chicks" and "shower time for lesbos". But that never EVER bothered me. Unless said chick was grabbing my ass or staring at my boobs, then her thoughts were her own.
And I will bet dollars to doughnuts that just like the author of the original post said, some of you will come back with "Well, that's ok - two chicks is HAWT." And just like she said, the only people that have a problem with gays in the military are MALE - when I would bet that there are more lesbians than gay men in the military. That only makes sense, right? Butchy women more so than feminine men? But you don't hear other women complaining - we are just not that uptight about it.
You guys are just majorly (haha) insecure about even the THOUGHT of another naked man, hetero or not.
Plus? If you are staring straight ahead, how would you know if he pops wood or not?? :poke:
And I love you too.
-
And I will bet dollars to doughnuts that just like the author of the original post said, some of you will come back with "Well, that's ok - two chicks is HAWT."
Nope. Like I said, grow and ick and then we'll talk. So much of what men do (sports, military, etc.) revolve around bravado, comraderie, and testosterone. For years society has been trying to emasculate males. There are very few "soft" soldiers. Its a fine delicate line that is only understood if you see it from that perspective. We really don;t give shit what women do in these terms. The majority of men only care about how it will affect their unit/actions. And in war, any thought that gives doubt or weakness is bad for the military.
-
You disagree with it. Fine. But that is still just an opinion. I can think of a lot of things I would consider deviant behavior, but unless an innocent is harmed by such behavior, I am not going to get all high and mighty about it. I say it is genetic for most men, while possibly a choice for some women, but in either situation, I am not judging, and I am not about to insist that anything that "deviates" from my personal practices be persecuted and "cured".
Don't tell me I'm narrow-minded because I disagree. That was the point.
You are folically challenged. That's probably genetic. Most other people have full heads of hair. Should you be forced to wear a rug or get hair transplants? You must be HEALED!! Deviant!!!
If they come up with a cure for it, I'll damn sure take it. This perhaps the most ridiculous argument you've ever attempted to post, however.
You can't even argue the whole choice thing. Hetero people make equally "deviant" choices in the bedroom. Why should their "anal experimentation" be any different from a gay couple's sexual preferences?
When I see a "dress up like a cheerleader and spank me with a spatula" parade or when the "fuck me while I hang from the ceiling fan" crowd insists that schools not discriminate against them and have books that feature spatula spankers or fan hangers, then yeah I'll have an issue with that, too.
If you want to be a fag and somebody else wants to be a fag with you, I don't care. You're the ones going to hell, so that's on you. Just don't try to force it onto my television as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Don't make my kids have to have conversations about it.
Gay folks are here to stay, and you may as well get used to it. No one says you have to like it, but getting your own panties in a twist over what someone else does that doesn't cause direct harm to you is useless and yes, narrow minded. "Curing" homosexuality went out with the dunking stool and burning witches at the stake. Self- righteous Puritanism at its finest.
Is it a genetic defect or not? If so, it can be cured. End of story there. If it's not a genetic defect, then it is a preference and preferences have consequences.
Please define harm. The fact that my nine year old daughter knows that there is such a thing as homosexuality is harm enough.
Burning at the stake is fine with me.
-
So you are saying that it would freak you out if the guy in the shower next to you gets a hard on? Maybe he is thinking about his girl and what he would like to do to her. How arrogant to think it is all about you. Accommodating the differences in gender is one thing. But to say that gays can't be in the military because one of them might find a fellow soldier to be attractive is ridiculous.
You continue to miss the point. It's just unacceptable as it puts both parties in situations that would not ordinarily occur. I'd rather people like you not conduct social experiments in human sexuality and related psychology with our military. Talk about arrogance? Really??? Let's see you advocate unisex showers in high-schools. If you really believe what you typed, then you shouldn't have a problem with it. Come on! There are reasons why we wouldn't advocate such things. Talk about ridiculous...
If he acts on that impulse, then that is against several rules that are already in place regarding fraternization, and he gets punished. End of discussion.
Oh yeah... There's NEVER any hanky-panky between the male and female soldiers today. As you say, there are rules! Well, there were also a lot of pregnancies in the military last year... Just FYI... "End of discussion..."
I could turn the "trash the car because the lighter doesn't work" analogy back around on you. You are going to refuse to accept the skills of a highly trained, highly talented individual just because his sexual proclivities are different from yours? If you can be trained to supress your sexual impulses in combat or in close quarters, so can he.
I didn't know they teach sexual impulse suppression in the military. Where did you come up with that? Oh... Maybe, we can teach that to individuals with some of those other sexual proclivities and see what happens. They can teach your kids!
Right now, you have the self control (I assume) to be faithful to a wife or significant other and not hump every chick you see. Just because a man is gay does not mean the only thing on his mind is to hump every ass he sees. Why is he less likely to be a professional military man than a straight guy?That just does not hold water.
Doesn't hold water? Well, I'm not tempted by having to shower with a bunch of females everyday. And, I wouldn't want to be in that situation. Don't you understand that? You're not being reasonable here... And, you defintely don't understand male sexuality.
Relating homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality. Right. :blink: That is not a slap in the face of being PC – that is a slap in the face of common sense and rationality. Sex between two consenting adults of ANY gender is a far cry from sex with children and sex with animals. You just lost credibility with that comment. You and I typically see eye to eye, but I am just not that narrow minded.
Wow... So judgmental... This is why I don't want people like you conducting experiments in the military. You don't see the difference because you're too focused on the results of the potential follow-through actions, and as such, you discredit any rational thought around this discussion. Human sexuality is far more complex than you seem to realize, and under it's influence, you don't always consider the consequences of your actions. Those same genes that are "responsible" for determining sexuality may just as well be responsible for other sexual predispositions. I'd rather not conduct a science experiment with our military to prove that.
The credibility jabs are great... Narrow-minded, arrogance... I feel like I'm in a debate with Nancy Pelosi.
-
You disagree with it. Fine. But that is still just an opinion. I can think of a lot of things I would consider deviant behavior, but unless an innocent is harmed by such behavior, I am not going to get all high and mighty about it. I say it is genetic for most men, while possibly a choice for some women, but in either situation, I am not judging, and I am not about to insist that anything that "deviates" from my personal practices be persecuted and "cured".
First of all, you've been judging throughout this entire thread. Who do you think you're fooling? And, you are "insisting that [certain things] that 'deviates' from [your] personal practices be persecuted and 'cured'" simply by your reaction to pedophia and other sexual practices. You're ignoring the sexuality aspect of it by only concerning yourself with the predatory practices and associated after-affects. Human sexuality is still involved regardless of any potential victims. The physical and psychological drivers are still there.
-
Oh PLEASE. I am no more liberal or Nancy Pelosi than either of you guys. But the knee jerk "It's a sin!" "Cure the deviance!" and "You aren't a man!" reactions are weak. It's all in your manly men heads, bald or not and obviously just an insecure guy thing. Gay soldiers are there now, doing their jobs, doing them well, earning respect, taking care of business. But let one of them get caught doing something on their own time, and their career should be over? What a waste!! How has that person's ability to do their job changed one iota just because someone found out they were gay? What if they didn't even get caught having sex - what if they just come out and admit it? You cannot tell me that the best sniper in your unit instantly stops being the best sniper in your unit just because you find out that he prefers men to women. You cannot tell me that if your life was on the line, you would rather have a straight guy with lesser skills than the absolute best guy that happens to be gay. That is not a liberal point of view - that is a "best man for the job, period" point of view. Letting your personal prejudices force you into settling for second best IS shallow and narrow minded.
Yes, there are uniformed men and women having sex every day. In certain circumstances, if that sexual relationship interferes with the performance of their duties (officer-enlisted, chain of command, adultery, etc.) then, yes, there are punishments. Why should it matter whether or not the sex was gay or straight? Interfere with duties = punishment. Personal time, no conflict = okay. At least gay sex won't result in pregnancies. :poke:
Don’t try to equate a high school of children with the military. If they are mature enough to wer a uniform, they are mature enough to be held to a higher standard – and they ARE. When I say “trained to resist sexual impulses”, I meant that if you are stuck out on deployment in the desert for 6 weeks with no access to women, you get over it. You don’t up and die, or start raping every villager you come across. You find ways to either ignore it or supress it. There is no class on “How to control yourself” other than the entire training process of “For the good of the unit”.
Blacks in the military did not bring the world to an end. Women in the military did not bring the world to an end. Gays openly serving in the military will not bring the world to an end.
I may not be male and I was never in the military but Sani was. Read his comment - that he does not give a rat's behind what a guy prefers long as he is a damn fine shot.
-
K, you can disagree all you want. But it is still an opinion, and not the absolute righteous be all end all.
The queer extremists have about as much in common with mainstream gay people as feminazis have with me, which is to say, very little other than the whole boobs and vagina thing. Using rabid extremists as an example again detracts from your argument. You cannot judge an entire class by their extreme members. Are all Republicans right wing neo-Nazi gun nuts? Are all Democrats tree hugging Socialists? (ok, well... maybe not the last one...) Not all gays dress in drag and parade around demanding acceptance of their extreme lifestyle.
-
Make'em all a number. Men and women and have them eat, sleep, and fight together. Otherwise, keep it the way it is. The blacks in the military is a bullshit comparison. Blacks are born black, gays are not. You can try and argue it, but I can see the black dude, he cannot change it. It is fact, he is black. Gayness cannot equate to black. So the point is invalid.
-
How about this -
I have known in my life many homosexuals. Much more so now than ever due to a big breakout of homosexual activity at the school I teach at.
Not one time have I ever known, met, or heard about a person being a homosexual without some sort of traumatic experience (albeit psychological or physical) as a younger person.
I'm sorry. I had one girl who was a "lesbian" her freshman year. She was perfectly normal with good parents. Her best friend became a lesbian, so she decided she wanted to be a lesbian too. They did lesbian things. I'm sure they were doing the scissor.
After a year? Girl decided she really wasn't a lesbian. She wanted a boyfriend, and she thought it was disgusting that she was fooling around with a girl.
But it was too late. Her reputation was ruined. She quit coming to school on a regular basis. She failed the hell out of my class. Her parents scheduled a meeting, and whaddyaknow, girl is still going to intense therapy sessions. She "chose" to like girls and it fucked her up.
Here are three other homosexuals I teach:
Boy #1 - Foster parents. Special Ed. Biological father and brother molested him when he was 5 and 6 years old. Mom knew about it but was scared to say anything. Committed suicide after telling her sister.
Boy #2 - Emotionally disturbed is what his calling card reads. Father left before he was born. He and his mother lived in a car for two years, which I know because she makes damn sure during her monthly conference that we all know about it.
Girl #1 - Mom and mom are homosexuals. Biological mom hates men. Despises them. Said she wants to find an all girl school - all girl kids and teachers. I'm sure the daughter learned a thing or two about how to feel about men growing up in a home that was all about feminism and everything about despising men.
Those are three examples where it's not a choice or a genetic code but rather a psychological influence. It's no different than a kid being overly violent due to growing up in a home full of violence.
So when homosexuality is considered a "choice," I can't say I agree with allowing it to be acceptable behavior. More often than not in my experience, it's a tell-tale sign that particular individual has experienced something in the past to enable the unwanted behavior.
If it is a genetic issue, then there is NO reason why people shouldn't be attempting to cure it. Homosexuality is illogical as it inhibits reproduction and is generally considered uncivilized in most societies. Why would you want to be a homosexual? Besides attempting to separate yourself from society, which if you ask me, is a psychological condition in itself.
-
K, you can disagree all you want. But it is still an opinion, and not the absolute righteous be all end all.
Whoa, let's rewind. Who tossed around words like "narrow minded"? Wasn't me. I'm hardly the one standing on the pedestal of the righteous and the be all end all in this discussion. You're so far up there with your attitude toward it, most of us can only see the base of your pedestal and can't tell whether you're wearing a skirt or not, which spoils the whole purpose.
The queer extremists have about as much in common with mainstream gay people as feminazis have with me, which is to say, very little other than the whole boobs and vagina thing. Using rabid extremists as an example again detracts from your argument. You cannot judge an entire class by their extreme members. Are all Republicans right wing neo-Nazi gun nuts? Are all Democrats tree hugging Socialists? (ok, well... maybe not the last one...) Not all gays dress in drag and parade around demanding acceptance of their extreme lifestyle.
No, but enough do that it's become a major political and societal issue. Those who do are constantly in the faces of people demanding equal protection under the law.
And you never answered the question.
Is it genetic and can therefore be cured so that the deviation no longer exists?
Or
Is it a preference and therefore has no rights under any law pertaining to discrimination?
Because if it's a genetic flaw, then we need to be working on a cure. If it's a preference, they need to keep that shit to themselves and in their own homes. End.
-
Oh PLEASE. I am no more liberal or Nancy Pelosi than either of you guys. But the knee jerk "It's a sin!" "Cure the deviance!" and "You aren't a man!" reactions are weak. Point A: It's all in your manly men heads, bald or not and obviously just an insecure guy thing. Gay soldiers are there now, doing their jobs, doing them well, earning respect, taking care of business. But let one of them get caught doing something on their own time, and their career should be over? What a waste!! How has that person's ability to do their job changed one iota just because someone found out they were gay? What if they didn't even get caught having sex - what if they just come out and admit it? You cannot tell me that the best sniper in your unit instantly stops being the best sniper in your unit just because you find out that he prefers men to women. You cannot tell me that if your life was on the line, you would rather have a straight guy with lesser skills than the absolute best guy that happens to be gay. That is not a liberal point of view - that is a "best man for the job, period" point of view. Point B: Letting your personal prejudices force you into settling for second best IS shallow and narrow minded.
Yes, there are uniformed men and women having sex every day. In certain circumstances, if that sexual relationship interferes with the performance of their duties (officer-enlisted, chain of command, adultery, etc.) then, yes, there are punishments. Why should it matter whether or not the sex was gay or straight? Interfere with duties = punishment. Personal time, no conflict = okay. At least gay sex won't result in pregnancies. :poke:
Don’t try to equate a high school of children with the military. If they are mature enough to wer a uniform, they are mature enough to be held to a higher standard – and they ARE. When I say “trained to resist sexual impulses”, I meant that if you are stuck out on deployment in the desert for 6 weeks with no access to women, you get over it. You don’t up and die, or start raping every villager you come across. You find ways to either ignore it or supress it. There is no class on “How to control yourself” other than the entire training process of “For the good of the unit”.
Blacks in the military did not bring the world to an end. Women in the military did not bring the world to an end. Gays openly serving in the military will not bring the world to an end.
I may not be male and I was never in the military but Sani was. Read his comment - that he does not give a rat's behind what a guy prefers long as he is a damn fine shot.
A: Asinine and insulting. I oppose homosexuality for religious and moral reasons. For anyone to dismiss my views as "manly insecurity" shows a tremendous shallowness. I'm sorry you have a gay friend. I can't help you there. But having a gay friend doesn't make you "enlightened." It only makes you desensitized and incapable of forming detached objective arguments.
B: Not personal prejudices.
The remainder of your commentary is -- and you know I respect you -- uninformed, irrational babble.
-
I have known in my life many homosexuals. Much more so now than ever due to a big breakout of homosexual activity at the school I teach at being a member of TigersX.
FTFY
-
OK... You baited me again... Ms. Pelosi...
Oh PLEASE. I am no more liberal or Nancy Pelosi than either of you guys. But the knee jerk "It's a sin!" "Cure the deviance!" and "You aren't a man!" reactions are weak. It's all in your manly men heads, bald or not and obviously just an insecure guy thing. Gay soldiers are there now, doing their jobs, doing them well, earning respect, taking care of business. But let one of them get caught doing something on their own time, and their career should be over? What a waste!! How has that person's ability to do their job changed one iota just because someone found out they were gay? What if they didn't even get caught having sex - what if they just come out and admit it? You cannot tell me that the best sniper in your unit instantly stops being the best sniper in your unit just because you find out that he prefers men to women. You cannot tell me that if your life was on the line, you would rather have a straight guy with lesser skills than the absolute best guy that happens to be gay. That is not a liberal point of view - that is a "best man for the job, period" point of view. Letting your personal prejudices force you into settling for second best IS shallow and narrow minded.
Wrong again... I don't consider this to be "personal prejudice". It's common sense. Just as you wouldn't mix men and women in close quarters for overwhelmingly obvious reasons... I have no doubts that these individuals can perform well in the military, but I'm willing to bet there are all sorts of other deviants who can perform well in the military who would not qualify to enlist as well. I'm just arguing against social experimentation with our military. It's disruptive and unnecessary, especially this whole DADT issue.
Yes, there are uniformed men and women having sex every day. In certain circumstances, if that sexual relationship interferes with the performance of their duties (officer-enlisted, chain of command, adultery, etc.) then, yes, there are punishments. Why should it matter whether or not the sex was gay or straight? Interfere with duties = punishment. Personal time, no conflict = okay. At least gay sex won't result in pregnancies. :poke:
Golly... That makes a lot of sense... :taunt:
Don’t try to equate a high school of children with the military. If they are mature enough to wer a uniform, they are mature enough to be held to a higher standard – and they ARE. When I say “trained to resist sexual impulses”, I meant that if you are stuck out on deployment in the desert for 6 weeks with no access to women, you get over it. You don’t up and die, or start raping every villager you come across. You find ways to either ignore it or supress it. There is no class on “How to control yourself” other than the entire training process of “For the good of the unit”.
I don't buy it. Sorry... You're making an incredible leap here, and the assumptions behind your assertion are infinite. Do you really believe that 17-18 year old enlistees are that much more mature than high school students? That's crazy.
Blacks in the military did not bring the world to an end. Women in the military did not bring the world to an end.
I agree to an extent. Initially, both groups had to be segregated, and the genders are still segregated. Even with the segregation of the genders, there are a lot of social issues that had to be addressed and still require significant attention.
Gays openly serving in the military will not bring the world to an end.
Of course not... But, how do you do it without resulting in disruptive issues? If I understand the rest of your posts, you'll just mix the homosexuals with the heterosexuals. You seem so willing to put other people into uncomfortable and potentially disruptive situations... How would you feel if your employer made all of your company restrooms unisex? What if you were forced to take showers with men or bull-dykes who ogled you as you bathed? Be honest... Seriously... Who are you to force others into that situation? Why would you force others into that situation?
I may not be male and I was never in the military but Sani was. Read his comment - that he does not give a rat's behind what a guy prefers long as he is a damn fine shot.
Well, one man doesn’t speak for all of us. As much as I appreciate his opinion, I have to respectfully disagree. I’m sure that he would have found it to be a bit uncomfortable to be forced to shower with a flaming brigade of fudge-packers every day.
-
Who gives a flying shit if someone is gay? How does this in any way affect your life?
It doesn't, they aren't bothering you. It's not like they are forcing you to fuck a guy/woman...or fucking a guy or woman in your living room while you are watching TV...or touching penises together over your bowl of cereal.
Unless the noted things above have happened to you, then you have no reason to dislike them or hate them. Unless...
-
Who gives a flying shit if someone is gay? How does this in any way affect your life?
It doesn't, they aren't bothering you. It's not like they are forcing you to fuck a guy/woman...or fucking a guy or woman in your living room while you are watching TV...or touching penises together over your bowl of cereal.
Unless the noted things above have happened to you, then you have no reason to dislike them or hate them. Unless...
Wrong, Awk.
Nobody hates them. I just don't want to hear about it. Choosing to be gay should not give you preferential treatment anywhere, and when you make that choice (as with any choice) you should be prepared to suffer the consequences for it. Unless it's genetic and then we should be searching for the cure.
But they ARE bothering me by parading their perversion across my television screen and trying to insist that their lifestyle choice is an acceptable one and a legitimate alternative to traditional marriage.
If they chose to keep their deviation private, I doubt anyone would care. It's the strident calls for recognition and the demand for acceptance that is a violation of my rights.
I don't accept it. It's a deviant behavior no different from child molestation or fucking a corpse.
Am I a hypocrite because watching two attractive women pleasure each other is enticing to me? Abso-fucking-lutley. But that's MY sin and I don't demand that anyone accept it. It's my individual burden. Do I regret it? Usually.
-
Is it genetic and can therefore be cured so that the deviation no longer exists?
You can't just say "Cure being gay because it is genetic or stop making that choice." Green eyes are genetic. Black hair is genetic. Should those be "cured" because they are not the same as everyone else? Not all genetic conditions should be cured, and not all of them CAN be cured. That is a bizarre argument. Who gets to decide what genetic conditions should be cured? Maybe some are choices – but straight people make all kinds of choices every day too.
Pull all the extreme examples you want, but for every "abused physically/mentally/ made him/her gay" example you have, I can mention a gay person I know who has been that way all their lives. I have more than one gay friend, male and female, mainly because as mentioned, I could care LESS what they do behind closed doors. I have straight friends with more kink. I have straight friends with more mental issues. So I just don't buy that "all gays are fucked in the head and/or a genetic mistake" thing.
I am not going to refute line by line the way you and GarMan are - mainly because this is just a line in the sand kind of argument that had gone off track into “Bash Jen and call her a liberal because she is just a chick who has no clue about manliness or testosterone or comraderie”. Although, you must have missed my earlier post, GarMan – I went to an ALL WOMEN’S COLLEGE – I DID shower with bull dyke lesbians. And no one ever touched me or even gave me a second glance – me nor any of my dorm mates either.
You won't change my mind that I want nothing but the best in our military and I don't give a flying crap what kind of sex they prefer. I won't change your minds that gay people in our military is giving into to PC and giving support to a totally unacceptable behavior. I did not start this thread to discuss gay rights, or the nature/nurture argument. I wanted to discuss why it was such a big deal that DADT was being repealed. Many – not all, but many - active duty and retired military personnel I have asked about this - including some of your fellow Xers - have the exact same opinion – as long as a guy serves honorably, and does his job when he needs to, what he (or she) does in private is no one’s business. That is still my position.
-
This post probably responds to a lot of different points made, but I'm too lazy to quote them. Instead, I'll just partition the post into specific topics.
GENETIC DEFECT
A team at the University of Copenhagen has tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today. Originally, all humans had brown eyes. A genetic mutation which strays from the genetic norm is referred to as a defect. All defects don't need to be cured. Afterall, people aren't marching around demanding that we find a way to "cure" blue-eyed people (in fact, Hitler did just the opposite).
If one believes that homosexuality is immoral or otherwise subjectively unacceptable to them, then I can't sway them of their opinion. Nor would I want to, because as with most subjective points of view, there is no way that I can prove to them that they are right or wrong.
However, to state that homosexuality is a genetic defect and thus should be cured is attempting to apply objectivity to a subjective argument. It's attempting to state that defects are scientifically proven to be "wrong" and need to be cured. As seen with blue-eyed people, we know that this isn't true. Thus, one can appeal to their subjective moral code for their reasoning, but you can not appeal to the objective rules of science in an attempt to prove the point that homosexuality "needs" to be cured.
So if all defects don't have to be cured, then which ones do and which don't? Well, that's a subjective personal decision we must reach. If someone wants to work on curing homosexuality, good for them, but that "cure" shouldn't be forced upon those who want to remain gay no more than forcing brown eyes upon those who want them blue.
PERSONAL PREFERENCE
This ties into the genetic defect point made above in two ways:
1.) If homosexuality is a genetic defect, it doesn't automatically have to be cured. Forcing genetic corrections on everyone is essentially what Hitler attempted, except his correction was to kill the "imperfect." If homosexuality is indeed a genetic defect, then one should be able to choose whether they want it "corrected" to the "norm."
2.) If homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics and is a personal choice, then again, I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to choose that lifestyle. I understand that most of you have no problem with homosexuals choosing to be gay. The point of contention seems to be more along the lines of what they should be allowed to do in regard to marriage, military service, etc.
Which brings me to...
GAYS AND THE MILITARY
When the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy was being formed, researchers visited Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. The UK was the only one who outright banned homosexuals. Germany had a policy similar to our "don't ask, don't tell," and the others had no limitations whatsoever.
Several observations emerged from these visits. In countries that allow homosexuals to serve, the number of openly homosexual service members is small. Open homosexuals did not call attention to themselves in ways that could make their service less efficient or impede their careers. When problems were reported, they were usually resolved satisfactorily on a case-by-case basis. None of these countries reported any impairment in military performance resulting from the presence of homosexuals.
It makes sense really. Whether you are gay or straight, you join the military for a reason: to serve. Even if it's for education or financial stability, you're still there to fulfill a reason. Your first inclination is not going to be to flamboyantly parade about or ass ram other dudes spontaneously. This is not a gay bar; it's a military government organization that will break you down and rebuild you if you attempt to circumvent the rules (and hell, it's going to break you down and rebuild you even if you are obedient).
Our studies confirmed this: Acknowledged homosexuals very seldom challenge the norms and customs of these organizations. Effectiveness of the organization had not been diminished by the presence of homosexuals on the force. Recruitment and retention of personnel had not been affected by a policy of nondiscrimination.
The report can be found at the following link:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/ (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/)
And last but not least...
GAY DEMONSTRATIONS
I, too, tire of the rainbow-colored assless chaps and Rupaul makeup that can sometimes be seen during protest parades and gay rights celebrations. But you know what? It's free speech. And while those forms of protests exist and piss me off, there are those more traditional, tasteful parades and protests that I have no problem with.
When it comes to morality and what we should do, there is always going to be disagreement without a resolution. As mentioned above, morality relies on subjective beliefs and opinions. I can't objectively prove to someone that homosexuality is wrong no more than I can objectively prove to someone that blue eyes are wrong.
I can utilize statistics to objectively argue why it will or will not affect efficiency, but I can't dictate whether it's morally right or wrong. And let's face it: the morality of it has nothing to do with whether it should be allowed in the military. If it did, then we might ought to start banning Satanists and maybe even non-Christians from the military. If you're going to force subjective moral beliefs on an institution regardless of its relevancy, you might as well go balls deep with it.
-
I only have this to add.
I am attracted to all types of females. Different hair colors. Different eye colors. Different heights. Different sizes. But I'm highly attracted to brunettes with blue eyes. Major turn on.
Do I choose to be attracted to those features? Could those attracting qualities be altered by medication?
The answer is no to both.
-
This post probably responds to a lot of different points made, but I'm too lazy to quote them. Instead, I'll just partition the post into specific topics...
[AWESOME POST]
You complete me...
-
I only have this to add.
I am attracted to all types of females. Different hair colors. Different eye colors. Different heights. Different sizes. But I'm highly attracted to brunettes with blue eyes. Major turn on.
Do I choose to be attracted to those features? Could those attracting qualities be altered by medication?
The answer is no to both.
I don't have the facts to back it up (nor do even the world's most involved scientific researchers, I don't think), but I've always believed homosexuality to be genetic for just that reason. There are probably those who choose to be homosexual, but I would almost bet money that homosexuality can be and is a genetic/biological issue for many.
The purpose of being sexually attracted to someone is to propagate the species. Men find shapely hips, larger breasts, softer hair, etc., to be sexually appealing because they are biological indicators of healthy mates who have a higher chance to pass on your genetics. If the wiring were to get crossed (for lack of a better phrase), then you may start finding males attractive just as females do. If there is a switch (again, for lack of a better term) that tells you what to inherently find attractive, then logically that switch could, by means of genetic defect, be "turned" the opposite way.
In the distant future, someone may be able to go in and "cure" your genetic predispositions, such as your affinity for brunettes with blue eyes (assuming that this is even a genetic predisposition). But if you're fine with it, then why would you want to? Cures are for maladies we don't want; they're not for quirky traits and personal choices that other people don't want you to have.
-
You complete me...
Just wait until you hear my pro-choice stance...
-
In the distant future, someone may be able to go in and "cure" your genetic predispositions, such as your affinity for brunettes with blue eyes (assuming that this is even a genetic predisposition). But if you're fine with it, then why would you want to?
To cure things such as genetic predispositions would completely do away with individualism and would certainly destroy the universe. Or it would at least make the world so boring that I would wish for death.
-
To cure things such as genetic predispositions would completely do away with individualism and would certainly destroy the universe. Or it would at least make the world so boring that I would wish for death.
I'm getting a little off topic, but that's what bothers me about eugenics. Sure, I'd love to be able to ensure that my offspring is not going to have any sort of debilitating defects or diseases. However, the question is where do you stop, and where will other people stop?
Everyone's going to have perfect vision, be of a particular societally accepted height, have a culturally agreed upon attractive hair color and eyes, etc. Eugenics has the possibility to advance us and do great things for the species, but it also has the ability to essentially make us pre-fabricated biological robots. And that's just fucking scary.
-
Just wait until you hear my pro-choice stance...
http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=8677.msg112971 (http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=8677.msg112971)
-
I'm getting a little off topic, but that's what bothers me about eugenics. Sure, I'd love to be able to ensure that my offspring is not going to have any sort of debilitating defects or diseases. However, the question is where do you stop, and where will other people stop?
Everyone's going to have perfect vision, be of a particular societally accepted height, have a culturally agreed upon attractive hair color and eyes, etc. Eugenics has the possibility to advance us and do great things for the species, but it also has the ability to essentially make us pre-fabricated biological robots. And that's just fucking scary.
Redheads - Arise!!
-
When the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy was being formed, researchers visited Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. The UK was the only one who outright banned homosexuals. Germany had a policy similar to our "don't ask, don't tell," and the others had no limitations whatsoever.
Several observations emerged from these visits. In countries that allow homosexuals to serve, the number of openly homosexual service members is small. Open homosexuals did not call attention to themselves in ways that could make their service less efficient or impede their careers. When problems were reported, they were usually resolved satisfactorily on a case-by-case basis. None of these countries reported any impairment in military performance resulting from the presence of homosexuals.
It makes sense really. Whether you are gay or straight, you join the military for a reason: to serve. Even if it's for education or financial stability, you're still there to fulfill a reason. Your first inclination is not going to be to flamboyantly parade about or ass ram other dudes spontaneously. This is not a gay bar; it's a military government organization that will break you down and rebuild you if you attempt to circumvent the rules (and hell, it's going to break you down and rebuild you even if you are obedient).
Our studies confirmed this: Acknowledged homosexuals very seldom challenge the norms and customs of these organizations. Effectiveness of the organization had not been diminished by the presence of homosexuals on the force. Recruitment and retention of personnel had not been affected by a policy of nondiscrimination.
I agree 100%.
Most of you know my background; retired after 22 years of active duty in the military. I am not pro-homosexuality by any means. I do not agree with the lifestyle at all. This being said, my experience with homosexuals in the military during my career reversed the strong opposition I held against them. I was the operations chief for several years prior to my retirement. There were a couple of folks that I knew were gay. They weren't flamboyant about it; it was just who they were. I found them to be among the most dedicated, dependable, and motivated people in the unit. They easily outperformed 90% of the straight people, and I never had any trouble with them grab-assing or harassing any of the others. The concerns with shower boners, junk grabbing, or any other means of perversion are simply not valid based on my experience. Throughout the years, I dealt with numerous cases of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and other forms of criminal misconduct and not one of them involved same sex contact.
My take is this; as long as they serve honorably and adhere to the rules and regulations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, why not let them serve? We let people with less than desirable criminal records serve. We allow people that lack the basic forms of personal responsibility serve. We let muslims, wiccans, atheists, and racists (black and white) serve. I don't agree with their lifestyles either. I can't count the number of people I saw get reprimanded or discharged for severe cases of misconduct - be it theft, fraud, destruction of property, spousal abuse, child abuse, or pornography. Military life is no different than civilian life, except we get to kill people for a living. We have the same societal makeup as any other segment of civilization. The only difference is we have a code we are required to live by. A homosexual is no more of a risk to morale, order, and discipline than anyone else.
-
And one more thing; they make fabulous cleaners and cooks.
-
And one more thing; they make fabulous cleaners and cooks.
:bugs:
-
You can't just say "Cure being gay because it is genetic or stop making that choice." Green eyes are genetic. Black hair is genetic. Should those be "cured" because they are not the same as everyone else? Not all genetic conditions should be cured, and not all of them CAN be cured. That is a bizarre argument. Who gets to decide what genetic conditions should be cured? Maybe some are choices – but straight people make all kinds of choices every day too.
Homosexuality is a sexual deviation. It is a perversion. It is an abomination and against the natural order of things. To suggest that it is as innocuous as eye color is the bizarre argument. It's BEYOND bizarre.
I cannot have a rational conversation with someone who can make that kind of illogical leap to attempt to justify something that is unnatural.
I don't give a fiddly fuck what they do in private. But it's not in private. They want to have the right to flaunt their fucking sickness in public. They want to be able to identify themselves in public as queers and suffer no consequences for that. Sorry, that will never fly with me.
You start there and the next thing you've got the corpse fuckers demanding their right to be sick fucks in public. And then the child molesters claim they were born that way and should have the right to pursue their dreams. Nope. You have to draw moral lines. This is one of them.
That's the point you're missing in all this.
-
Homosexuality is a sexual deviation. It is a perversion. It is an abomination and against the natural order of things. To suggest that it is as innocuous as eye color is the bizarre argument. It's BEYOND bizarre.
I think the point that was made by TigerWench (and definitely the point that I was making) is that genetic defects aren't always "wrong," per se. Technically, blue eyes are a genetic defect from thousands of years ago. However, that doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't make it something that needs to be cured.
When you use the word "cure," you're assuming that it's some sort of unacceptable or immoral malady that no one wants. As is seen by many gay people (and people with blue eyes), that's just not the case. Maybe you don't want them to have it, but they seem fine with it.
Thus, just as you can't force a "cure" for blue-eyed people, you can't force a "cure" for gays. Genetic or not, it's their choice to remain gay. And it's your choice to view it as immoral, but you can't expect other people to accept your subjective view of what is right and wrong.
I don't give a fiddly fuck what they do in private. But it's not in private. They want to have the right to flaunt their fucking sickness in public. They want to be able to identify themselves in public as queers and suffer no consequences for that. Sorry, that will never fly with me.
I don't mean to be hyper-technical about the language used, but you refer to "they" as if all gays act alike. I personally know (and I'm sure you do as well) several gays who are not flamboyant, who do not talk about their sex lives in public, who do not even make their homosexuality known to the public, etc.
Even if they do, it's their right to free speech; and it's your right to free speech to express your disgust over their lifestyle. However, I think your subjective morality concerning homosexuality has no bearing on whether they should be allowed in the military. The fact that you view them as sinners doesn't necessarily mean they will perform poorly in the military. This is supported by the fact that many sinners are already in the military and appear to conform just fine to the military code, as is evidenced by Pell City Tiger's post and the RAND report.
You start there and the next thing you've got the corpse fuckers demanding their right to be sick fucks in public. And then the child molesters claim they were born that way and should have the right to pursue their dreams. Nope. You have to draw moral lines. This is one of them.
Corpses and children can not consent to sexual intercourse (technically, children can say "yes," but legally they're incapable of consenting). We're talking about sex between two consenting adults. I find it slightly appalling that you would compare a homosexual to a child molester. You may view both as immoral, but you at least have to recognize the non-consensual nature of one act as opposed to the consensual nature of the other. I'd rather leave others the free will to do as they wish than to compare them to people who force their will upon others.
-
I think the point that was made by TigerWench (and definitely the point that I was making) is that genetic defects aren't always "wrong," per se. Technically, blue eyes are a genetic defect from thousands of years ago. However, that doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't make it something that needs to be cured.
When you use the word "cure," you're assuming that it's some sort of unacceptable or immoral malady that no one wants. As is seen by many gay people (and people with blue eyes), that's just not the case. Maybe you don't want them to have it, but they seem fine with it.
Thus, just as you can't force a "cure" for blue-eyed people, you can't force a "cure" for gays. Genetic or not, it's their choice to remain gay. And it's your choice to view it as immoral, but you can't expect other people to accept your subjective view of what is right and wrong.
I don't mean to be hyper-technical about the language used, but you refer to "they" as if all gays act alike. I personally know (and I'm sure you do as well) several gays who are not flamboyant, who do not talk about their sex lives in public, who do not even make their homosexuality known to the public, etc.
Even if they do, it's their right to free speech; and it's your right to free speech to express your disgust over their lifestyle. However, I think your subjective morality concerning homosexuality has no bearing on whether they should be allowed in the military. The fact that you view them as sinners doesn't necessarily mean they will perform poorly in the military. This is supported by the fact that many sinners are already in the military and appear to conform just fine to the military code, as is evidenced by Pell City Tiger's post and the RAND report.
Corpses and children can not consent to sexual intercourse (technically, children can say "yes," but legally they're incapable of consenting). We're talking about sex between two consenting adults. I find it slightly appalling that you would compare a homosexual to a child molester. You may view both as immoral, but you at least have to recognize the non-consensual nature of one act as opposed to the consensual nature of the other. I'd rather leave others the free will to do as they wish than to compare them to people who force their will upon others.
You make verbose arguments, but they still fail the test of nature. Would you allow mongoloids to determine if they wanted to be "cured"?
You used the word choice multiple times. Multiples of multiples actually. To me, that's the root of the issue. If you choose to be gay, so be it. If you choose to fuck the logs in your fireplace, that's awesome. If you've got a stuffed animal filled with jello, by all means burn that bitch out.
The problem -- and the very root of this issue (that's what she said) -- is that people are not making private choices. They want to make very public ones, choices that are unnatural and by any reasonable definition perverted. I have zero problem with someone who wants to be gay so long as they do not insist that I abandon my own moral principles and accept their choice (your word) as natural. I have no problem if personal deviations are kept behind closed doors -- where they ALL belong.
That's the point. Not whether homosexuality is right, wrong, genetic or should be cured. The problem is that it isn't enough for them to have the right to make their own private decisions, those decisions are forced into the mainstream where they must be accepted as natural and normal. They're not. Period.
Where do I have the right to freely express that opinion and have it ascribed to me? Where is the majority opinion allowed that it isn't shouted down with words like "narrow minded" and "unenlightened"? We currently live in a backward world where sickness and deviant behavior has more rights and voice than that of the dissenting majority.
This has nothing to do with how straight they shoot or whether they can sashay out of a foxhole and toss a grenade. This is about their demand to be given preferential treatment. Serve if they want. Just shut the fuck up about whose ass they want to drill.
Oh, btw? Child molesters claim they are genetically wired that way and can no more help themselves than gays. I see no distinction.
I guess I'm Hitler, because if the gene were identified and I had the authority, all children would be corrected prior to birth.
-
I think the point that was made by TigerWench (and definitely the point that I was making) is that genetic defects aren't always "wrong," per se. Technically, blue eyes are a genetic defect from thousands of years ago. However, that doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't make it something that needs to be cured.
When you use the word "cure," you're assuming that it's some sort of unacceptable or immoral malady that no one wants. As is seen by many gay people (and people with blue eyes), that's just not the case. Maybe you don't want them to have it, but they seem fine with it.
Thus, just as you can't force a "cure" for blue-eyed people, you can't force a "cure" for gays. Genetic or not, it's their choice to remain gay. And it's your choice to view it as immoral, but you can't expect other people to accept your subjective view of what is right and wrong.
This doesn't connect.
If having blue eyes inhibited a person's vision, they damn sure would have forced a cure for it.
Being in love with a member of the same sex inhibits a person's ability to procreate, yet we want to tell everyone that is perfectly logical and acceptable.
-
This doesn't connect.
If having blue eyes inhibited a person's vision, they damn sure would have forced a cure for it.
Being in love with a member of the same sex inhibits a person's ability to procreate, yet we want to tell everyone that is perfectly logical and acceptable.
You're narrow minded! You're a bigot! You're nazi! How dare you make a logical, rational, reasonable argument?
-
You make verbose arguments, but they still fail the test of nature. Would you allow mongoloids to determine if they wanted to be "cured"?
Are you suggesting that your sexual preference (whether chosen or genetic) makes you unable to think for yourself? The last time I checked, sexual proclivities were not an indicator of intelligence or reasoning. Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that your enjoyment of watching lesbians somehow makes you a mongoloid. At which point I would have to suggest that you be "cured" of your genetically predisposed perversion, because your sexual preferences make you too much of a mongoloid to decide for yourself.
You used the word choice multiple times. Multiples of multiples actually. To me, that's the root of the issue. If you choose to be gay, so be it. If you choose to fuck the logs in your fireplace, that's awesome. If you've got a stuffed animal filled with jello, by all means burn that bitch out.
I have one and I sho as hell do!
The problem -- and the very root of this issue (that's what she said) -- is that people are not making private choices. They want to make very public ones, choices that are unnatural and by any reasonable definition perverted. I have zero problem with someone who wants to be gay so long as they do not insist that I abandon my own moral principles and accept their choice (your word) as natural. I have no problem if personal deviations are kept behind closed doors -- where they ALL belong.
They're making private choices. They're also utilizing their freedom of speech to make their private choices known publicly. You may not want to hear it, but...well, that's kind of the point of free speech. I'm sure homosexuals don't like hearing you talking about your personal choice to view homosexuality as a sin, but you're making it very public right now. I personally have no problem with you voicing your opinion, nor do I have a problem with gays voicing their sexuality. It doesn't affect me in any substantive manner, regardless of whether any of the aforementioned opinions are perverted, deviant, unnatural or what have you.
Where do I have the right to freely express that opinion and have it ascribed to me? Where is the majority opinion allowed that it isn't shouted down with words like "narrow minded" and "unenlightened"? We currently live in a backward world where sickness and deviant behavior has more rights and voice than that of the dissenting majority.
This has nothing to do with how straight they shoot or whether they can sashay out of a foxhole and toss a grenade. This is about their demand to be given preferential treatment. Serve if they want. Just shut the fuck up about whose ass they want to drill.
The beauty of free speech is that, majority opinion or not, you can say what you want, with very few limitations. People can call you narrow minded and unenlightened as they see fit, just as you can call people unnatural, deviant and perverted. It's a two way street. You're asking to shout your opinion at the rooftops, meanwhile requesting that gays keep their opinions to themselves; you're wishing to turn free speech into a one way street for the majority view only.
Oh, btw? Child molesters claim they are genetically wired that way and can no more help themselves than gays. I see no distinction.
That may very well be the case; I don't have scientific research to either disprove or support that contention by pedophiles. Nonetheless, a homosexual's genetic predisposition does not put him or her into a position where they are preying upon those who can not consent. Regardless of how deviant, perverted or unnatural you view a homosexual, you ultimately have to recognize the difference between their actions and a pedophile's actions. You at least have to recognize the non-consensual nature of one act as opposed to the consensual nature of the other. If you don't, then I'm not sure what kind of moral code by which you abide, but it would be kind of fucked up.
-
Being in love with a member of the same sex inhibits a person's ability to procreate, yet we want to tell everyone that is perfectly logical and acceptable.
Taking a vow of celibacy is a choice, and it also inhibits a person's ability to procreate. I guess we should tell everyone that becoming a priest, nun, bishop, cleric, monk, etc. is illogical and unacceptable. In fact, because certain people don't view it as logical and acceptable, let's ban all celibate people from joining the military. Makes complete sense to me.
:taunt:
-
This doesn't connect.
If having blue eyes inhibited a person's vision, they damn sure would have forced a cure for it.
Being in love with a member of the same sex inhibits a person's ability to procreate, yet we want to tell everyone that is perfectly logical and acceptable.
Logical, rational and reasonable? Seriously???
Geez, guys. You cannot FORCE a cure for everything!! If that were the case, all those shows about freaky genetic maladies that make up the bulk of the TLC lineup would no longer exist. You can't "cure" someone from being blue eyed and you cannot “cure” someone that is gay - especially if they are happy with the hand they have been dealt and don't think they need to be cured. I have read plenty of articles where Downs Syndrome people are interviewed - many times they understand that they are different, that it is just the way they were made, and they wouldn't change it for anything, because that is WHO THEY ARE. Many are truly productive members of society, holding down jobs, paying taxes – but in K’s world vision, they would not exist. K, just who exactly gets to decide what is worthy of a cure and what isn't? Being gay may be a perversion to you, but for some people, it is just the way they are made, just like having red hair or a birthmark or the breast cancer gene.
Asking to be allowed to join a VOLUNTEER army and perform a service to their country even though their sexual identity is anathma to some people is NOT asking for preferential treatment. It is asking to be treated JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. In that respect, it truly is no different than the civil rights movement. Judge someone on their actions, not by the color of their skin, right? Just as we don’t judge all black people by the actions of Jesse and Rev Al, or Quannell X, you should not judge all gay people by the actions of the freakshow population that is San Francisco. Even my gay friends roll their eyes at that mess.
I don’t think that an intolerance of gays is the majority opinion anymore. Each successive generation moves further and further away from that position, just like my daughter has no clue that her black friends are any different than she is, the same black friends her great grandmother would call blacks. I already told you, K, that it was your opinion - free speech applies equally. But you took gays in the military and turned it into the Final Solution. That is truly frightening – and that moves beyond “opinion” into “holy shit, that’s scary”. And here you are, calling MY argument irrational when in the same breath you state that you would “fix” people that are functioning, productive members of society, willing to sacrifice their lives and their sacred honor for this country, just because you hate their sexual preferences??
Yeah, I am a raving lunatic.
-
Taking a vow of celibacy is a choice, and it also inhibits a person's ability to procreate. I guess we should tell everyone that becoming a priest, nun, bishop, cleric, monk, etc. is illogical and unacceptable. In fact, because certain people don't view it as logical and acceptable, let's ban all celibate people from joining the military. Makes complete sense to me.
:taunt:
What about straight couples that for one genetic reason or another are unable to procreate? Off with their heads?
-
Are you suggesting that your sexual preference (whether chosen or genetic) makes you unable to think for yourself? The last time I checked, sexual proclivities were not an indicator of intelligence or reasoning. Unless, of course, you're willing to admit that your enjoyment of watching lesbians somehow makes you a mongoloid. At which point I would have to suggest that you be "cured" of your genetically predisposed perversion, because your sexual preferences make you too much of a mongoloid to decide for yourself.
Last time I checked, they were.
They're making private choices. They're also utilizing their freedom of speech to make their private choices known publicly. You may not want to hear it, but...well, that's kind of the point of free speech. I'm sure homosexuals don't like hearing you talking about your personal choice to view homosexuality as a sin, but you're making it very public right now. I personally have no problem with you voicing your opinion, nor do I have a problem with gays voicing their sexuality. It doesn't affect me in any substantive manner, regardless of whether any of the aforementioned opinions are perverted, deviant, unnatural or what have you.
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Your decision is either private or public. You can't claim it's a private decision and then wave the rainbow flag. Doesn't work that way.
Don't ask. Don't tell. Don't tell if asked.
I do have a problem with them voicing their unnatural sexuality. it denies me my right to practice my religion.
The beauty of free speech is that, majority opinion or not, you can say what you want, with very few limitations. People can call you narrow minded and unenlightened as they see fit, just as you can call people unnatural, deviant and perverted. It's a two way street. You're asking to shout your opinion at the rooftops, meanwhile requesting that gays keep their opinions to themselves; you're wishing to turn free speech into a one way street for the majority view only.
Lovely theory isn't it? Too bad it doesn't work in practice.
That may very well be the case; I don't have scientific research to either disprove or support that contention by pedophiles. Nonetheless, a homosexual's genetic predisposition does not put him or her into a position where they are preying upon those who can not consent. Regardless of how deviant, perverted or unnatural you view a homosexual, you ultimately have to recognize the difference between their actions and a pedophile's actions. You at least have to recognize the non-consensual nature of one act as opposed to the consensual nature of the other. If you don't, then I'm not sure what kind of moral code by which you abide, but it would be kind of fucked up.
I do recognize the right to consent. But I also realize that 18 is an arbitrary number. I know 12 year olds who are much more mature and savvy than some 20 year olds. Setting an arbitrary age limit and telling Johnny Johnson that he can't have sex with Katie Cooter on November 11, but he can on November 12 because she will become "legal" on her birthday has significant flaws and will eventually be challenged legally. If we continue down the path we are on, where every perversity and deviation is protected as free speech, I expect at some point the legality of setting arbitrary minimum ages will be overturned.
Beyond the clear wrongness of implicitly endorsing perversity -- essentially just because a select group opts to engage in it -- it opens the door to continued moral and societal decay.
What about bigamy, v2? It's illegal. But what's the harm if one guy wants to be married to four or five women? Seems like an optimal solution to me. Nobody gets harmed. Awesome bucks like me would monopolize all the hot mommas, but that's a risk we should be willing to take, right? Consenting adults and all...
-
What about straight couples that for one genetic reason or another are unable to procreate? Off with their heads?
I'm sorry but you're completely irrational and emotional in regard to this issue.
-
The last time I checked, sexual proclivities were not an indicator of intelligence or reasoning.
Last time I checked, they were.
Holy shit. You have snapped.
So, by your line of reasoning, a bammer man and bammer woman fucking in a trailer park are more intelligent and capable of better reasoning skills than Billy Bean, who graduated from Loyola Marymount University in 1986 with a degree in Business Administration, and played MLB from 1987 through 1995.
Or Brian Graden, President of Programming at MTV, VH1, CMT and LOGO, and the TV exec that discovered Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, with his degree in business from Oral Roberts University (!!!) and an MBA from Harvard.
Or Desiderius Erasmus.
Gotcha.
-
Two of our very own members (Sani and PCT), who have impecable military credentials, have both stated that they have no problem with gays serving in the military, provided they are held to the same standards as other military folk. Seems like their opinions should hold more weight than anyone else's here.
-
In the course of this discussion, a few of you have clearly illustrated why the minority opinion so often prevails in this country. You've shown why open and honest debate is no longer tolerated and why lunacy is allowed to prevail.
You've made utterly ridiculous logical leaps and shrill claims that have no basis in fact, but only serve to fan the flames of rhetoric.
You've characterized beliefs rooted in personal religion and validated by extensive scriptural reference as "unenlightened".
You've dismissed arguments based on personal belief and preferences as "narrow-minded."
Instead of discussing the root of the issue -- which is whether or not gays should be allowed to openly flaunt their sexual preference in a military situation -- you've turned it into a referendum on the existence and acceptance of homosexuality itself.
Without knowing anything about the situation, you've characterized opposition to the homosexual agenda as "hate" and extended that hate from the opposition of an idea to the specific hate of individuals.
It's prototypical diversion and subterfuge. Dodge away from the issue and paint the opponents with the broad brush of ignorance and hate. It's why we are in the hell we are. And it's pretty sad.
-
Holy shit. You have snapped.
So, by your line of reasoning, a bammer man and bammer woman fucking in a trailer park are more intelligent and capable of better reasoning skills than Billy Bean, who graduated from Loyola Marymount University in 1986 with a degree in Business Administration, and played MLB from 1987 through 1995.
Or Brian Graden, President of Programming at MTV, VH1, CMT and LOGO, and the TV exec that discovered Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, with his degree in business from Oral Roberts University (!!!) and an MBA from Harvard.
Or Desiderius Erasmus.
Gotcha.
Bama man and woman are intelligent enough to know what their equipment is designed for.
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
In their sad, pathetic existence, they are replenishing the earth.
Those other guys, as creative and intelligent as they may be are sword fighting and wasting their gifts.
Just because a person is educated does not mean they make intelligent choices. South Park? You give me the creators of South Park as your paragons?
Who's snapped?
Again, you can't attack the argument so you attack the person bringing it. I must agree with Garman, it is extremely Pelosi-ish.
-
You can't just say "Cure being gay because it is genetic or stop making that choice." Green eyes are genetic. Black hair is genetic. Should those be "cured" because they are not the same as everyone else? Not all genetic conditions should be cured, and not all of them CAN be cured. That is a bizarre argument. Who gets to decide what genetic conditions should be cured? Maybe some are choices – but straight people make all kinds of choices every day too.
I grow tired of this... and concerned for the future of our society. I'm actually quite tolerant of many homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that I want them showering with me. But, I see that we've jumped way off topic now talking about eye color and other silliness. By the way, lots of things are genetic including sickle cell anemia and hemophilia, and they can’t join the military either. What do “you people” have against them? Why do you hate them so much?
Oh SCREW IT! Let ‘em all in… Let’s turn the military into a free-for-all social abortion!
Now, send in the cross-dressing lepers...
-
Again, you can't attack the argument so you attack the person bringing it. I must agree with Garman, it is extremely Pelosi-ish.
Again - holy shit, K.
Utterly ridiculous logical leaps? While you say homosexuality should be "cured" and gay people “fixed”.
Shrill claims? After you say that gay people are less intelligent and less able to reason than straight people? Two words for you – Bammer. Fan.
I have tried on multiple occasions to turn this back to the whole "Should people who are openly gay be allowed to serve in the military", only to get responses like your Final Solution comparisons.
Without rereading all these pages, I am fairly confident that I never used the word "hate" to describe your opinions, but to me, they have become as extreme as the flaming transexuals you see at clubs on Bourbon Street. You have again become that which you rail against – an extremist.
And probably just for the sake of argument. Don’t think I didn’t notice your multiple attempts to get me to go off on a shrieking feminist tangent with the “You’re too emotional and irrational to debate with.” jibes. Get someone else to be your dancing monkey. I’m no Prowler.
Bitch.
-
I chose the South Park guy because of the way that show is revered around here. Gotta relate to my audience.
How about Da Vinci? Leonard Bernstein? Proust?
First you tried to get me to blow up over the whole "Silly emotional, irrational girl!" and then when that didn't work, you try by rehashing the Pelosi bash. Didn't work when GarMan tried it either. But I am attacking you out of desperation.
Right.
-
Again - holy shit, K.
Utterly ridiculous logical leaps? While you say homosexuality should be "cured" and gay people “fixed”.
Shrill claims? After you say that gay people are less intelligent and less able to reason than straight people? Two words for you – Bammer. Fan.
I have tried on multiple occasions to turn this back to the whole "Should people who are openly gay be allowed to serve in the military", only to get responses like your Final Solution comparisons.
Without rereading all these pages, I am fairly confident that I never used the word "hate" to describe your opinions, but to me, they have become as extreme as the flaming transexuals you see at clubs on Bourbon Street. You have again become that which you rail against – an extremist.
And probably just for the sake of argument. Don’t think I didn’t notice your multiple attempts to get me to go off on a shrieking feminist tangent with the “You’re too emotional and irrational to debate with.” jibes. Get someone else to be your dancing monkey. I’m no Prowler.
Bitch.
I said several. AWK was the one who tossed out hate. You busted out with the narrow-minded that started this entire episode. And now you've added extremist to the mix. Typical.
Fuck off with the bama fan comparisons. Fuck completely off.
But yes, if you choose something unnatural and perverted, yeah I've got questions about your ability to reason. Sure as fuck do.
Your logical leaps are utterly irrational and unrelated to the topic. The attempt to equate homosexuality with eye color was asinine. If homosexuality is unnatural (it is, or queers wouldn't fight with themselves and attempt to resist the urges as most do) and homosexuality is a genetic defect (which you alternately claim it is and it isn't) then yes, I absolutely believe that an option to reverse it should be pursued.
That you would attempt to point out the happy mongoloid children who don't want to be cured of their defects as evidence that gays shouldn't have the option to become normal is absolutely fucking laughable. When my daughter was five she wanted to be a dolphin. She didn't have the mental faculties to reason beyond that. I guess I should have let her just go be a happy dolphin, then since she had relatively the same cognitive skills as the average adult with mongoloidism. And you ignore the multitude of additional mental and physical defects that affect mongoloids.
I've said a hundred times now that being gay, whether by choice or genetics, is of no consequence to me so long as that choice doesn't intrude into my life. Gays are not being prevented from serving in the military. They are only being prevented from flaunting that choice (or defect). Therefore your entire argument has ZERO merit. None. All they have to do is keep their deviance to themselves and they can serve their swishy little asses off.
And yes, you are emotionally invested in this issue. Your emotional entanglements prevent you from having an objective viewpoint.
-
I chose the South Park guy because of the way that show is revered around here. Gotta relate to my audience.
How about Da Vinci? Leonard Bernstein? Proust?
First you tried to get me to blow up over the whole "Silly emotional, irrational girl!" and then when that didn't work, you try by rehashing the Pelosi bash. Didn't work when GarMan tried it either. But I am attacking you out of desperation.
Right.
You already were shrill and strident. I merely pointed that out. I agreed with Garman that you strayed into Pelosi-land when you continually opted to build sand castles while you disrespected opposing viewpoints with elitist claims of "narrow mindedness" and "insecurity." You refuse to concede that what many of us are saying has any validity whatsoever because you're damned and determined to pigeonhole us as insecure, narrow minded bigots who aren't as enlightened as you are.
I call bullshit on that. You don't have a monopoly on enlightenment.
Da Vinci? Prove it.
Bernstein? Elton John? Who the fuck ever? Wasted their gifts. End of story. Hope they're not in hell for it, but I don't make that call.
-
How am I emotionally invested in this issue? Because I have gay friends? Most everyone on here does, but I am more emotionally invested? Totally ridiculous.
My illogical leaps are worse than your broad generalizations. ("If homosexuality is unnatural (it is, or queers wouldn't fight with themselves...") Right. All queers fight the urge.
YOU made the link between being gay and being genetically fucked up, when I have said all along that MOST gay people are that way by nature. Exceptions to every rule, but my argument is that being gay for most gays is like being green eyed is to me - not something I can change, and not something I would change even if I could. Both are genetic. Hence, a legitimate argument. Better than "Fix it in the womb" - I still cannot believe you said that.
Bammer fans. Five year old dolphin daughters. Poh-tay-toe, poh-tah-toe.
Vandy Vol has made the same exact arguments I have, only in a more stylish manner - but then again, he writes arguments for a living, and I don't. But he isn't shrill, or emotionally unhinged, or hysterical or hormonal or whatever.
**sigh**
-
You can never know for sure, but here's some pretty solid circumstantial evidence. Granted, taken from teh interwebs, but still...
Was DiVinci gay?
Leonardo never married. He never had any female partners that were of note. He was an incredibly handsome and popular man, sought after by courts and patrons. He had no lack of interested females in his social group. He chose to ignore them.
On April 8, 1476, an anonymous person brought an accusation to the church, claiming that Leonardo Da Vinci was having homosexual relationships with some of his students / companions. At the time, Leonardo was just turning 24. The explicit charge was that Jacopo Saltarelli, one of Leonardo's male models, was also his lover. As the consequences would have been quite harsh for Leonardo, he and the other accused individuals fought the charge and were acquitted. Leonardo had many powerful friends, even this early in his career, who helped him clear his name. He was put in prison for two months during this time.
It is interesting to note that Leonardo had several "close male companions" but never was linked to or married a woman. Leonardo was a great believer in Humanism - that human beings could choose for themselves what was good or bad and did not need to follow strict teachings of the church to find their path in life.
While Leonardo did paint females in the course of his duties, most of his personal sketches involved nude male bodies - not females.
-
How am I emotionally invested in this issue? Because I have gay friends? Most everyone on here does, but I am more emotionally invested? Totally ridiculous.
My illogical leaps are worse than your broad generalizations. ("If homosexuality is unnatural (it is, or queers wouldn't fight with themselves...") Right. All queers fight the urge.
YOU made the link between being gay and being genetically fucked up, when I have said all along that MOST gay people are that way by nature. Exceptions to every rule, but my argument is that being gay for most gays is like being green eyed is to me - not something I can change, and not something I would change even if I could. Both are genetic. Hence, a legitimate argument. Better than "Fix it in the womb" - I still cannot believe you said that.
Bammer fans. Five year old dolphin daughters. Poh-tay-toe, poh-tah-toe.
Vandy Vol has made the same exact arguments I have, only in a more stylish manner - but then again, he writes arguments for a living, and I don't. But he isn't shrill, or emotionally unhinged, or hysterical or hormonal or whatever.
**sigh**
You made the emotional jump when you personalized it by discussing -- and simultaneously expressing admiration and respect for -- your gay friend.
If I have any gay friends, I'm not aware of it. I would choose not to because I don't approve of that particular choice, have no interest in being exposed to it and certainly don't want it portrayed to my family as a normal alternative. I've known gay people at places I worked and I avoided interacting with them.
I have a cousin who is gay and I don't shun her, but I have little to no contact with her. If she were to attempt to bring a "significant other" to a family event, I'm confident I would opt not to attend. Most of my family would also probably decline. She understands that, respects our wishes and has never tried to force us to accept her lifestyle. I don't hate her, but I hate how she's chosen to live. (FWIW, she wasn't abused as a child but did live with a family dominated by the mother and grandmother. Her father, my uncle, was a doormat God rest his soul).
Vandy Vol came in behind you and tried to make sense of the illogical and borderline insane arguments you attempted to make. He tried to be your white knight and take up those crazy crusades. I found his arguments no less deranged than yours, but he didn't resort to characterizing opposing arguments in the terms you did. That's the extent of that.
As for Da Vinci, you have no proof. I've heard faggots try to claim half the people in the Bible, George Washington, Paul Bunyan and the Vlasic Stork to advance their cause.
I've also heard black folks claim Jesus, Babe Ruth, Moses and the Egyptians were black, too. Doesn't make it so.
I stand by fix it in the womb. If you could reverse homosexuality, mongoloidism or any other genetic defect prior to the birth of a child? Yep. Do it. If I were in charge, it would be mandated.
-
Homosexuality is a sexual deviation. It is a perversion. It is an abomination and against the natural order of things. To suggest that it is as innocuous as eye color is the bizarre argument. It's BEYOND bizarre.
I cannot have a rational conversation with someone who can make that kind of illogical leap to attempt to justify something that is unnatural.
I don't give a fiddly fuck what they do in private. But it's not in private. They want to have the right to flaunt their fucking sickness in public. They want to be able to identify themselves in public as queers and suffer no consequences for that. Sorry, that will never fly with me.
You start there and the next thing you've got the corpse fuckers demanding their right to be sick fucks in public. And then the child molesters claim they were born that way and should have the right to pursue their dreams. Nope. You have to draw moral lines. This is one of them.
That's the point you're missing in all this.
Just for fun, I googled (in bold above) your first sentence to see what popped up. This was the first search result, Just like I figured...
http://prophetmuhammadforall.org/webfiles/fatwa/HomosexualityNLesbianis.pdf (http://prophetmuhammadforall.org/webfiles/fatwa/HomosexualityNLesbianis.pdf)
What makes it even funnier, is that a few posts later you then quoted this:
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
You reading out of the wrong book?
-
You made the emotional jump when you personalized it by discussing -- and simultaneously expressing admiration and respect for -- your gay friend.
If I have any gay friends, I'm not aware of it. I would choose not to because I don't approve of that particular choice, have no interest in being exposed to it and certainly don't want it portrayed to my family as a normal alternative. I've known gay people at places I worked and I avoided interacting with them.
I have a cousin who is gay and I don't shun her, but I have little to no contact with her. If she were to attempt to bring a "significant other" to a family event, I'm confident I would opt not to attend. Most of my family would also probably decline. She understands that, respects our wishes and has never tried to force us to accept her lifestyle. I don't hate her, but I hate how she's chosen to live. (FWIW, she wasn't abused as a child but did live with a family dominated by the mother and grandmother. Her father, my uncle, was a doormat God rest his soul).
Vandy Vol came in behind you and tried to make sense of the illogical and borderline insane arguments you attempted to make. He tried to be your white knight and take up those crazy crusades. I found his arguments no less deranged than yours, but he didn't resort to characterizing opposing arguments in the terms you did. That's the extent of that.
As for Da Vinci, you have no proof. I've heard faggots try to claim half the people in the Bible, George Washington, Paul Bunyan and the Vlasic Stork to advance their cause.
I've also heard black folks claim Jesus, Babe Ruth, Moses and the Egyptians were black, too. Doesn't make it so.
I stand by fix it in the womb. If you could reverse homosexuality, mongoloidism or any other genetic defect prior to the birth of a child? Yep. Do it. If I were in charge, it would be mandated.
Wow...dude...
A man who commits indecency with another man, or allows himself to be misused indecently, will be punished with prison.
In especially minor cases the court can refrain from punishment of a participant, who was not yet twenty–one years old at the time of the time of the criminal act.
[The following] will be punished with a penitentiary sentence of up to ten years, or under extenuating circumstances with a prison sentence of no less than three months:
* A man who compels another man to commit indecency with him, or to let himself be misused indecently, by force or by threat of imminent danger to life and limb;
* A man who induces another man to commit indecency with him, or to let himself be misused indecently, by means of the abuse of an official or professional relationship, or one of seniority;
* A man over twenty–one who seduces a male person under twenty–one to commit indecency with him, or to let himself be misused indecently;
* A man who on a professional basis commits indecency with men, or allows himself be misused indecently by men, or offers himself for such purposes.
What do you think about that Kaos?
-
Last time I checked, they were.
Seriously? Checked with whom? What resource? I had no clue that being gay automatically made you a mongoloid. I could have sworn that I've seen gay people in Ivy League schools. Was this sarcastic or are you seriously suggesting that a gay person is somehow mentally affected to the point that they are mongoloids?
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Your decision is either private or public. You can't claim it's a private decision and then wave the rainbow flag. Doesn't work that way.
Your decision to view homosexuality as a sin can be viewed the same way. You claim that homosexuals need to make a private decision about their own lives and keep it to themselves. Yet, at the same time, you've made a private decision about your moral beliefs, and at the same time have decided to make it public. Maybe gay people are tired of the Jesus flag being waved about. Maybe they're tired of people ranting and raving about sins, about how they live their life pure, and about how everyone else should accept them and their views. Maybe you should keep your moral life to yourself.
Doesn't sound so appealing when the shoe is on the other foot, does it? You have the right to free speech, and so do they. Trying to limit free speech to what you believe in is not free speech.
I do have a problem with them voicing their unnatural sexuality. it denies me my right to practice my religion.
Riiight. Because all of those gay parades on television prevented you from turning off the tube and reading the Bible. You let me know when an angry stampede of gay people block the door to your church, and maybe, just maybe, I'll buy into this excuse of an argument.
I do recognize the right to consent. But I also realize that 18 is an arbitrary number. I know 12 year olds who are much more mature and savvy than some 20 year olds. Setting an arbitrary age limit and telling Johnny Johnson that he can't have sex with Katie Cooter on November 11, but he can on November 12 because she will become "legal" on her birthday has significant flaws and will eventually be challenged legally. If we continue down the path we are on, where every perversity and deviation is protected as free speech, I expect at some point the legality of setting arbitrary minimum ages will be overturned.
The fact of the matter is that children are unable to consent to sex. At what age does a person become able to consent as an adult? That's certainly up for debate. However, you can't honestly tell me that a grown man who has sex with a five year old is the same as a grown man who consensually has sex with another grown man. If you do, well...then I'm not quite sure what to make of your morals.
What about bigamy, v2? It's illegal. But what's the harm if one guy wants to be married to four or five women? Seems like an optimal solution to me. Nobody gets harmed. Awesome bucks like me would monopolize all the hot mommas, but that's a risk we should be willing to take, right? Consenting adults and all...
It personally doesn't bother me. Everyone has their own subjective moral beliefs, and as I've mentioned before, there's no way to disprove or prove a subjective belief. You can only accept that some people believe differently than you.
-
By the way, lots of things are genetic including sickle cell anemia and hemophilia, and they can’t join the military either.
That may have something to do with the fact that sickle cell anemia is tied to acute rhabdomyolysis, which is one of the top four non-traumatic killers of high school and college athletes. I need not explain why hemophilia can be deadly to a person in the military. If you can come up with some sort of analogous reason as to why homosexuality in the military is going to endanger someone's life, then be my guest. Otherwise, pointing out those two medical conditions is pretty much irrelevant, as there is a legitimate reason for preventing individuals with life-threatening diseases and defects from being relied upon to serve our country.
-
You made the emotional jump when you personalized it by discussing -- and simultaneously expressing admiration and respect for -- your gay friend.
That was done in a totally separate thread in a totally separate forum. I do admire him - it takes guts to be a trauma flight nurse. He is smart and well trained. His sexual preferences does not change that.
Never, at any time, did I bring him up specifically in this thread. You made that link independently.
Amazing - I am a shrill, shrieking Pelosi because I have a gay friend that I care for, a man that I have known for nearly 30 years. Wow.
Somehow I doubt your cousin minds not hanging out with you.
BTW? Vandy Vol is kicking your ass.
-
Somehow I doubt your cousin minds not hanging out with you.
BTW? Vandy Vol is kicking your ass.
Fuck off twice.
And in your wet dreams.
-
Seriously? Checked with whom? What resource? I had no clue that being gay automatically made you a mongoloid. I could have sworn that I've seen gay people in Ivy League schools. Was this sarcastic or are you seriously suggesting that a gay person is somehow mentally affected to the point that they are mongoloids?
Comprehension fail. Can't help you there.
Your decision to view homosexuality as a sin can be viewed the same way. You claim that homosexuals need to make a private decision about their own lives and keep it to themselves. Yet, at the same time, you've made a private decision about your moral beliefs, and at the same time have decided to make it public. Maybe gay people are tired of the Jesus flag being waved about. Maybe they're tired of people ranting and raving about sins, about how they live their life pure, and about how everyone else should accept them and their views. Maybe you should keep your moral life to yourself.
You've never seen me parade my religion here or anywhere else. I do so in response to attacks from others, not as a first strike.
Fail #2.
Doesn't sound so appealing when the shoe is on the other foot, does it? You have the right to free speech, and so do they. Trying to limit free speech to what you believe in is not free speech.
Since you failed to make a connection of remote relevance, my shoes are fine where they are.
Riiight. Because all of those gay parades on television prevented you from turning off the tube and reading the Bible. You let me know when an angry stampede of gay people block the door to your church, and maybe, just maybe, I'll buy into this excuse of an argument.
Again you speak of what you do not know. As a member of the church board of trustees I've already had to deal with this issue. Openly gay couple wanted to attend, wanted to sing in the choir. As a church we decided that was inappropriate unless they were there looking for help/answers or redemption. I know I'm a sinner. I go to church hoping to help keep myself on a better path. If you're coming to church to flaunt the sin, that doesn't work for me. No different than someone who was having an affair and bringing his hook-up to church.
And don't fucking even TRY to hand me the bullshit "turn off the tube" argument. That is the biggest load of horseshit imaginable. You know what? If gays don't like the military telling them they can't flaunt their choice, they can just stay out. What was that you said about shoes and feet? The "turn off the TV" shit is a crock and the lamest attempt to justify garbage in the world. It's not realistic.
The fact of the matter is that children are unable to consent to sex. At what age does a person become able to consent as an adult? That's certainly up for debate. However, you can't honestly tell me that a grown man who has sex with a five year old is the same as a grown man who consensually has sex with another grown man. If you do, well...then I'm not quite sure what to make of your morals.
Oh, so now you're establishing the line at five. Okay. At least we're clear on that. Ten year olds are fair game.
Fail #5 or 6, I'm losing count.
My morals have nothing to do with it. I'm not advocating or endorsing anything of the sort, only pointing out that once you start making arbitrary decisions that certain obvious perversions are acceptable for public consumption then you slide into the morass.
It personally doesn't bother me. Everyone has their own subjective moral beliefs, and as I've mentioned before, there's no way to disprove or prove a subjective belief. You can only accept that some people believe differently than you.
As I've said re-fucking-peatedly, I take no offense or issue with someone thinking differently. I do not rail against people having affairs, or bigamy (you ignored that one, I see), or anything else that is done BEHIND CLOSED DOORS and between adults who consent to do so. My one and only issue comes when it is made into a public spectacle and when behaviors that the vast majority of humanity considers to be perverse are passed off as a normal alternative.
Believe what you want. Do what you want. You, and only you, have to answer for and live with the choices you make. But don't deign to call me narrow minded or unenlightened because I reject your bohemian morality. You have the right to do whatever you want, but you do NOT have the right to insist that I accept it. Because I don't and I never will.
This entire debate was sparked by one simple phrase: "narrow-minded" I take great offense at that.
-
Just for fun, I googled (in bold above) your first sentence to see what popped up. This was the first search result, Just like I figured...
http://prophetmuhammadforall.org/webfiles/fatwa/HomosexualityNLesbianis.pdf (http://prophetmuhammadforall.org/webfiles/fatwa/HomosexualityNLesbianis.pdf)
What makes it even funnier, is that a few posts later you then quoted this:
You reading out of the wrong book?
What astonishes me is that you're unaware that Islam and Christianity comes from the same basic source.
Much of what is in the Old Testament is also in the Koran. Maybe you should read one or the other.
Where we differ and why we try to kill each other is that they don't accept Jesus as the Savior, only one of many prophets.
Historical fail on your part.
-
Wow...dude...
What do you think about that Kaos?
I have no idea what the context is, so I can't address your question.
I have no problem whatsoever saying and standing by the statement that I consider homosexuality to be a genetic defect (been essentially admitted as such here) and therefore it can be eradicated. If you can eradicate something that is a clear deviance from the norm and that often causes significant mental trauma, why would you choose not to?
If I could have my genes altered to remove the things that cause me pain and that negatively impact my life, I wouldn't hesitate to do so.
-
That was done in a totally separate thread in a totally separate forum. I do admire him - i
I got lost and interjected that here, where it didn't belong.
I'm sorry for that. Thought it was part of the same discussion. If I could redact it, I would, but that's not possible.
-
Comprehension fail. Can't help you there.
Simply saying "fail" doesn't cut it in a politically-oriented conversation. I know it's the cool thing to do nowadays and makes you appear like you've achieved some sort of victory, but it doesn't magically attach logic to your previously unfounded statements.
You claimed that the "last time you checked," sexual proclivities were an indicator of intelligence or reasoning. I merely asked you where you checked this at, to which you didn't answer. If you don't have a resource or at least some sort of reasoning behind your conclusion, I can't help you there; it's certainly not my fault that you were unable to reveal where you checked this "fact" when asked.
You've never seen me parade my religion here or anywhere else. I do so in response to attacks from others, not as a first strike.
It doesn't matter why or when you flaunt something. My point is that freedom of speech is a right of every person. If you can flaunt your moral views (whether provoked or unprovoked), others can flaunt their views as well. I'm pretty sure the First Amendment doesn't have a provocation requirement to it.
Again you speak of what you do not know. As a member of the church board of trustees I've already had to deal with this issue. Openly gay couple wanted to attend, wanted to sing in the choir. As a church we decided that was inappropriate unless they were there looking for help/answers or redemption. I know I'm a sinner. I go to church hoping to help keep myself on a better path. If you're coming to church to flaunt the sin, that doesn't work for me. No different than someone who was having an affair and bringing his hook-up to church.
First, a church is a private organization. If you choose to deny someone access to your church for whatever reason, then that is your prerogative. This discussion had nothing to do with private organizations outside of the government; it had to do with the government creating laws that altered a person's rights and privileges.
Second, the fact that they wanted to be in the choir didn't necessarily mean they were going to flaunt anything. Unless, of course, you fully expected them to wear an "I Suck Dick" sign around their neck while singing in the choir. Again, your church and you can decide to do whatever you want, but there seems to be an unrealistic expectation that a homosexual only wants to do something so as to bring attention to their homosexuality. You seem to believe that homosexuality makes a human no longer a person, but instead that they are some uncontrollable exhibition of gayness that will spontaneously erupt in radiant flamboyancy and glamorous glitter at any given moment, bringing gay shame upon you and your congregation. Again, completely your choice, but unrealistic nonetheless.
And don't fucking even TRY to hand me the bullshit "turn off the tube" argument. That is the biggest load of horseshit imaginable. You know what? If gays don't like the military telling them they can't flaunt their choice, they can just stay out. What was that you said about shoes and feet? The "turn off the TV" shit is a crock and the lamest attempt to justify garbage in the world. It's not realistic.
You were bitching about them voicing their sexuality and how it affected your right to religion. I'm sorry, but if you don't like someone voicing their opinion, you can turn off the TV, browse to another website, switch the radio station, etc. Someone else's free speech does not affect your rights. Gays aren't knocking down your door to tell you about how a penis feels in their butt while you're trying to have quiet time with Jesus.
As much as they may annoy you, they are not altering your rights in any way by voicing an opinion. Creating laws that prevent a person from doing something, however, is altering rights. If you're going to deny something, then you typically have to have a legitimate reason behind the denial. I have not heard one legitimately supported reason yet; the only reason I've heard is that homosexuality is immoral. As I've pointed out, the morality of a person is not only a subjective opinion that differs from person to person, but it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether a person can efficiently serve in the military.
Oh, so now you're establishing the line at five. Okay. At least we're clear on that. Ten year olds are fair game.
Nice straw man argument; I never set the line anywhere. I clearly stated that the age issue was up for debate. I then went on to use the five year old as an example of a person which we all would agree is too young to consent. You wanted to dance around the iffy ages of 16 or 17 and derail the conversation; I'm trying to point out to you with an extreme example that age does play a part in consent. People do mature as they get older. At what age are they mature enough to consent? Again, it's up for debate, but a five year old is certainly one who can not be expected to have the intellectual capacity to knowingly consent to sex.
Way to avoid the question asking if you view the rapist of a five year old the same as you do a gay man in a consensual, adult relationship.
I do not rail against people having affairs, or bigamy (you ignored that one, I see) . . .
Umm, no. Reread my last response to you. I quoted your portion about bigamy and stated the following immediately after:
"It personally doesn't bother me. Everyone has their own subjective moral beliefs, and as I've mentioned before, there's no way to disprove or prove a subjective belief. You can only accept that some people believe differently than you."
My one and only issue comes when it is made into a public spectacle and when behaviors that the vast majority of humanity considers to be perverse are passed off as a normal alternative.
Free. Speech.
You can be concerned with their actions all you want, but you can not prevent a person from making a "public spectacle" by protesting laws or announcing in public that they are gay. It doesn't matter what the vast majority of the public thinks about anything; free speech applies to everyone.
Believe what you want. Do what you want. You, and only you, have to answer for and live with the choices you make. But don't deign to call me narrow minded or unenlightened because I reject your bohemian morality. You have the right to do whatever you want, but you do NOT have the right to insist that I accept it. Because I don't and I never will.
As I've stated before and will state again, my intent is not to sway people's minds when it comes to topics of subjectivity. Morals are far too subjective for me to look a person dead in the eye and say, "My morals are right. Yours are wrong." Maybe you can do that, but I can not. Nor have I called anyone narrow-minded or unenlightened. I am only pointing out that for every Christian who is annoyed by a gay talking about his homosexuality, there is a homosexual who is annoyed by a Christian talking about his Christianity.
If you can point to a reason why immorality is a reason to be barred from joining the military, then that is applicable to the discussion. Otherwise, the fact that you are annoyed by a gay person's free speech is pretty much moot. It is a personal opinion that you hold dearly, and no one can take that away from you, but that personal opinion can't be forced upon everyone else in the form of "curing" all gays, forcing them to keep certain speech private, or barring them from the military.
-
If you can eradicate something that is a clear deviance from the norm and that often causes significant mental trauma, why would you choose not to?
You're laying out two elements for "genetic defect eradication." The first is a clear deviance from the norm. As mentioned earlier, blue eyes were a clear deviance from the norm. Should we attempt to revert ourselves back to the "pure" species we were? Well, according to your second element, no. We should only eradicate those defects that cause significant mental trauma.
Do we eradicate the defect if only some people experience mental trauma? There are people who would state that their eye color, hair color, skin color, etc. has caused them significant mental trauma. People are teased, taunted and even physically assaulted based upon their physical appearances, especially amongst children. Do we eradicate everything that any single person claims caused mental trauma?
We can't possibly dictate what will or won't, or should or shouldn't, cause someone mental anguish. Some people are happy with their blue eyes, red hair, green vaginas and dicks in their butt. Some people aren't. What you view as an unacceptable defect, others don't. As a result, we can't force genetic defect eradication on everyone else simply because you view it as an unacceptable deviance.
-
I meant that if you are stuck out on deployment in the desert for 6 weeks with no access to women, you get over it. You don’t up and die, or start raping every villager you come across. You find ways to either ignore it or supress it. There is no class on “How to control yourself” other than the entire training process of “For the good of the unit”.
I can say this is right.
and Taylor loves da cock.
-
Just for fun, I googled (in bold above) your first sentence to see what popped up. This was the first search result, Just like I figured...
http://prophetmuhammadforall.org/webfiles/fatwa/HomosexualityNLesbianis.pdf (http://prophetmuhammadforall.org/webfiles/fatwa/HomosexualityNLesbianis.pdf)
What makes it even funnier, is that a few posts later you then quoted this:
Golly... Is that news to you? It couldn't be that Islam is a made-up religion based on Judhaism from 1300 years ago...
Oops... I must be narrow-minded again. Sorry...
-
That may have something to do with the fact that sickle cell anemia is tied to acute rhabdomyolysis, which is one of the top four non-traumatic killers of high school and college athletes. I need not explain why hemophilia can be deadly to a person in the military. If you can come up with some sort of analogous reason as to why homosexuality in the military is going to endanger someone's life, then be my guest. Otherwise, pointing out those two medical conditions is pretty much irrelevant, as there is a legitimate reason for preventing individuals with life-threatening diseases and defects from being relied upon to serve our country.
Who are you to prevent these folks from joining the military? People like you are willing to make some accommodations at the expense of others to allow homosexuals in the military, but when it comes to those genetic conditions that "you" recognize as ailments primarily because of your own perceptions and prejudices, you invent conditions and limitations that would block their service. Why couldn't a hemophiliac fly a drone over Iraq from a base in Arizona? Why couldn't a leper work in the motor pool? Even with sickle cell anemia, why couldn't we come up with a job for them in the military? Why do you discriminate so much?
If you can't see it yet, when do we stop playing social experimentation with our military? I'd rather get back to the things that matter like getting them the ammunition and armor that they need to get the job done. Accommodating deviants in the military is a waste of money, effort and political debate. [The End]
-
I'm a couple pages behind, and I'll catch up later, but I think this definition needs to be presented. Because apparently it applies to some so much that they don't understand its meaning.
nar⋅row-mind⋅ed
/ˈnæroʊˈmaɪndɪd/ [nar-oh-mahyn-did]
–adjective
1. having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased.
2. not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind.
3. extremely conservative and morally self-righteous.
-
I'm a couple pages behind, and I'll catch up later, but I think this definition needs to be presented. Because apparently it applies to some so much that they don't understand its meaning.
I take issue with definition #3. That is some bullshit the liberal agenda has pushed. I know just as many narrow minded liberals.
-
I take issue with definition #3. That is some bullpoop the liberal agenda has pushed. I know just as many narrow minded liberals.
You silly conservative... Are you still hosting that Pampered Chef party tonight?
-
Fuck off with the bama fan comparisons. Fuck completely off.
But yes, if you choose something unnatural and perverted, yeah I've got questions about your ability to reason. Sure as fuck do.
Fuck off because you can't refute this. To maintain that typical white trash dumbshit trailer park bammer, or ghetto ignorant welfare recipient, are more intelligent than even the typical homosexual, let alone the ones Jen mentioned, is narrow minded and simply ignorant.
Your logical leaps are utterly irrational and unrelated to the topic. The attempt to equate homosexuality with eye color was asinine. If homosexuality is unnatural (it is, or queers wouldn't fight with themselves and attempt to resist the urges as most do) and homosexuality is a genetic defect (which you alternately claim it is and it isn't) then yes, I absolutely believe that an option to reverse it should be pursued.
Most homosexuals fight with themselves and attempt to resist the urges??? Really? Take a poll and let's see how many homosexuals wish to be "cured". I guara-fuckin-tee you, you will get less than one percent that do. Then lets take a poll and see how many sickle-cell anemia patients wish to be cured. That's why we're curing one and not the other. In fact, you'll probably find more people that wish to have their blue eyes "cured" than their homosexuality.
That you would attempt to point out the happy mongoloid children who don't want to be cured of their defects as evidence that gays shouldn't have the option to become normal is absolutely fucking laughable. When my daughter was five she wanted to be a dolphin. She didn't have the mental faculties to reason beyond that. I guess I should have let her just go be a happy dolphin, then since she had relatively the same cognitive skills as the average adult with mongoloidism. And you ignore the multitude of additional mental and physical defects that affect mongoloids.
This is fucking laughable. Again you say that homosexuals are "mongoloids" and compare their minds to the mind of a child that is incapable of reason or common sense. Clearly most of them have more than you do.
I've said a hundred times now that being gay, whether by choice or genetics, is of no consequence to me so long as that choice doesn't intrude into my life. Gays are not being prevented from serving in the military. They are only being prevented from flaunting that choice (or defect). Therefore your entire argument has ZERO merit. None. All they have to do is keep their deviance to themselves and they can serve their swishy little asses off.
Wrong. If it is discovered that they are gay, not that they are wearing assless chaps and feather head dresses in the line of fire and try to rape their cohorts in the barracks, just that they're gay...they're canned. If someone spreads a false rumor about someone being gay...they're gone.
And yes, you are emotionally invested in this issue. Your emotional entanglements prevent you from having an objective viewpoint.
The fact that you've never met a gay person makes you ignorant to the issue. Clearly you view homosexuals as sub-human. This is the same narrow mindedness that extreme racists in bumfuck country towns use. They've never met a black man, so it's easy to dehumanize them.
-
I'm a couple pages behind, and I'll catch up later, but I think this definition needs to be presented. Because apparently it applies to some so much that they don't understand its meaning.
Especially the ones that are so quick to throw it around... Drives me nuts!
-
I agree 100%.
Most of you know my background; retired after 22 years of active duty in the military. I am not pro-homosexuality by any means. I do not agree with the lifestyle at all. This being said, my experience with homosexuals in the military during my career reversed the strong opposition I held against them. I was the operations chief for several years prior to my retirement. There were a couple of folks that I knew were gay. They weren't flamboyant about it; it was just who they were. I found them to be among the most dedicated, dependable, and motivated people in the unit. They easily outperformed 90% of the straight people, and I never had any trouble with them grab-assing or harassing any of the others. The concerns with shower boners, junk grabbing, or any other means of perversion are simply not valid based on my experience. Throughout the years, I dealt with numerous cases of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and other forms of criminal misconduct and not one of them involved same sex contact.
My take is this; as long as they serve honorably and adhere to the rules and regulations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, why not let them serve? We let people with less than desirable criminal records serve. We allow people that lack the basic forms of personal responsibility serve. We let muslims, wiccans, atheists, and racists (black and white) serve. I don't agree with their lifestyles either. I can't count the number of people I saw get reprimanded or discharged for severe cases of misconduct - be it theft, fraud, destruction of property, spousal abuse, child abuse, or pornography. Military life is no different than civilian life, except we get to kill people for a living. We have the same societal makeup as any other segment of civilization. The only difference is we have a code we are required to live by. A homosexual is no more of a risk to morale, order, and discipline than anyone else.
I don't think anyone is saying that they cannot do the job and should not serve at all (at least I'm not). What I am saying is that you have no reference point in which to make a good assessment of the issue. Yes, you served for 22 years, but those years served were under the current policy of DADT (or total ban). Under this policy, any gays had to be private with their sexuality. Many may have "supposed" someone was gay, but unless it was pushed in everyone's faces, no one cared because it was kept PRIVATE. Doing away with DADT would open up the flood gates for many gay activists to join just to SHOW everyone. And that would cause much upheaval.
Imagine having to deal with that. After several years it might subside, but then you still would have a small group making a larger group uncomfortable. What we have now is the privilege for any gay individual to serve in the US military as long as their personal choices do not cause any issues. With DADT, these individuals MUST focus on the job and not their sexuality. If this changes, then a whole new set of limits will need to be set. And as we have seen in public, there will always be a part of that society who will make a HUGE point of letting everyone know that they are gay. DADT should stay exactly the way it is. It has worked for many years and will continue to work just fine. Gays make up a small amount percentage of society and the military. This issue is exactly what many of us are sick of. We are being forced to recognize a bastardization of social choices as normal.
DADT is not a problem to anyone except activists. As our resident military guys have said, they have had no problems with gays while they served. Leave it alone.
-
Bama man and woman are intelligent enough to know what their equipment is designed for.
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
In their sad, pathetic existence, they are replenishing the earth.
Again, laughable.
You'd better not ever recieve a blowjob, or you're a dirty sinner. How many kids do you have Kevin? Two? I hope you've never fucked more than twice in your life...
I'm sure those scholarly bammers are mapping out their ovulation schedule, making sure they're not wasting any sacred sperm.
:rofl:
-
Female police and fire personnel demanded and got special treatment in the hiring process – less strenuous physical requirements. Many organizations give in and accommodate demands made by folks with different strokes, things that make a lot of us roll our eyes and mutter under our breath about political correctness.
But FINALLY a group is truly asking to be judged purely on the MERITS of their ability to serve and protect this nation. They have not asked to be allowed to wear rainbow scarves and glitter nail polish. They aren't even asking to be exempted from any of the same training that the other soldiers go through. They just don't want to lose the job they have trained for in the same manner as their straight counterparts JUST BECAUSE they are “exposed” as being gay. They want to know that their being gay will not derail their decision to serve this country and have a military career. I cannot imagine being one of those guys who graduates at the top of his class at West Point, starts on an upward career path, garners commendation after commendation – and then loses everything – EVERYTHING – just because someone sees him go into a gay bar on his off time. His being gay had not hindered his ability to that point, but all of a sudden, he is not fit to serve. That is ridiculous, especially when we want to attract only the best to our all volunteer army.
The original point of discussion made it clear that in this situation, gays are not asking for special accommodation in the military - they are simply asking to be treated like everyone else DESPITE the fact that they are gay, not BECAUSE they are gay. I simply wanted to know why this was a big deal? We all bitch about special accommodation – there is no special accommodation here. As Sani and PCT – both veterans with the chops to back up their positions – have BOTH said, it does not matter one bit to them as long as the guy serves with honor and does the job he is asked to do, and does it well.
I know that if my son was in a situation where his very life depended on the skill of a sniper, I would want the absolute best person for the job, not the best person who isn’t gay. I don’t give a damn about color, religion, sexual preference, or even if he is a stupid bammer fan. If he can shoot the eyeball out of a mouse at 1000 yards, then THAT is the man I want protecting my son. The rest are just irrelevant, subjective qualifiers that have no impact on that sniper’s ability to protect my son.
THAT is the debate I had hoped to open up with my original post - not to set off some moralistic crusade to convince us all that teh gheys are retarded mongoloids with less reasoning ability and lower intelligence than a crack whore. You are certainly entitled to hold your entrenched personal prejudices against gays – I am a true fan of free speech – but in this case, those prejudices prevent you from even considering the fact that a gay man might be able to volunteer and serve his country with honor and distinction. THAT is why I called you guys narrow minded.
-
DADT is not a problem to anyone except activists. As our resident military guys have said, they have had no problems with gays while they served. Leave it alone.
BINGO!!! But, don't forget the Democrats who are out trying to win votes for special favors...
-
I know that if my son was in a situation where his very life depended on the skill of a sniper, I would want the absolute best person for the job, not the best person who isn’t gay. I don’t give a damn about color, religion, sexual preference, or even if he is a stupid bammer fan. If he can shoot the eyeball out of a mouse at 1000 yards, then THAT is the man I want protecting my son. The rest are just irrelevant, subjective qualifiers that have no impact on that sniper’s ability to protect my son.
Don't lie though. You know you'ld be pretty stoked if he could shoe shop with you as well.
-
Simply saying "fail" doesn't cut it in a politically-oriented conversation. I know it's the cool thing to do nowadays and makes you appear like you've achieved some sort of victory, but it doesn't magically attach logic to your previously unfounded statements.
You claimed that the "last time you checked," sexual proclivities were an indicator of intelligence or reasoning. I merely asked you where you checked this at, to which you didn't answer. If you don't have a resource or at least some sort of reasoning behind your conclusion, I can't help you there; it's certainly not my fault that you were unable to reveal where you checked this "fact" when asked.
And you checked where? Last time I checked, you provided nothing on which to base your comments but the glib phrase (and attempt to score points) "last time I checked". If you don't have a resource or at least some sort of reasoning behind your conclusion, I can't help you there; it's certainly not my fault that you were unable to reveal where you checked this "fact" when it was flipped back on you.
It doesn't matter why or when you flaunt something. My point is that freedom of speech is a right of every person. If you can flaunt your moral views (whether provoked or unprovoked), others can flaunt their views as well. I'm pretty sure the First Amendment doesn't have a provocation requirement to it.
It most certainly DOES matter. Timing and context are extremely important. If I don't make any public comment until and unless the topic is raised in a public setting, I'm hardly "flaunting" anything. I'm simply minding my own business -- which is EXACTLY what I ask of people who wish to engage in sexual perversion. Mind their own business and keep it to themselves.
First, a church is a private organization. If you choose to deny someone access to your church for whatever reason, then that is your prerogative. This discussion had nothing to do with private organizations outside of the government; it had to do with the government creating laws that altered a person's rights and privileges.
Sorry, pal. You should know the rules. You opened that door when you made the comment (and attempt to score points) about gays breaking down the door of my church. You brought that into the debate, I merely answered it. Objection overruled.
Second, the fact that they wanted to be in the choir didn't necessarily mean they were going to flaunt anything. Unless, of course, you fully expected them to wear an "I Suck Dick" sign around their neck while singing in the choir. Again, your church and you can decide to do whatever you want, but there seems to be an unrealistic expectation that a homosexual only wants to do something so as to bring attention to their homosexuality. You seem to believe that homosexuality makes a human no longer a person, but instead that they are some uncontrollable exhibition of gayness that will spontaneously erupt in radiant flamboyancy and glamorous glitter at any given moment, bringing gay shame upon you and your congregation. Again, completely your choice, but unrealistic nonetheless.
When you know what you're talking about you have the right to open your mouth. When you don't, perhaps you should keep it shut. First, the homosexual couple was lesbian. Second, they were openly affectionate during the service and after, holding hands and other outward displays to make it obvious that they were more than just friends. Third, this "couple" was on a mission and trying to prove a point. Their intent was never to quietly fit in and worship, their entire agenda (admitted during discussions with the preacher and the board) was to see how tolerant and accepting the church would be toward practicing homosexuals.
You were bitching about them voicing their sexuality and how it affected your right to religion. I'm sorry, but if you don't like someone voicing their opinion, you can turn off the TV, browse to another website, switch the radio station, etc. Someone else's free speech does not affect your rights. Gays aren't knocking down your door to tell you about how a penis feels in their butt while you're trying to have quiet time with Jesus.
This is, and I apologize for being blunt, but the most ignorant argument in a long line of ignorant arguments. The "turn off the TV" defense is pathetic. If it were as simple as that, then there should be no restriction at all on content of any kind ever.
As much as they may annoy you, they are not altering your rights in any way by voicing an opinion. Creating laws that prevent a person from doing something, however, is altering rights. If you're going to deny something, then you typically have to have a legitimate reason behind the denial. I have not heard one legitimately supported reason yet; the only reason I've heard is that homosexuality is immoral. As I've pointed out, the morality of a person is not only a subjective opinion that differs from person to person, but it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether a person can efficiently serve in the military.
And as I've stated, the ability to openly express their sexual preference is also irrelevant to the issue of whether a person can serve efficiently in the military. Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to demand the right to express such preference in a public manner. End of story there.
Nice straw man argument; I never set the line anywhere. I clearly stated that the age issue was up for debate. I then went on to use the five year old as an example of a person which we all would agree is too young to consent. You wanted to dance around the iffy ages of 16 or 17 and derail the conversation; I'm trying to point out to you with an extreme example that age does play a part in consent. People do mature as they get older. At what age are they mature enough to consent? Again, it's up for debate, but a five year old is certainly one who can not be expected to have the intellectual capacity to knowingly consent to sex.
You said five, not me. Age does play a role in consent. But if you're going to make those kind of choices, my point was that this too will eventually be challenged.
Way to avoid the question asking if you view the rapist of a five year old the same as you do a gay man in a consensual, adult relationship.
And there you go again. Five year old. Okay, I view a rapist of a five year old as a sick predator bastard. But what about ten? What about twelve? I once met a 13 year old girl in a bar in Tuscaloosa. She looked 21 to me. Is that okay?
I view a child molester as someone who has something wrong with them chemically, genetically or based on preference. I view a homosexual as someone who has something wrong with them chemically, genetically or based on sick preference. In terms of their behaviors, no, there is no difference to me. They are both sick.
That does not mean, however, that the consequences for acting on those illnesses should be the same and it's a fraudulent argument on your part to equate the two.
Speeders and drunk drivers are both violators of vehicular laws. As such I view them both as a danger on the roadways. But I don't advocate the same consequences. People who speed don't bother me unless they are driving exceedingly fast or recklessly. People who are intoxicated behind the wheel should be incarcerated and their right to drive taken away. Same category, different consequences.
Umm, no. Reread my last response to you. I quoted your portion about bigamy and stated the following immediately after:
"It personally doesn't bother me. Everyone has their own subjective moral beliefs, and as I've mentioned before, there's no way to disprove or prove a subjective belief. You can only accept that some people believe differently than you."
Free. Speech.
Yes, realized you were addressing bigamy in passing after I had posted the response.
I have no problem accepting people who believe differently. My problem, again, comes when it is demanded that I alter MY thinking to accommodate theirs.
Free speech my ass. That's a bullshit blanket that's used to justify all manner of offenses. It was never the intent for that amendment to be interpreted in the way it has been warped today.
You can be concerned with their actions all you want, but you can not prevent a person from making a "public spectacle" by protesting laws or announcing in public that they are gay. It doesn't matter what the vast majority of the public thinks about anything; free speech applies to everyone.
Yes, we've lost the concept of majority rule. That's just awesome.
And free speech my ass, again.
As I've stated before and will state again, my intent is not to sway people's minds when it comes to topics of subjectivity. Morals are far too subjective for me to look a person dead in the eye and say, "My morals are right. Yours are wrong." Maybe you can do that, but I can not. Nor have I called anyone narrow-minded or unenlightened. I am only pointing out that for every Christian who is annoyed by a gay talking about his homosexuality, there is a homosexual who is annoyed by a Christian talking about his Christianity.
If you can point to a reason why immorality is a reason to be barred from joining the military, then that is applicable to the discussion. Otherwise, the fact that you are annoyed by a gay person's free speech is pretty much moot. It is a personal opinion that you hold dearly, and no one can take that away from you, but that personal opinion can't be forced upon everyone else in the form of "curing" all gays, forcing them to keep certain speech private, or barring them from the military.
And you've STILL failed to grasp the most simple concept.
I don't give a flying fuck at a surf-boarding squirrel if they want to choke on dicks or take it up the ass and serve in the military. That never has been and never will be the issue. The issue is not whether they can serve -- because they already can and already do. The issue is whether they should have the right to parade around and openly declare their gayness.
As you've stated eloquently, being gay has no impact on their ability to serve. If that's the case, then why is there a need to point out those who are?
Don't ask. Don't tell. Mind your own fucking business. Pretty simple.
-
Doing away with DADT would open up the flood gates for many gay activists to join just to SHOW everyone. And that would cause much upheaval.
CC, honest question. DO you REALLY think that gay activists would join the military for this reason? Have you seen what passes for extreme gay activists these days? NO WAY do they last five minutes in basic training.
But you know what? If they do, they earn the right to serve. Straight guys get cashiered for inability to pass basic, and to bond with their units. Since they are not asking for any special accommodations – the gay guys go through the exact same training as straight guys - if a gay guy goes through basic and passes the tests, that means he has accepted the concept of “For The Good Of The Unit”. I doubt he would then whip out his Elton John glasses and assless chaps. He has bought into the military code and would sooner die than do anything to destroy his unit, right?
What we have now is the privilege for any gay individual to serve in the US military as long as their personal choices do not cause any issues. With DADT, these individuals MUST focus on the job and not their sexuality.
But no matter how great a job they do, all it takes is for someone to find out they are gay, and it is all over. Who can focus 100% on their job when that nightmare is hanging over their head? How is that fair? And how is that a postive for this country? I have said this more than once – an expert sonar operator does not immediately lose the ability to detect enemy subs the minute someone finds out he is gay. Getting rid of a highly trained, beneficial member of our military because of sexual preference is short sighted. Just like firing those Arabic translators – what a stupid move.
-
Fuck off because you can't refute this. To maintain that typical white trash dumbshit trailer park bammer, or ghetto ignorant welfare recipient, are more intelligent than even the typical homosexual, let alone the ones Jen mentioned, is narrow minded and simply ignorant.
Most homosexuals fight with themselves and attempt to resist the urges??? Really? Take a poll and let's see how many homosexuals wish to be "cured". I guara-fuckin-tee you, you will get less than one percent that do. Then lets take a poll and see how many sickle-cell anemia patients wish to be cured. That's why we're curing one and not the other. In fact, you'll probably find more people that wish to have their blue eyes "cured" than their homosexuality.
This is fucking laughable. Again you say that homosexuals are "mongoloids" and compare their minds to the mind of a child that is incapable of reason or common sense. Clearly most of them have more than you do.
Wrong. If it is discovered that they are gay, not that they are wearing assless chaps and feather head dresses in the line of fire and try to rape their cohorts in the barracks, just that they're gay...they're canned. If someone spreads a false rumor about someone being gay...they're gone.
The fact that you've never met a gay person makes you ignorant to the issue. Clearly you view homosexuals as sub-human. This is the same narrow mindedness that extreme racists in bumfuck country towns use. They've never met a black man, so it's easy to dehumanize them.
You should have stayed on the couch.
You're incapable of intelligent argument.
-
You should have stayed on the couch.
You're incapable of intelligent argument.
Wow, Chad. No intelligence. No reasoning ability. Guess that means you are gay.
-
What astonishes me is that you're unaware that Islam and Christianity comes from the same basic source.
Much of what is in the Old Testament is also in the Koran. Maybe you should read one or the other.
Where we differ and why we try to kill each other is that they don't accept Jesus as the Savior, only one of many prophets.
Historical fail on your part.
Reading Comprehension fail. Twisting and changing the point of the argument because you don't have something good to say fail.
I said, you must be reading from the wrong book. The Koran and Bible differ dramtically. The website cites and bases most of its arguments from the part of the Koran that differs completely from the Bible. You know, the part about Muhammad.
Your first sentence, was found, verbatim, from that document/website. Again, are you Muslim? Reading from the wrong book?
-
CC, honest question. DO you REALLY think that gay activists would join the military for this reason? Have you seen what passes for extreme gay activists these days? NO WAY do they last five minutes in basic training.
But you know what? If they do, they earn the right to serve. Straight guys get cashiered for inability to pass basic, and to bond with their units. Since they are not asking for any special accommodations – the gay guys go through the exact same training as straight guys - if a gay guy goes through basic and passes the tests, that means he has accepted the concept of “For The Good Of The Unit”. I doubt he would then whip out his Elton John glasses and assless chaps. He has bought into the military code and would sooner die than do anything to destroy his unit, right?
But no matter how great a job they do, all it takes is for someone to find out they are gay, and it is all over. Who can focus 100% on their job when that nightmare is hanging over their head? How is that fair? And how is that a postive for this country? I have said this more than once – an expert sonar operator does not immediately lose the ability to detect enemy subs the minute someone finds out he is gay. Getting rid of a highly trained, beneficial member of our military because of sexual preference is short sighted. Just like firing those Arabic translators – what a stupid move.
Team concept, T. Team concept.
If the majority of the team is made uncomfortable by the presence of one member, for whatever reason, the rights of the team -- particularly in a situation where each person has to rely on the man next to him to survive -- are more important than the rights of the individual.
The military isn't Wal Mart.
If the majority of the unit is uncomfortable or distracted because of those concerns -- and military people clearly are or we wouldn't be having this conversation -- then the unit has to come first (that's what she said).
If most people in the military didn't care, as you've claimed, then this would not be a topic of debate. But many obviously do, then maybe THEY are the ones who should make the decision. They have. The military's preference, based on what they believe is best for the morale, efficiency and cohesiveness of their fighting units is to ban homosexuals from serving. They have been forced by Congress -- who knows nothing about what they endure daily -- to accept something they feel is a detriment so long as it's kept quiet.
Who the fuck are you to now demand that this, too, be changed? If the powers that be in charge of the military want it changed, then they should be the ones to do so, not some bleeding heart fucked up agenda being forced on them by outsiders.
This isn't the playground. Everybody doesn't get a turn.
-
Wow, Chad. No intelligence. No reasoning ability. Guess that means you are gay.
Apparently.
His entire attempt at "argument" was nothing more than a series of shreikingly ignorant attempts at attack. Zero logical connections, just a pile of frothing excrement.
-
This is getting better than the pot debate.
Bout the time June gets here I am starting a homo pot thread.
-
Reading Comprehension fail. Twisting and changing the point of the argument because you don't have something good to say fail.
I said, you must be reading from the wrong book. The Koran and Bible differ dramtically. The website cites and bases most of its arguments from the part of the Koran that differs completely from the Bible. You know, the part about Muhammad.
Your first sentence, was found, verbatim, from that document/website. Again, are you Muslim? Reading from the wrong book?
READING COMPREHENSION DOUBLE FAIL.
Koran and Bible differ, yep. I didn't say they were word for word replicas. In fact, I only referenced Old Testament -- which is all the stuff pre-Muhammad. There are significant similarities between what is found in the Old Testament and what is found in the Koran. Nothing to do with Muhammed.
My first sentence was of my own creation. I am not surprised at all to know that Muslims, who worship the same God and trace their lineage back to the same fathers that Christians do, would share the belief that homosexuality is an abomination. I'm flattered that in my own writing I was able to duplicate (coincidentally) words that reflect the views contained in both our Holy Books.
I know you are not this blind to religious history.
-
READING COMPREHENSION DOUBLE FAIL.
Koran and Bible differ, yep. I didn't say they were word for word replicas. In fact, I only referenced Old Testament -- which is all the stuff pre-Muhammad. There are significant similarities between what is found in the Old Testament and what is found in the Koran. Nothing to do with Muhammed.
My first sentence was of my own creation. I am not surprised at all to know that Muslims, who worship the same God and trace their lineage back to the same fathers that Christians do, would share the belief that homosexuality is an abomination. I'm flattered that in my own writing I was able to duplicate (coincidentally) words that reflect the views contained in both our Holy Books.
I know you are not this blind to religious history.
Ok, now that the garbage is out.
You can not honestly say that you are flattered that you use words that are used to persecute people and force people...against their free will...to obey under fear of penalty of death?
Also, words that brain wash people into strapping bombs to their chest and walk into a marketplace?
Kevin, that's just ridiculous. And I know you say it for dramatic affect, but the article I linked to you is literally a propaganda piece. Current Propaganda, that I know you would roll your eyes to if you see it on TV or on the street corner.
That is the whole hypocrisy in this. You get sick of homosexual agenda being slammed in your face on TV and what not, but at the same time you think you should be able to shout from the rooftops how gays are an abomination, homosexuality is a sin, one must follow the good book, etc...
-
This is getting better than the pot debate.
Bout the time June gets here I am starting a homo pot thread.
Actually, I had more fun with the pot debate... This one just pisses me off.
So many in here seem to so be willing to force things on others without regard for their personal values. It's like forcing a Muslim to sleep with pigs... <In the same room... not sexual! Don't get excited.> It's like forcing a vegan into a steak house. The extreme points on both sides of this are playing moral superiority, while they're both being narrow-minded.
-
This is getting better than the pot debate.
Bout the time June gets here I am starting a homo pot thread.
Should be an interesting read.
-
Actually, I had more fun with the pot debate... This one just pisses me off.
So many in here seem to so be willing to force things on others without regard for their personal values. It's like forcing a Muslim to sleep with pigs... <In the same room... not sexual! Don't get excited.> It's like forcing a vegan into a steak house. The extreme points on both sides of this are playing moral superiority, while they're both being narrow-minded.
Shit, I'm not being moral, never have been.
-
Who are you to prevent these folks from joining the military? People like you are willing to make some accommodations at the expense of others to allow homosexuals in the military . . .
Accommodations at the expense of others? Once again, it sounds like there is an unrealistic expectation that a homosexual is going to break out into the routine from Flashdance and freak everyone the fuck out. If you even bothered to read the post regarding the RAND report, then you'll see that homosexuals in the military have had no effect on military operations in other countries.
. . . but when it comes to those genetic conditions that "you" recognize as ailments primarily because of your own perceptions and prejudices, you invent conditions and limitations that would block their service. Why couldn't a hemophiliac fly a drone over Iraq from a base in Arizona? Why couldn't a leper work in the motor pool? Even with sickle cell anemia, why couldn't we come up with a job for them in the military? Why do you discriminate so much?
There's this little thing called war. It can happen anywhere and anytime, even on our own soil. Maybe your history books didn't teach you about the World Wars and Vietnam, but there are times when we need every enlisted soldier and draftable person to be able to actively participate in physical combat. It's at those times that a soldier with a life-threatening disease or defect can not be depended upon to protect our country. Let's not forget about the fact that, easy military job or not, you still have to go through basic training, recurring physical training, etc. Those who are more prone to be injured or die during such physical activities aren't going to be of much worth to the military.
Even if you don't buy into this and still think we should have people with Downs Syndrome enlisted so that they can mop floors and walk the major's dog, you still have yet to even compare homosexuality in any way to the physical maladies of which you speak. Other than complaining that it would be interrupting others' military service (which is proven not to be true by the RAND report), you have not set forth some sort of analogous reason as to why a homosexual would be unable to actually perform in the military as heterosexuals do.
-
Ok, now that the garbage is out.
You can not honestly say that you are flattered that you use words that are used to persecute people and force people...against their free will...to obey under fear of penalty of death?
Also, words that brain wash people into strapping bombs to their chest and walk into a marketplace?
Kevin, that's just ridiculous. And I know you say it for dramatic affect, but the article I linked to you is literally a propaganda piece. Current Propaganda, that I know you would roll your eyes to if you see it on TV or on the street corner.
That is the whole hypocrisy in this. You get sick of homosexual agenda being slammed in your face on TV and what not, but at the same time you think you should be able to shout from the rooftops how gays are an abomination, homosexuality is a sin, one must follow the good book, etc...
I haven't shouted a damn thing -- except in response to someone else shouting. There is no hypocrisy. If I don't see it, I have no opinion to offer. But when it is debated, I have the right to express mine, no? Apparently not. There, my deluded friend, is the hypocrisy.
I'm sure the article you linked is propoganda. So what? People who promote certain issues often take legitimate scriptural references to craft their own agendas. Ever heard of Jim Jones? David Koresh? Just because they used passages from the Bible to justify their actions, that does not mean the Bible is less relevant or defiled.
The term abomination comes from the Bible and is used in reference to homosexuality specifically. Leviticus, I think. I am certainly not surprised at all that someone with extremist views, such as whoever apparently wrote that piece you linked (I didn't look at it, it wouldn't open) would use that same phraseology. But just because it's used in that manner, it isn't rendered invalid on the whole.
I am flattered that my opinion is reflected in the Bible and in the Koran, yes. What others do with those words is not under my control.
To attempt to link my viewpoint with terrorism because you find the same words in the Bible as you do an extremist flyer is utterly asinine. It's absurd. It's typical tactics, though. Kudos for that. You've picked up the same brush used by the crazies and are painting away.
-
Actually, I had more fun with the pot debate... This one just pisses me off.
So many in here seem to so be willing to force things on others without regard for their personal values. It's like forcing a Muslim to sleep with pigs... <In the same room... not sexual! Don't get excited.> It's like forcing a vegan into a steak house. The extreme points on both sides of this are playing moral superiority, while they're both being narrow-minded.
For the record, I'm not attempting to force anything on anyone. I'm merely stating my personal opinion and asking that the opposite agenda not be forced on me. I've issued no calls for mass genetic tampering or imprisonment. I've only stated my individual position in regard to a topic of debate. I'd prefer not to have the discussion, actually, as I think those type of things are best left to the individual and behind closed doors.
But here we are, anyway.
-
I haven't shouted a damn thing -- except in response to someone else shouting. There is no hypocrisy. If I don't see it, I have no opinion to offer. But when it is debated, I have the right to express mine, no? Apparently not. There, my deluded friend, is the hypocrisy.
I'm sure the article you linked is propoganda. So what? People who promote certain issues often take legitimate scriptural references to craft their own agendas. Ever heard of Jim Jones? David Koresh? Just because they used passages from the Bible to justify their actions, that does not mean the Bible is less relevant or defiled.
The term abomination comes from the Bible and is used in reference to homosexuality specifically. Leviticus, I think. I am certainly not surprised at all that someone with extremist views, such as whoever apparently wrote that piece you linked (I didn't look at it, it wouldn't open) would use that same phraseology. But just because it's used in that manner, it isn't rendered invalid on the whole.
I am flattered that my opinion is reflected in the Bible and in the Koran, yes. What others do with those words is not under my control.
To attempt to link my viewpoint with terrorism because you find the same words in the Bible as you do an extremist flyer is utterly asinine. It's absurd. It's typical tactics, though. Kudos for that. You've picked up the same brush used by the crazies and are painting away.
No, No my friend. I never said that. You said that you hate the fact that it's all over your TV and etc... Yet, I bet you don't say the same thing about a religious program or something of that nature.
Also, I think all people should be able to do or say what they want unless it hurts someone. At the same time, I feel that intelligent people know when to be quiet and when to speak if the situation is appropriate.
I'm not linking your viewpoint to terrorism. I'm linking your viewpoint to bullshit propaganda that is also used to promote violence and intolerance.
-
You've picked up the same brush used by the crazies and are painting away.
Andrew W. Vasquez?
Where I live, all of the painters are named Vasquez. Only the crazies never actually paint anything anymore. They hire Vasquez to do it. I think they use the term "plausible deniability".
-
For the record, I'm not attempting to force anything on anyone. I'm merely stating my personal opinion and asking that the opposite agenda not be forced on me. I've issued no calls for mass genetic tampering or imprisonment. I've only stated my individual position in regard to a topic of debate. I'd prefer not to have the discussion, actually, as I think those type of things are best left to the individual and behind closed doors.
But here we are, anyway.
Irony.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/1zvzt53.jpg)
:)
-
homosexuals in the military have had no effect on military operations in other countries.
This isn't Europe, Mr. Obama.
There's this little thing called war. It can happen anywhere and anytime, even on our own soil. Maybe your history books didn't teach you about the World Wars and Vietnam, but there are times when we need every enlisted soldier and draftable person to be able to actively participate in physical combat. It's at those times that a soldier with a life-threatening disease or defect can not be depended upon to protect our country. Let's not forget about the fact that, easy military job or not, you still have to go through basic training, recurring physical training, etc. Those who are more prone to be injured or die during such physical activities aren't going to be of much worth to the military.
Even if you don't buy into this and still think we should have people with Downs Syndrome enlisted so that they can mop floors and walk the major's dog, you still have yet to even compare homosexuality in any way to the physical maladies of which you speak. Other than complaining that it would be interrupting others' military service (which is proven not to be true by the RAND report), you have not set forth some sort of analogous reason as to why a homosexual would be unable to actually perform in the military as heterosexuals do.
And AGAIN for the umpteenth time, you completely fucking WHIFF on the point.
Nobody is saying they can't serve in the military. They obviously can and do. The issue is whether they should be open with it. The military would prefer they not be in the interest of safety, morale and efficiency.
I'll take their word for it over Shrieker Pelosi's.
-
I'm not linking your viewpoint to terrorism. I'm linking your viewpoint to bullshit propaganda that is also used to promote violence and intolerance.
The words I used came from the Bible. And the Koran. And probably the Torah, although I'd have to review it.
All huge proponents of "bullshit propaganda, used to promote violence and intolerance."
-
And AGAIN for the umpteenth time, you completely fucking WHIFF on the point.
Nobody is saying they can't serve in the military. They obviously can and do. The issue is whether they should be open with it. The military would prefer they not be in the interest of safety, morale and efficiency.
BINGO!
But as with all things gay, it's all or nothing. DADT has worked fine. The number of soldiers being tossed out for tossing is not at such a number that it is epidemic.
-
BINGO!
But as with all things gay, it's all or nothing. DADT has worked fine. The number of soldiers being tossed out for tossing is not at such a number that it is epidemic.
Careful, there, hoss. Chizad is likely to throw his cocoa-loco cappuchino mocha at you and call you narrow minded.
Common sense not allowed here!
:rofl:
-
The words I used came from the Bible. And the Koran. And probably the Torah, although I'd have to review it.
All huge proponents of "bullshit propaganda, used to promote violence and intolerance."
Exactly, the bible, in your own words is a proponent of bullshit propaganda, used to promote violence or intolerance.
Kinda the basis for your argument in reference to Christianity and Christian views.
-
Exactly, the bible, in your own words is a proponent of bullshit propaganda, used to promote violence or intolerance.
Kinda the basis for your argument in reference to Christianity and Christian views.
I don't think that it is such and I never said that.
It can be used by those who wish to promote those things, but "intolerance" is such a broad word. It's my opinion that there are some things we, as Christians, are SUPPOSED to be intolerant of.
You can take any work, from Shakespeare to the script for Mamma Mia and select certain passages to create a manifesto for violence.
-
Apparently.
His entire attempt at "argument" was nothing more than a series of shreikingly ignorant attempts at attack. Zero logical connections, just a pile of frothing excrement.
Fail.
-
All extraneous bullshit aside...
This topic really boils down to gays asking for the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy to be repealed and certain members of Congress embracing that idea.
When that request comes from the people in charge of the military, then it should matter. I'll admit, I've never served in the military and it isn't my place to tell those who have and do how their operation should be run.
That said, there are a few others who also have no place making such demands:
1) Some random gay blogger with an axe to grind who makes baseless statements and fraudulent accusations (the genesis of this thread).
2) A lawyer who knows nothing but the blanket of free speech -- which frankly, shouldn't apply to the military for obvious reasons.
3) A variety of other people who've responded in this thread with nothing but their own personal agendas and viewpoints, none of which have any basis in or knowledge of military function.
4) Members of Congress who aren't serving in the military, many who have never served, and some whose sole purpose is making headlines and pacifying a segment of the electorate.
And now, this discussion is closed.
-
I haven't shouted a damn thing -- except in response to someone else shouting. There is no hypocrisy. If I don't see it, I have no opinion to offer. But when it is debated, I have the right to express mine, no? Apparently not. There, my deluded friend, is the hypocrisy.
You keep going back to this, and it is ridiculous.
The homosexuals you are "responding to", are only "responding to" the people who vocally condemn them to hell and demand that they conform to their approved lifestyle.
The fact that you don't recognize this cycle explains a lot i.e. your constant battles with Chopper & Prowler, that you truly believe you are not instigating.
-
All extraneous bullshit aside...
This topic really boils down to gays asking for the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy to be repealed and certain members of Congress embracing that idea.
When that request comes from the people in charge of the military, then it should matter. I'll admit, I've never served in the military and it isn't my place to tell those who have and do how their operation should be run.
That said, there are a few others who also have no place making such demands:
1) Some random gay blogger with an axe to grind who makes baseless statements and fraudulent accusations (the genesis of this thread).
2) A lawyer who knows nothing but the blanket of free speech -- which frankly, shouldn't apply to the military for obvious reasons.
3) A variety of other people who've responded in this thread with nothing but their own personal agendas and viewpoints, none of which have any basis in or knowledge of military function.
4) Members of Congress who aren't serving in the military, many who have never served, and some whose sole purpose is making headlines and pacifying a segment of the electorate.
And now, this discussion is closed.
#2 Mea culpa, I forgot we should leave all matters of free speech to citizens, who aren't actually putting their lives on the line to defend it. Give me a break. Go read the constitution, and then read every Supreme Court case since its adoption until current regarding free speech...then come back and we can have a conversation.
#3 - Actually, many people who commented on this subject made knowledgeable and fact based arguments. One thing you have trouble dealing with K, is that just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean their argument lacks knowledge.
-
You keep going back to this, and it is ridiculous.
The homosexuals you are "responding to", are only "responding to" the people who vocally condemn them to hell and demand that they conform to their approved lifestyle.
The fact that you don't recognize this cycle explains a lot i.e. your constant battles with Chopper & Prowler, that you truly believe you are not instigating.
You're intent on setting fail records today, Sancho.
Don't think I've ever offered an unsolicited opinion on homosexuality in this forum. My comments here are in direct, direct I say, response to an opinion offered by others. An opinion with which I disagree and the method of delivery of which I found highly offensive, I must add.
You are Sancho for a reason, not the least of which is your inability to recognize logical progression.
-
Accommodations at the expense of others? Once again, it sounds like there is an unrealistic expectation that a homosexual is going to break out into the routine from Flashdance and freak everyone the phuk out.
No… I never suggested that. I’m not sure how you would have even come to that conclusion… unless you’re stereotyping the homosexual community.
If you even bothered to read the post regarding the RAND report, then you'll see that homosexuals in the military have had no effect on military operations in other countries.
I trust those so-called analysts and experts behind this RAND report about as much as I trust Obama to improve the economy. It means nothing. There were an awful lot of reports written about Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them were proven wrong.
It’s a far cry from the military, but I’m managing a fairly large project right now. For the first six months, I had this one resource on the team who did not relate well with the other team members. He seemed to be a nice enough guy, and I tried to integrate him into the team several times. He just had an awkward sense of humor, and his personality was strange. His mannerisms “freaked people out” as many on the team felt it necessary to speak to me about him. Eventually, these differences led to professional issues. They didn’t trust him. They didn’t value his opinion. And sometimes, they would discredit him in front of other team members, and eventually, they started doing this in front of the client team members. I had to let him go. He became a disruptive force on the team, and I could not continue to support him. I’m sure that he was a capable resource, and at times, he impressed me with his work product. But, I could not continue to keep him on the team.
The workplace is more of a social organization than the military. I could afford to take a chance with him by staffing him on a project. Since then, I’ve staffed him on another engagement. The military is different. By design, it’s not meant to be a social organization, and these types of experiments are far more risky and dangerous.
There's this little thing called war. It can happen anywhere and anytime, even on our own soil. Maybe your history books didn't teach you about the World Wars and Vietnam, but there are times when we need every enlisted soldier and draftable person to be able to actively participate in physical combat. It's at those times that a soldier with a life-threatening disease or defect can not be depended upon to protect our country. Let's not forget about the fact that, easy military job or not, you still have to go through basic training, recurring physical training, etc. Those who are more prone to be injured or die during such physical activities aren't going to be of much worth to the military.
You’re a military expert now. Great… It still sounds, smells and tastes like discrimination, no matter how you color it.
Even if you don't buy into this and still think we should have people with Downs Syndrome enlisted so that they can mop floors and walk the major's dog, you still have yet to even compare homosexuality in any way to the physical maladies of which you speak. Other than complaining that it would be interrupting others' military service (which is proven not to be true by the RAND report), you have not set forth some sort of analogous reason as to why a homosexual would be unable to actually perform in the military as heterosexuals do.
I never said that. Are you building one of those straw-tigers to battle? And, as far as capability of a person with Downs Syndrome, I’ve seen some with incredible physical attributes, probably greater than our average GI. So, why would you discriminate against him if he's fully capable of military service?
-
#2 Mea culpa, I forgot we should leave all matters of free speech to citizens, who aren't actually putting their lives on the line to defend it. Give me a break. Go read the constitution, and then read every Supreme Court case since its adoption until current regarding free speech...then come back and we can have a conversation.
#3 - Actually, many people who commented on this subject made knowledgeable and fact based arguments. One thing you have trouble dealing with K, is that just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean their argument lacks knowledge.
"Free speech" is a one size fits all blanket employed by lawyers when no other valid argument exists. The "right" to serve in the military as an avowed queer is hardly an issue of free speech.
While I respect those who have served their opinion is just that. Their opinion. It does not reflect the official posiion of the armed services nor does it reflect the policies of the men in charge. I defer to those whose job it is to make those decisions and they, to this point, have been clear.
-
Okay. Show of hands
Who here loves the offseason
-
I happen to agree with this guy's opinion - especially the bolded part.
http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=3213 (http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=3213)
Except you are not having to share the same locker room and living quarters with those who fantasize about you, like we would have to.
-
Okay. Show of hands
Who here loves the offseason
MEEEEEEEEEEEE
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d58/saniflush/tay.jpg)
-
That's some freedom of speech right there, and pure sex appeal.
-
MEEEEEEEEEEEE
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d58/saniflush/tay.jpg)
+1
-
+1
Is that you - circa Halloween 2008?
Im gonna admit K, it looks better than the cat costume. Not even close.
-
Is that you - circa Halloween 2008?
Im gonna admit K, it looks better than the cat costume. Not even close.
That would be me.
-
Except you are not having to share the same locker room, showers, latrene and living quarters with those who fantasize about you, like we would have to.
FTFY...
And, EXACTLY!
-
FTFY...
And, EXACTLY!
Oh noes! That awful gay dude is having icky thoughts about me!!!!!
I'll take a compliment no matter the source.
-
Okay. Show of hands
Who here loves the offseason
I catch a lot of sleep during basketball season, especially during games!
-
MEEEEEEEEEEEE
(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d58/saniflush/tay.jpg)
See. This is more like it. From a military standpoint, this guy needs no training. Send him straight to the front, dressed as is and carrying peace flowers. Muslim extremists will love him and peace will immediately break out in the middle east, along with song and dance. Issue solved.
-
The reason honest debate can no longer happen. This thread proves it.
In this thread I offered an opinion that differs (in come cases dramatically) from that held by others on this board. Some I respect, some I don't. I've made a conscious effort to remain on topic and refrain from bringing personalities into it. Haven't always succeeded, but there hasn't been any calling people dumbasses or dismissing their point out of hand with a handy emoticon. There were a few unfortunate Pelosi-isms and those I quickly moved away from. I've said that opinions lack logical thought and are irrational. I've said that positions have no substance.
On the other hand, I've been assailed as narrow minded. I've been branded a bigot. I've been dismissed as unenlightened and backward. I've been told I hate people. I've had my religion equated with terrorist propaganda. I'be been called shallow and filed away with cousin-humping bama trash. I had my personal family relationships denigrated.
And that was all without Chizad's unintentionally comical Phyllis-esque trailer-park porch rant. (Yes, he gets the personal shots, because he earned them).
That's what offering an opinion -- and one that speaks for many more than you'd care to admit -- gets you these days.
It's not a pretty sight. None of you are any more intelligent than I am. I guarantee that. Nor am I any more intelligent than you -- well some of you, anyway. None of you have a monopoly on enlightenment. None of us are the harbingers of truth. My opinion has just as much validity as yours. Wouldn't know it, though, would you?
Honest legitimate discussion must be quashed by "the enlightened" who substitute their personal morality for that of us all.
-
Oh noes! That awful gay dude is having icky thoughts about me!!!!!
I'll take a compliment no matter the source.
Double your odds...
-
The reason honest debate can no longer happen. This thread proves it.
In this thread I offered an opinion that differs (in come cases dramatically) from that held by others on this board. Some I respect, some I don't. I've made a conscious effort to remain on topic and refrain from bringing personalities into it. Haven't always succeeded, but there hasn't been any calling people dumbasses or dismissing their point out of hand with a handy emoticon. There were a few unfortunate Pelosi-isms and those I quickly moved away from. I've said that opinions lack logical thought and are irrational. I've said that positions have no substance.
On the other hand, I've been assailed as narrow minded. I've been branded a bigot. I've been dismissed as unenlightened and backward. I've been told I hate people. I've had my religion equated with terrorist propaganda. I'be been called shallow and filed away with cousin-humping bama trash. I had my personal family relationships denigrated.
And that was all without Chizad's unintentionally comical Phyllis-esque trailer-park porch rant. (Yes, he gets the personal shots, because he earned them).
That's what offering an opinion -- and one that speaks for many more than you'd care to admit -- gets you these days.
It's not a pretty sight. None of you are any more intelligent than I am. I guarantee that. Nor am I any more intelligent than you -- well some of you, anyway. None of you have a monopoly on enlightenment. None of us are the harbingers of truth. My opinion has just as much validity as yours. Wouldn't know it, though, would you?
Honest legitimate discussion must be quashed by "the enlightened" who substitute their personal morality for that of us all.
Not sure if I was included in the statement, but I did have a legit response before my joking one about your cat costume. But seriously - I meant the first post. GarMan made it even better.
-
The reason honest debate can no longer happen. This thread proves it.
In this thread I offered an opinion that differs (in come cases dramatically) from that held by others on this board. Some I respect, some I don't. I've made a conscious effort to remain on topic and refrain from bringing personalities into it. Haven't always succeeded, but there hasn't been any calling people dumbasses or dismissing their point out of hand with a handy emoticon. There were a few unfortunate Pelosi-isms and those I quickly moved away from. I've said that opinions lack logical thought and are irrational. I've said that positions have no substance.
On the other hand, I've been assailed as narrow minded. I've been branded a bigot. I've been dismissed as unenlightened and backward. I've been told I hate people. I've had my religion equated with terrorist propaganda. I'be been called shallow and filed away with cousin-humping bama trash. I had my personal family relationships denigrated.
And that was all without Chizad's unintentionally comical Phyllis-esque trailer-park porch rant. (Yes, he gets the personal shots, because he earned them).
That's what offering an opinion -- and one that speaks for many more than you'd care to admit -- gets you these days.
It's not a pretty sight. None of you are any more intelligent than I am. I guarantee that. Nor am I any more intelligent than you -- well some of you, anyway. None of you have a monopoly on enlightenment. None of us are the harbingers of truth. My opinion has just as much validity as yours. Wouldn't know it, though, would you?
Honest legitimate discussion must be quashed by "the enlightened" who substitute their personal morality for that of us all.
:thumsup:
Could you please be more specific? What have I said that is the incoherent babble you claim it to be? The fact that you set me apart and dismiss everything I say as ignorance is because you have nothing to refute. It's the same tactic you fail miserably at applying when Chopper hands you your ass in thread after thread.
-
:thumsup:
Could you please be more specific? What have I said that is the incoherent babble you claim it to be? The fact that you set me apart and dismiss everything I say as ignorance is because you have nothing to refute. It's the same tactic you fail miserably at applying when Chopper hands you your ass in thread after thread.
Your entire opening rant was shockingly malformed and failed to comprehend the issues as they were presented.
Good try, Sancho.
This really isn't your forte.
-
I had my personal family relationships denigrated.
Racist
-
I had my personal family relationships denigrated.
Oh, please. Sob sob. A relationships that YOU first brought up, a relationship that you basically said did not exist simply because the cousin is gay. Not because she is a bitch or a tree hugger or because she has green eyes - but because she is gay. If you introduce the statement, expect to have it discussed. And I truly do doubt that the cousin is depressed because she can't hang out with you.
I've issued no calls for mass genetic tampering or imprisonment.
Really?? REALLY?? :bs:
I guess I'm Hitler, because if the gene were identified and I had the authority, all children would be corrected prior to birth.
As for the rest of that...
(http://www.areyougame.com/images/items/HB4645.jpg)
Being a master at this game does not make you the ultimate authority on everything. Everything you just ascribed to the rest of us who disagree with you can be laid equally at your own feet. You respect my opinion about as much as you say I have respected yours. You have called me irrational, emotional, and incapable of reasoning. You have called me Pelosi. You have turned and twisted and outright dismissed anything anyone tries to say in defense of their own position and pretty much closed your mind to legitimate discussion. I have tried to redirect this topic numerous times back to the original statement, without success. But I am not Prowler and I am not Chopper and I will not be sumamrily dismissed by you for having an opinion that disagrees with yours. I am sure that will open me up to unrelated harassment in every single post I ever make on this board in any thread, but that can be dealt with. THIS is why people get so damn tired of your schtick posted from atop your marble pedestal. THIS is why I seldom read any of your posts in other threads anymore, because I know that no matter the topic, they reek of smug self-righteousness and your feelings of superiority. And that gets old.
Sorry, K. But I am not Prowler. I won’t be baited and I won’t be reeled in. I just know that I would hate to lose my job that I loved, the job that I trained for, the job that I performed well, just because someone disagreed with something about me I could not change. Period. If that makes me a hysterical Pelosi, then fine. I’ll be sure not to sit next to you in church.
-
I read the whole thing.
-
Oh, please. Sob sob. A relationships that YOU first brought up, a relationship that you basically said did not exist simply because the cousin is gay. Not because she is a bitch or a tree hugger or because she has green eyes - but because she is gay. If you introduce the statement, expect to have it discussed. And I truly do doubt that the cousin is depressed because she can't hang out with you.
Not your place to say.
Really?? REALLY?? :bs:
Yeah, really. I said if it were up to me that's what I'd do, but it's not up to me, first of all. Second the technology doesn't exist (or if it does, it's been hidden away). Third, I didn't issue a call for this administration or any other to pursue the option or enforce it. I just said what I'd do if given the authority. If it were up to me, I'd fuck Elisha Cuthbert tonight. Since it's not, the comment is nothing more than my thought.
As for the rest of that...
Being a master at this game does not make you the ultimate authority on everything. Everything you just ascribed to the rest of us who disagree with you can be laid equally at your own feet. You respect my opinion about as much as you say I have respected yours. You have called me irrational, emotional, and incapable of reasoning. You have called me Pelosi. You have turned and twisted and outright dismissed anything anyone tries to say in defense of their own position and pretty much closed your mind to legitimate discussion. I have tried to redirect this topic numerous times back to the original statement, without success. But I am not Prowler and I am not Chopper and I will not be sumamrily dismissed by you for having an opinion that disagrees with yours. I am sure that will open me up to unrelated harassment in every single post I ever make on this board in any thread, but that can be dealt with. THIS is why people get so damn tired of your schtick posted from atop your marble pedestal. THIS is why I seldom read any of your posts in other threads anymore, because I know that no matter the topic, they reek of smug self-righteousness and your feelings of superiority. And that gets old.
Your view of my meaning and intent is your problem. I have no pedestal, only my strong and considered opinion. If the fact that I write well -- as I have been told -- causes you to perceive my commentary as haughty or smug, then please blame my teachers and my parents, for they are the ones who taught me to communicate in this way.
I feel nothing akin to superiority. Exercises like this are good for the mind. They force us to defend the beliefs we hold and expose all of us to viewpoints different from our own. I find them illuminating until and unless they are ruined by bullshit and insult (Chizad's only contribution thus far).
Legitimate discussion works both ways or have you forgotten that? If my place here is to be lectured by you and Chizad (fucking joke, there) and whoever you deem "enlightened" about whatever topic, then that's not discussion whatsoever. It's you (or whoever) speaking from YOuR pedestal. Just because you choose to disagree does not make you right, nor does it make you more logical or more rational. If all we get to hear is your fucking opinion with no opposition, that's not legitimate debate, that's you pontificating.
If I disagree, I'm going to say so. If you make what I consider to be a stupid argument, I'm going to point that out. If you're an idiot -- well -- we've all been there.
I respect your opinion on most things. On this, I found you to be unhinged. Perhaps that partly due to me ascribing intent to you that did not exist, but your tone (ah, good old AUN) in this thread reeked of shrill. Sorry. That shit gets old, too.
Poor me. You don't read what I write. Too bad. Maybe you should.
Don't expect you to read the Prowler debates, but those aren't staged for you. Hey, if you don't like them change the fucking channel. It's that simple, right?
Where's VV with that fucking free speech flag?
Sorry, K. But I am not Prowler. I won’t be baited and I won’t be reeled in. I just know that I would hate to lose my job that I loved, the job that I trained for, the job that I performed well, just because someone disagreed with something about me I could not change. Period. If that makes me a hysterical Pelosi, then fine. I’ll be sure not to sit next to you in church.
So it's fine for you to have your viewpoint, dismiss mine as narrow minded without provocation and then deem that you're being "baited" and "reeled in" when I respond? Sure. That makes sense.
If you don't want to lose that job? Keep your personal business to yourself. Simple proposition. Your right to be gay, a hog fucker, or somebody who jerks off to pictures of Santa Claus extends only as far as not interfering with the morale, cohesiveness, efficiency and readiness of your group. I don't believe in accommodating the one to the detriment of the many. Even if it were me or my kid, I'd feel the same.
-
Your entire opening rant was shockingly malformed and failed to comprehend the issues as they were presented.
Good try, Sancho.
This really isn't your forte.
Specifically. Show me the blathering ignorance.
Or just vaguely call into question my integrity and general intelligence because you don't know how to have a logical discussion like an adult.
-
Specifically. Show me the blathering ignorance.
Or just vaguely call into question my integrity and general intelligence because you don't know how to have a logical discussion like an adult.
You're the one that barged in here slinging insults, Sancho. Do you really want me to go back and pull up that rant that should have heaped shame at your doorstep?
You wouldn't know an adult if one fucked you up the ass.
Moving on.
-
You're the one that barged in here slinging insults, Sancho. Do you really want me to go back and pull up that rant that should have heaped shame at your doorstep?
You wouldn't know an adult if one fucked you up the ass.
Moving on.
Translation: I can't refute what you said so I'll continue to vaguely attack you personally.
-
Okay, but remember you asked for it, okay?
Fuck off because you can't refute this. To maintain that typical white trash dumbshit trailer park bammer, or ghetto ignorant welfare recipient, are more intelligent than even the typical homosexual, let alone the ones Jen mentioned, is narrow minded and simply ignorant.
Hyperbole. Baseless conjecture and taken out of context. Insult.
Most homosexuals fight with themselves and attempt to resist the urges??? Really? Take a poll and let's see how many homosexuals wish to be "cured". I guara-fuckin-tee you, you will get less than one percent that do. Then lets take a poll and see how many sickle-cell anemia patients wish to be cured. That's why we're curing one and not the other. In fact, you'll probably find more people that wish to have their blue eyes "cured" than their homosexuality.
Hyperbole again. You're making assumptions that have no basis in fact. Taking your own viewpoint and assuming a majority supports you. Assume.
If such a poll exists, show me. Unless it does, this is nothing but hot air and hysteria.
This is fucking laughable. Again you say that homosexuals are "mongoloids" and compare their minds to the mind of a child that is incapable of reason or common sense. Clearly most of them have more than you do.
Wrong. Failure to understand what was written and correctly apply the comparisons. Nobody said homosexuals were mongoloids or that they had the mind of a child. You failed to comprehend what was written.
Wrong. If it is discovered that they are gay, not that they are wearing assless chaps and feather head dresses in the line of fire and try to rape their cohorts in the barracks, just that they're gay...they're canned. If someone spreads a false rumor about someone being gay...they're gone.
The fact that you've never met a gay person makes you ignorant to the issue. Clearly you view homosexuals as sub-human. This is the same narrow mindedness that extreme racists in bumfuck country towns use. They've never met a black man, so it's easy to dehumanize them.
Wrong again. You make assumptions about me and my position without knowing the first thing. Never met a gay person? Ridiculous.
It's not my place -- nor is it yours -- to substitute your judgement for that of the military leaders who made these decisions. You may not agree, but the rules were put in place for a reason.
Then YOU make the illogical leap that I view homosexuals as subhuman -- that pesky habit of taking your own warped interpretation and applying it to others. Not only did I never say that, I never even hinted at it. It's patently ridiculous.
Nothing you said in that opening rant had any basis in reality as to this discussion or the viewpoints expressed here. It was, as I said, a shockingly malformed and uninformed rant that added absolutely zero to the conversation but your own hysteria.
-
I just know that I would hate to lose my job that I loved, the job that I trained for, the job that I performed well, just because someone disagreed with something about me I could not change.
And, this has happened how many times? You act as though this is an everyday occurrence, yet we haven't discussed any real cases or situations at all. Just a bunch of hypothetical mumbo-jumbo bullscat!!! I'm just so thrilled that so many of the folks here are so accepting of the homosexual lifestyle. I hope that one day I can be as enlightened, superior and arrogant as them. I mean to force your concepts of fairness and equality on people... Wow...
This whole thing disgusts me. At this point, it's not so much homosexuals serving in the military, but the willingness by others to force people into situations like this. I mean seriously...
-
Hyperbole. Baseless conjecture and taken out of context. Insult.
How is that hyperbolas or conjecture taken out of context. Insult? Narrow minded is an insult? I even provided a definition. It fits your argument to a T. Hell, it fits damn near everything you ever post on this forum.
Again, the definition:
1. having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased.
2. not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind.
3. extremely conservative and morally self-righteous
Your inability to empathize even in the most basic way with a homosexual person covers the first definition. Your constant implications that homosexuals are weak minded even more strongly solidifies this. Not receptive to new ideas. Before this thread existed, it's been rehashed a million times that that is your M.O. You still think Chizik is a blathering idiot, and Jacobs made the worst hire in college football history. Extremely conservative? Check. Morally self-righteous? Can you be any more morally self-righteous than you have been in this thread? With your Bible verses, and your constant tirades about how homosexuality is an immoral sin.
I oppose homosexuality for religious and moral reasons.
I don't accept it. It's a deviant behavior no different from child molestation or fucking a corpse.
But don't deign to call me narrow minded or unenlightened because I reject your bohemian morality.
Is this not what 90% of this thread has contained? Not about the issue itself. How being a homosexual makes you less able to serve in the military. You know that's a futile battle. So your rail on why you oppose the homosexual lifestyle on principle.
Hyperbole again. You're making assumptions that have no basis in fact. Taking your own viewpoint and assuming a majority supports you. Assume.
If such a poll exists, show me. Unless it does, this is nothing but hot air and hysteria.
You're the one that brought up the idea that homosexuals wish to be cured. You really want me to find a fucking study to refute that? Since you're the one that doesn't know a single homosexual, I'm sure you're the authority on what the homosexual community thinks. The idea that you are calling this statement hyperbole is beyond belief.
If most homosexuals wish to be cured, then what are you bitching about? Are they parading around in your face about how you should accept their homosexuality or begging for medical attention? This claim is purely asinine. Go ahead. Ask a homosexual if they wish to be cured. A genuine homosexual. I will pay you $10,000 if they reply "Golly, that'd be great if I could finally get rid of my gayness!"
Wrong. Failure to understand what was written and correctly apply the comparisons. Nobody said homosexuals were mongoloids or that they had the mind of a child. You failed to comprehend what was written.
Oh, so it must have been someone else who said:
You make verbose arguments, but they still fail the test of nature. Would you allow mongoloids to determine if they wanted to be "cured"?
That you would attempt to point out the happy mongoloid children who don't want to be cured of their defects as evidence that gays shouldn't have the option to become normal is absolutely fucking laughable. When my daughter was five she wanted to be a dolphin. She didn't have the mental faculties to reason beyond that. I guess I should have let her just go be a happy dolphin, then since she had relatively the same cognitive skills as the average adult with mongoloidism. And you ignore the multitude of additional mental and physical defects that affect mongoloids.
You are clearly suggesting that homosexuals are not able to think for themselves and consent to treatment in the same way as mongoloids and children.
You went on to say:
The last time I checked, sexual proclivities were not an indicator of intelligence or reasoning.
Last time I checked, they were.
Bama man and woman are intelligent enough to know what their equipment is designed for.
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
In their sad, pathetic existence, they are replenishing the earth.
But yes, if you choose something unnatural and perverted, yeah I've got questions about your ability to reason. Sure as fuck do.
Play "I never said that" all you want, but it's littered throughout this entire thread.
Wrong again. You make assumptions about me and my position without knowing the first thing. Never met a gay person? Ridiculous.
You get caught up in semantics. I suppose I should have said you've never "gotten to know a gay person."
If I have any gay friends, I'm not aware of it. I would choose not to because I don't approve of that particular choice, have no interest in being exposed to it and certainly don't want it portrayed to my family as a normal alternative. I've known gay people at places I worked and I avoided interacting with them.
-
Ok, since I am irrational and hysterical, let's try posting something I didn't write:
Conversations I’ve held with service members make clear that, while the military remains a traditional culture, that tradition no longer requires banning open service by gays. There will undoubtedly be some teething pains, but I have no doubt our leadership can handle it.
– Gen. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
You don’t have to be straight in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.
– Sen. Barry Goldwater (Damn, he is a Pelosi!!)
You can add to this list of people unopposed to gays in the military the current CJCOS, as well as the current SecDef and retired General and former CJCOS Collin Powell. Pinko Commie Liberals, all.
...more than 265 service members have been discharged on the basis of this discriminatory, outmoded, and counterproductive policy since Obama took office. Furthermore, the policy has deterred untold others who want to defend their country from serving. Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the UCLA School of Law, found that if the proportion of gay men in the military was allowed to rise to equal that in the general population, “the military could raise their numbers by an estimated 41,000 men.”
DADT has resulted in the discharge of more than 13,000 patriotic and highly qualified men and women since its enactment more than 16 years ago. At least 1,000 of these 13,000 have held “critical occupations,” such as interpreters and engineers. Moreover, approximately 4,000 service members leave the service voluntarily per year because of this policy.
For example, by the end of fiscal year 2003, a few months after the fall of Baghdad, the military had forced out more than 320 service members with vital language skills such as Arabic and Farsi. These are the very critical specialties in which the military continues to face personnel shortfalls. Meanwhile, the Army and Marine Corps have been forced to significantly lower their moral and aptitude standards in order to overcome recruitment shortfalls. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the military has at the same time granted so-called “moral waivers” to thousands of new recruits, including people with felony convictions. (TW NOTE: Would you rather share a barracks with a guy that might be checking out your ass, or one that has a proven record of felony theft?? One with mental fantasies about you in the shower or one that might wait until you are in the shower to steal your DVD player?)
But unlike 16 years ago, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is no longer supported by the majority of the American people, nor is it even supported by a majority of service men and women. Numerous public opinion polls within American civilian society over the past decade have noted a substantial increase in the acceptance of openly gay men and women serving in the military. Polls of men and women in the armed forces have shown a similar increase. For example, a 2006 Zogby International poll of returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans found that 73 percent were personally comfortable around gays and lesbians.
There is also no credible evidence supporting the underlying arguments for retaining the law—namely that it would undermine unit cohesion and military effectiveness. Even architects of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have acknowledged that the policy was “‘based on nothing’ but ‘our own prejudices and our own fears.’” As Dr. Nathaniel Frank, perhaps the foremost authority on the military’s current policy on gay troops and author of the seminal study on the issue, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, has noted, “The ban on openly gay service was not based on sound research because no research has ever shown that openly gay service hurts the military.” Indeed, the experiences of our allies, as documented as long ago as 1993 in a Government Accountability Office study, show that allowing gays in the military “is not an issue and has not created problems in the functioning of military units”
LinkLink (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/dont_ask_dont_tell.html)
-
Also? That original link? Was written by a CONSERVATIVE WOMAN - one who typically writes about guns and how much she hates liberals. She is linked to by many of the conservative bloggers I read. However, she has caught about as much crap as I have about her opinion, so I thought it only fair to post her rebuttal. Emphasis mine.
Since the debate raging in the comments seems to be taking on some common threads and arguments, it’ll be more productive (and less exhausting) for me to address them up here and clarify my own argument and position more. I am paraphrasing; if you think a fundamental point was missed then feel free to quibble, but if you’re just upset I stated the logic being used in an unflattering fashion, feel less free.
1. “We can’t have openly gay soldiers/female soldiers because of the possibility of sexual misconduct and damaged unit cohesion.”
Hello? We already have tons of sexual misconduct that damages unit cohesion, readiness, and morale among the heterosexual male soldiers. Soldiers sleep with the locals and have dramas about whose girlfriend is whose. Soldiers sleep with somebody else’s wife. It used to be that STDs from soldiers screwing prostitutes was a major source of attrition in wartime before effective treatments and preventions were invented, sometimes a bigger one than actual casualties from enemy action. Now that’s what I call damaged readiness and morale. But we don’t boot out heterosexual male soldiers for this unless it’s really egregious, because it’s assumed that shit happens and people will get stupid over sex. If a policy punishes heterosexual sexual misconduct that causes the exact same kinds of damage proportionately, but bars gay people entirely or throws them out over it, it is blatantly discriminatory and for no good reason at all. Hell, given the grotesque ratio of female soldiers that report being raped by their fellow soldiers versus the actual prosecution of rapes, I would be waving fucking pom-poms over punishing sexual misconduct more often and more harshly regardless of the genital arrangements in question*.
2. “We shouldn’t have gay soldiers because the straight soldiers will be forced to share showers and bathrooms with them”.
Look, I get the argument about how we shouldn’t be forced to be naked with people who might ogle us and how this is why there are separate facilities for the women and the men. But the thing is, we are not actually arguing about whether we should have gay people in the military at all. I hate to break it to y’all, but that particular culture war was lost before you were even aware it existed. Thanks to the fundamentally dishonest nature of that closet some people think was such a marvelous social institution, there have been gay people in the military since Alexander the Great sashayed across a battlefield and probably before him, too. ASM’s post puts this more clearly than I could ever hope to, but the fact that the policy is named “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be more than enough all on its own. There have always been gay people showering with the straight people, quite a lot of them. The only way to even begin to effectively keep them out would be to screen a showing of “Big Hot Studs Having Naughty Fun” for recruits and check for stiffies, and even then some with the good self-control they need to get through public life would slip in. (And it wouldn’t even work on the lesbians, who by now should be sought out by the military specifically in order to further stealth technology research.)
Because of this little factoid, especially since DADT was made policy, the people who are fighting DADT’s repeal aren’t actually fighting for protecting soldiers from prurient gazes in the showers. They’re fighting for the privilege of punishing people for ruining their comfortable illusions. Not for sexual harassment or assault. Not for *actually* leering in the shower. For, intentionally or by complete accident, making it impossible for someone to continue assuming everyone in the shower is as completely uninterested in penis as he is. For that, under the current arrangement, Private Peckerhead can destroy the career of Private Peterpetter if said Peckerhead manages to catch the latter giving a good-night kiss to his boyfriend on his own time away from the rest of the unit no matter his attempts to keep his sexuality irrelevant from his duty. This is also why I will not apologize for the tone of my previous post: the argument is that our soldiers need illusions, and the capacity to aggressively punish people that disillusion them, in order to function.
This is, by the way, why I have no respect for the argument that DADT is just fine because people don’t “have” to declare their sexual identity and it’s inappropriate for them to do so. Gay soldiers don’t just have to not shove being gay in other people’s faces, they are OBLIGATED to lie, omit, and sneak in order to make sure that no one realizes it by accident, either. I like to keep what I do in my bedroom private, and prefer that other people do too in most contexts, but I am also never forced to pretend I’m not married to my husband and would find it intolerable if I were.
The fact of the matter is, the degree of gender separation in our society and the existence of homosexuality and bisexuality means that just about everyone reading this has, at some time or another, been in a public space where nudity is accepted with someone who was attracted to their gender. Been in the showers at the gym? Yep. In school? Yep. Sauna? Yep. None of those places have “no gays” policies and couldn’t enforce them if they did, and asserting that you have the right to never be found attractive nude is absurd. Gay and bisexual men and women learn not to stare and make people uncomfortable, and if they choose to ignore that training, that falls under harassment again, which is already not okay.
Lastly, I keep hearing that the fallout from “gays in the military” will cause all sorts of chaos, but all the realities I have just laid out should make it clear that the experiment has already been running for decades and all this lost readiness and destroyed morale simply hasn’t come to pass. Reading people sincerely arguing this is, to me, like reading impassioned editorials in the local newsrag about how allowing open carry will cause blood in the streets and wild west scenarios, with a concealed gun on my belt and a concealed carry permit in my pocket. Somehow, because it’s “open”, people will completely lose their minds and all their social training and just start eyefucking people in the shower shooting everyone that looks funny at them.)TW NOTE: GREAT analogy)
3. “We shouldn’t allow equal rights and opportunities to minorities because then minorities might try for special rights.”
Thank you for reminding me that many minorities are reflexively suspicious of conservative motivations because they have excellent fucking reason to be. Sometimes I forget this for whole hours at a stretch.
Nobody has the right to significantly damage someone else’s life because you’d prefer not to have to ever think about them.[/u]
*And because I KNOW somebody is going to trot this out on me as though it diminished my argument, yes, I think female soldiers who get pregnant from consensual dalliances during their tour of duty should be punished in some fashion. Do something stupid and preventable, take the consequences, not a Get Out Of Service Free card.
-
If someone spreads a false rumor about someone being gay...they're gone.
Not true. The military justice system does rely on evidence derived from investigation.
I don't think anyone is saying that they cannot do the job and should not serve at all (at least I'm not). What I am saying is that you have no reference point in which to make a good assessment of the issue. Yes, you served for 22 years, but those years served were under the current policy of DADT (or total ban). Under this policy, any gays had to be private with their sexuality. Many may have "supposed" someone was gay, but unless it was pushed in everyone's faces, no one cared because it was kept PRIVATE. Doing away with DADT would open up the flood gates for many gay activists to join just to SHOW everyone. And that would cause much upheaval.
Imagine having to deal with that. After several years it might subside, but then you still would have a small group making a larger group uncomfortable. What we have now is the privilege for any gay individual to serve in the US military as long as their personal choices do not cause any issues. With DADT, these individuals MUST focus on the job and not their sexuality. If this changes, then a whole new set of limits will need to be set. And as we have seen in public, there will always be a part of that society who will make a HUGE point of letting everyone know that they are gay. DADT should stay exactly the way it is. It has worked for many years and will continue to work just fine. Gays make up a small amount percentage of society and the military. This issue is exactly what many of us are sick of. We are being forced to recognize a bastardization of social choices as normal.
The UCMJ and uniform regulations would keep this from happening. Every facet of our life, all the way down to what clothing worn off duty is allowable, is covered in detail and strictly enforced.
By your argument, what keeps the racists from wearing clothing that supports their hatred for people of different ethnicities? There are racists in the ranks. The same holds true for homosexuals in the service. They're serving now, but I have never seen one wearing assless chaps or Indian headresses either on or off duty.
These guys and gals conform to the regulations, and that would never change regardless of the decision.
-
11 pages and 154 replies on this thread thus far.
Am I the only motherfucker on this board that has a job?
-
11 pages and 154 replies on this thread thus far.
Am I the only motherfucker on this board that has a job?
I spent most of this week sitting in my recliner, reading blogs and starting shitstorms, in between naps.
However, I go back to work on Monday. Game over.
-
11 pages and 154 replies on this thread thus far.
Am I the only motherfucker on this board that has a job?
I thought this was our job.
-
I thought this was our job.
You mean everyone isn't getting paid to be here?
Damn. Why the hell would you stick around?
-
How is that hyperbolas or conjecture taken out of context. Insult? Narrow minded is an insult? I even provided a definition. It fits your argument to a T. Hell, it fits damn near everything you ever post on this forum.
In reverse, it also fits every argument YOU post. You could use the same definition to pigeonhole everyone who has an opinion.
You, Chizad, do not get to determine what is or isn't.
Again, the definition:
Your inability to empathize even in the most basic way with a homosexual person covers the first definition. Your constant implications that homosexuals are weak minded even more strongly solidifies this. Not receptive to new ideas. Before this thread existed, it's been rehashed a million times that that is your M.O. You still think Chizik is a blathering idiot, and Jacobs made the worst hire in college football history. Extremely conservative? Check. Morally self-righteous? Can you be any more morally self-righteous than you have been in this thread? With your Bible verses, and your constant tirades about how homosexuality is an immoral sin.Is this not what 90% of this thread has contained? Not about the issue itself. How being a homosexual makes you less able to serve in the military. You know that's a futile battle. So your rail on why you oppose the homosexual lifestyle on principle.
You're the one that brought up the idea that homosexuals wish to be cured. You really want me to find a fucking study to refute that? Since you're the one that doesn't know a single homosexual, I'm sure you're the authority on what the homosexual community thinks. The idea that you are calling this statement hyperbole is beyond belief.
One Bible verse and a simple statement that I believe in God makes me self-righteous? Again, this is the kind of hyperbole and hysteria that epitomizes the inability to have legitimate discussion in today's society.
The expression of my opinion constitutes "railing" and "tirades." But the posts of those who happen to agree with you -- many of which were extremely lengthy and convoluted -- are neither railing nor tirade? Your tooth-chipping, insult-laden rant was not a "tirade" considering that it went completely against the essentially calm and rational discussion that was taking place between ADULTS who understand that there are two sides to every issue and who were calmly and rationally exploring both sides?
When was the last time I criticized Chizik or Jacobs even (except as it pertains to Lebo)? I still think the hire was bad, but I told you that would never change. Everybody on earth thought the hire was bad except Jacobs and Chizik and a bunch of Bama fans. That's not a difficult concept to grasp. Do I think Chizik is the long-term answer? Not really. We don't have nearly enough evidence yet to make that decision. It's early yet. But I haven't said anything negative in a while. Your own signature, in fact, shows that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in the coming year considering the task he faces where many of you are toting around grandiose and unrealistic expectations. YOUR mind is set in terms of what you think I believe and YOU miss the changes, subtle as they may be.
So it's only narrow minded, self-righteous and a tirade if it doesn't agree with YOUR (also narrow) view. I'm with you so far.
If most homosexuals wish to be cured, then what are you bitching about? Are they parading around in your face about how you should accept their homosexuality or begging for medical attention? This claim is purely asinine. Go ahead. Ask a homosexual if they wish to be cured. A genuine homosexual. I will pay you $10,000 if they reply "Golly, that'd be great if I could finally get rid of my gayness!"
Can't speak for all, but there are certainly some. Otherwise there wouldn't be outreach programs that attempt to help "cure" them or find ways to suppress. The suicide rate for teens who consider themselves to be gay or are conflicted about that issue is (from what I've read) about four times the rate for non-gay. If there were no issue, you'd think this wouldn't be the case.
If there WERE a means to reverse it and make their sexual urges "normal" ( by my definition ) you have no idea whatsoever how many might accept that option. You're taking the opinion of the militant few who claim to speak for the "gay community" and applying it universally. In comparison that's like saying Al Sharpton speaks for all blacks.
As I've said hundreds (probably thousands) of times in this thread, I don't care what they do so long as they don't make a public issue out of it. It's the demand that their lifestyle be accepted as normal or natural that disturbs me.
Okay, so if YOU make up a statement that you claim speaks for all gays -- and do so without any basis in fact -- that's reasonable. If I use statistical information to make a reasonable assumption (higher suicide rates = emotional conflict = maybe some don't want to be what they think they are) then it's "purely asinine."
Okay, I see what you're doing there, too.
Oh, so it must have been someone else who said:You are clearly suggesting that homosexuals are not able to think for themselves and consent to treatment in the same way as mongoloids and children.
You went on to say: Play "I never said that" all you want, but it's littered throughout this entire thread.
You get caught up in semantics. I suppose I should have said you've never "gotten to know a gay person."
You're still hung up on that?
A) The context was whether homosexuality was a genetic defect. Mongoloidism was used as a comparison because it is. Could just as easily have chosen harelip or something else genetic.
B) Something is wrong with people who are mongoloid, the asinine characterization of all mongoloids as happy little people aside. So back to context. Something is also wrong with homosexuals (in my opinion). If you can change that orientation by changing the genetic makeup, I'd support that just as I'd support a genetic solution to mongoloidism or any other issue. It's a logical stretch -- and one used merely to add hyperbole -- to suggest that in making this statement, I've said homosexuals are mongoloid.
C) If homosexuality is not genetic and is a choice then yes, I do question the cognitive abilities of someone who would make that choice. It goes against everything I know and understand. It is unnatural and perverse (in my book). But you can't get from C to A without making connections that don't exist anywhere but in your mind.
You've made the claim here several times that "I don't know anybody who's gay." I've said several times that I have a cousin who is gay. My uncle's daughter. My favorite uncle and the guy I was named after.
In case you were unable to comprehend, since saying that I've had TW churlishly claim that "she doubts my cousin misses being around me." Fuck her. Not her place to say. None of you know what our relationship is or was like. But that's another story. So I've got family members who are gay. I've had co-workers who are gay. I probably have at least one gay employee. I prefer not to socialize with them if their sexual choice is going to be part of the dynamic. Because I find it offensive, I will choose not to be in situations where it becomes an issue. Free speech, remember? I have that right. It's why my cousin doesn't bring her "other" to family functions. She understands that it would be awkward.
For TW or anybody to comment on my relationship with my family really shows their true colors.
So here, we have the fact that you don't even know what you're talking about, you're making broad assumptions without any basis in reality and you're making puzzling logical leaps and bounds by playing fast and loose with what was said.
And somehow that makes me crazy?
Yeah. Whatever.
When you make irrational arguments like this, Chizad, it only entrenches me. You're not interested in healthy debate no matter what you think. You're not interested in it at all. You, like far too many, don't have the capacity for it. There are times I don't. This wasn't one of them. I found the points made by Vandy Vol to be extremely thought provoking. Not enough to change my opinion, but it takes a lot. I thoroughly enjoyed that discussion because he forced me to defend my thinking -- and did so with intelligence, a lack of hyperbole and without resorting to character or personal insults. Maybe you missed it, but he didn't get any of that back, either. Hmmm. Best discussion I've had on this board, IMO.
-
Also? That original link? Was written by a CONSERVATIVE WOMAN - one who typically writes about guns and how much she hates liberals. She is linked to by many of the conservative bloggers I read. However, she has caught about as much crap as I have about her opinion, so I thought it only fair to post her rebuttal. Emphasis mine.
She's still Nuckin' Futs! DADT was and is absolutely stupid. I don't disagree, but I do disagree with you folks for being so willing to force your concepts of fairness and equality on others. The homosexual thing doesn't really bother me that much anymore, but if I end up in close-quarters with homosexuals, outside of the military, I have a choice to remove myself or avoid the situation altogether. In the military, you don't have those choices, and we have absolutely no right to force our soldiers into these uncomfortable situations to satisfy your pathetic fetish with "fairness and equality" for all. Period!
What if your child's teacher distributed the "Heather has Two Mommies" and "My Two Daddies" booklets to your young children as required reading material for a school assignment? (I know... You're not going to see the connection, but that connection is my biggest issue with all of this.)
DADT has resulted in the discharge of more than 13,000 patriotic and highly qualified men and women since its enactment more than 16 years ago. At least 1,000 of these 13,000 have held “critical occupations,” such as interpreters and engineers.
Boo-hoo-hoo!!! It's not fair! Whaaaah!!! Even when you add up all of the numbers, you're still talking about a tiny fraction of a single percentage of everyone who serves. Big F'n deal!!! :taunt:
Multipliers more are discharged every year for various medical conditions. They're just as "patriotic and highly qualified" as the next guy. And, many don't necessarily want to leave, but that's not as important as letting fudge-packers serve in the military...
By the way, outside of the military, most of us can be terminated by our employer for just about any reason at any time. Sure, EEOC protects you against blatant outright "dithcriminathun", but a reason for termination is not always necessary. Just something to think about...
-
And you checked where? Last time I checked, you provided nothing on which to base your comments but the glib phrase (and attempt to score points) "last time I checked". If you don't have a resource or at least some sort of reasoning behind your conclusion, I can't help you there; it's certainly not my fault that you were unable to reveal where you checked this "fact" when it was flipped back on you.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mongoloid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mongoloid)
Main Entry: Mon·gol·oid
Pronunciation: \ˈmäŋ-gə-ˌlȯid\
Function: adjective
Date: 1868
1 : of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Asia and classified according to physical features (as the presence of an epicanthic fold)
2 often not capitalized usually offensive : of, relating to, or affected with Down syndrome
Because not all homosexuals are neither of Asian descent or afflicted with Down Syndrome or a related mental affliction, your application of "mongoloid" to homosexuals is uninformed and incorrect.
With all of the functioning gay people in this world, many of which who do much better for themselves than you and I, it's absolutely absurd for you to suggest that they are somehow mentally challenged or otherwise unable to decide for themselves whether they want to be "cured." Sure, you can try to play it off and state that "mongoloid" was only a comparison, but when I made the comment that sexual proclivities have nothing to do with one's intelligence or ability to reason, you responded that they do. Thus, whether you believe that homosexuals are mongoloids or not, you obviously have an unfounded opinion that they are somehow less intelligent and unable to determine whether they want to be "cured."
It most certainly DOES matter. Timing and context are extremely important. If I don't make any public comment until and unless the topic is raised in a public setting, I'm hardly "flaunting" anything. I'm simply minding my own business -- which is EXACTLY what I ask of people who wish to engage in sexual perversion. Mind their own business and keep it to themselves.
You can ask of people what you want. However, as I've repeated multiple times, they have free speech. And it does not matter whether their speech was provoked or not; free speech is free speech.
Sorry, pal. You should know the rules. You opened that door when you made the comment (and attempt to score points) about gays breaking down the door of my church. You brought that into the debate, I merely answered it. Objection overruled.
I opened the door because you attempted to claim that someone's voicing of their opinion "denied" you of your right to religion. The fact that I stand out in the streets and scream anything doesn't deny you of any right. The fact that I parade around and flaunt anything doesn't deny you of any right. The fact that I enlist in the military and mention how I banged my wife last night doesn't deny you of any right. My example of gays blocking the door of your church (not breaking it down) was an attempt to show you how absurd your argument was. Unless they are actually impeding your right to religion by somehow restricting you from practicing your religion, you can not claim a denial of a right.
Oh, and your response to my "opened door" was that someone wanted to sing in your choir. You prevented them from doing so. Denial of your right to practice religion? Doesn't sound like it to me...
When you know what you're talking about you have the right to open your mouth. When you don't, perhaps you should keep it shut. First, the homosexual couple was lesbian. Second, they were openly affectionate during the service and after, holding hands and other outward displays to make it obvious that they were more than just friends. Third, this "couple" was on a mission and trying to prove a point. Their intent was never to quietly fit in and worship, their entire agenda (admitted during discussions with the preacher and the board) was to see how tolerant and accepting the church would be toward practicing homosexuals.
Your response to my "opened door" which utilized this gay couple still doesn't even begin to show how your right to practice religion was denied based upon their attempt to get into your church. Your choir is still fag free, and you're still able to go listen to the heterosexual harmony every Sunday, so I'm not sure where a denial of your right comes in.
This is, and I apologize for being blunt, but the most ignorant argument in a long line of ignorant arguments. The "turn off the TV" defense is pathetic. If it were as simple as that, then there should be no restriction at all on content of any kind ever.
The reason for content restrictions is that minors often have access to public TV, radio, the internet, etc. Additionally, the content restrictions deal with nudity, sexual content, violence and adult language. They don't deal with minority points of view with which you don't agree. Thus, when Jesse Jackson starts screaming about affirmative action, you can't call the FCC and demand that they restrict the content simply because it's a minority view and you don't like it.
Similarly, when gays are voicing their opinion and having a protest that's on the news, there is no grounds upon which you can demand that the content be restricted. Unless, of course, they're living up to an imaginary stereotype by raping defenseless men in the streets and pillaging the local Village People outfitters. Those would probably qualify as scenes of sexual content and violence that would need censorship.
And as I've stated, the ability to openly express their sexual preference is also irrelevant to the issue of whether a person can serve efficiently in the military. Therefore, there is no reason for anyone to demand the right to express such preference in a public manner. End of story there.
You don't quite understand free speech, do you? Regardless of whether it's relevant in a political debate or not, you have the right to say it. Something doesn't have to be up for vote or at stake for you to have the right to publicly say something. Additionally, from the points made by others (within this forum and in the real world), it's obvious that there are people who wish to make homosexuality a reason to not be able to serve in the military. Therefore, it is relevant to the debate on whether homosexuals should be allowed in the military. Within that debate, a person's sexual preferences has no relevancy (or maybe as a better phrase, "has no effect") on whether they can serve efficiently in the military.
You said five, not me. Age does play a role in consent. But if you're going to make those kind of choices, my point was that this too will eventually be challenged.
And there you go again. Five year old. Okay, I view a rapist of a five year old as a sick predator bastard. But what about ten? What about twelve? I once met a 13 year old girl in a bar in Tuscaloosa. She looked 21 to me. Is that okay?
I view a child molester as someone who has something wrong with them chemically, genetically or based on preference. I view a homosexual as someone who has something wrong with them chemically, genetically or based on sick preference. In terms of their behaviors, no, there is no difference to me. They are both sick.
That does not mean, however, that the consequences for acting on those illnesses should be the same and it's a fraudulent argument on your part to equate the two.
In a round-about way, while trying to derail the topic into another issue (which we can easily talk about in another thread), you admitted that the consequences for the rapist of a five year old should be different from that of a gay man. You may view them both as sinners equally, but you still stated that the consequences would differ.
Again, all I was trying to point out is that an individual who chooses to do something with their own life and share that decision consensually with another like-minded person does not actually affect anyone else's rights. A person who non-consensually forces their lifestyle on another person and invades their personal rights does affect someone else, and they do so illegally. There is obviously a difference between one who chooses to live a lifestyle that does not impede upon anyone's rights, and one who chooses to live a lifestyle that does impede upon others' rights.
I have no problem accepting people who believe differently. My problem, again, comes when it is demanded that I alter MY thinking to accommodate theirs.
Free speech my ass. That's a bullshit blanket that's used to justify all manner of offenses. It was never the intent for that amendment to be interpreted in the way it has been warped today.
Yes, we've lost the concept of majority rule. That's just awesome.
And free speech my ass, again.
As mentioned above, you have been unable to show that an offense has been committed against you or anyone else. A person voicing their opinion inside the military or outside in the public eye doesn't affect your rights. If it does, then every time you open your mouth publicly with an opinion, you are also affecting someone else's rights.
It's a shame that you honestly think that free speech was designed so that only the majority view could be expressed. That makes it "allowed speech," not free speech. It's also very strange that you think that one person's ability to speak their mind somehow alters your thinking. If you're that easily swayed or affected by someone voicing an opinion, then that's not a problem with free speech; that's a problem with your sensitivity.
Read a few Supreme Court cases on it. Hell, you probably think that the Supreme Court has been infiltrated by ass ramming liberals anyhow, so read a history book if you want the initial intent of free speech. That was exactly what the founding fathers were trying to escape from: oppression of religion and ideas. They didn't want to submit to the King's "majority views;" they wanted the freedom to say what they wanted. Hence the creation of freedom of speech.
And you've STILL failed to grasp the most simple concept.
I don't give a flying fuck at a surf-boarding squirrel if they want to choke on dicks or take it up the ass and serve in the military. That never has been and never will be the issue. The issue is not whether they can serve -- because they already can and already do. The issue is whether they should have the right to parade around and openly declare their gayness.
As you've stated eloquently, being gay has no impact on their ability to serve. If that's the case, then why is there a need to point out those who are?
Don't ask. Don't tell. Mind your own fucking business. Pretty simple.
Don't ask, don't tell if you're Christian. It doesn't affect your efficiency in the military, but we don't want you talking about it, so when you enlist, just forget you're Christian. Some people don't like Christians and don't agree with their views. Telling anyone about your views in the military may upset them and cause them not to perform efficiently. So, the military is instituting a new policy: If you tell that you're Christian, you could be discharged. If someone asks if you're a Christian, they could be discharged. If someone asks and you tell, you both can be discharged. And, of course, no one gives a "flying fuck" about your religious views, so there's no point in being able to express them at any point in the military, right?
What does it matter if you tell someone who you are and what you do? The don't ask, don't tell policy is useless; open gays in the military do not effect efficiency, as is evidenced by Saniflush's obvious "don't give a shit, just do your job" policy, Pell City Tiger's post and the RAND report. No one is advocating that they perform Elton John songs during PT, do their jumping jacks in speedos, or fellate a banana during the USO tour. No one's even advocating that they be allowed to use their homosexuality as a reason to get out of any military activity after enlisting.
The point is that they are restricted from telling anyone about their sexual preference because it's a minority view, yet heterosexuals and Christians can jibber jab all day in the military about how wet their girlfriend's crotch gets and how Jesus loves the smell of flowers (and depending upon whether one prays to Baby Jesus or Raptor Jesus, how Jesus loves the smell of their girlfriend's crotch). Until, of course, a drill sergeant comes by and instructs you to stop pussy-footing around and serve your damn country, which is exactly what will happen if any overzealous Christian or flamboyant homosexual expresses their opinions to the point that it does interfere with the efficiency of the military. Problem resolved. You can be as open with you want about anything until the point at which it begins to interfere with your service. That's how it currently is handled with everyone but homosexuals; I see no reason why they should be targeted and given specific rules about what they can't talk about, meanwhile everyone else is free to openly talk about Satanism, bestiality, kiddie porn, etc.
This isn't Europe, Mr. Obama.
Actually, it was Mr. Clinton who requested the study and instituted the policy. But they're both liberals who are hell bent on destroying the country, so there's no difference, right?
And, of course, let's conveniently forget about the fact that the UK completely banned gays from the military and that Germany has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy similar to our own. It's obviously Europe, so it's safe to jump to illogical conclusions that they don't think like us or operate like us in any manner whatsoever.
Nobody is saying they can't serve in the military.
I'm actually quite tolerant of many homosexuals, but that doesn't mean that I want them showering with me.
Unless he's inferring that homosexuals be given separate showers, I'm pretty sure this is a reference to not wanting them to serve in the military. And, of course, outside of this thread and in the real world, there are those who want to see a complete ban of homosexuals in the military. So yes, there are people saying that homosexuals can't serve in the military.
Everything considered, my posts are getting quite long (as I often have the tendency to do, and I apologize for any annoyance or difficulty to read that this may cause), so I'll provide a summation of the argument in two points:
1.) You have freedom of speech. They have freedom of speech. Your opinion is your opinion, my opinion is my opinion, their opinion is their opinion, and all can be voiced, as they have on this thread. Neither of us are necessarily wrong, because we are, at times, speaking of subjective morals that can't be proven or disproven. However, it must be realized that these opinions can't be forced upon others, and that we should not ban people from the military or alter their ability to freely speak within the military based upon subjective opinions.
2.) No study has shown that open homosexuality in the military will affect efficiency any more than Christians, Satanists, criminals, pedophiles, racists, minorities or anyone else affects the efficiency of the military. Problems arise with everyone, and problems are solved by the current operating procedure of the military. The presence of open homosexuals in the military has not resulted in catastrophic military failures (or failures of any kind, for that matter). Your opinion may be that homosexuality is immoral, and your opinion may be that they shouldn't be in the military, but as mentioned above, that is a subjective opinion. When making decisions upon objective facts (as we should if we are going to attempt to apply laws to people), we see that, whether you agree with the lifestyle or not, it has no effect on military efficiency. Thus, there is no legitimate, objective reason to deny them a right that every other person has.
-
No… I never suggested that. I’m not sure how you would have even come to that conclusion… unless you’re stereotyping the homosexual community.
Pray tell, explain to me how exactly we are accommodating homosexuals at the expense of heterosexuals by allowing them in the military? At what "expense?" When you vaguely make such references with no explanation, I'm left to infer what you mean. Obviously my inference was wrong, so explicitly inform me.
I trust those so-called analysts and experts behind this RAND report about as much as I trust Obama to improve the economy. It means nothing. There were an awful lot of reports written about Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them were proven wrong.
Unfortunately, you're not a military researcher, so you have no independent evidence to offer us. Nor am I. As with most things in life, we are not the ones who find the facts; we rely upon others to do it for us, and we rely upon their conclusions. I guess I could attempt to re-invent the wheel and mathematically check Einstein's theory of relativity, but most of us take documented reports and facts on their face. No, they're not always correct, but unless you do it yourself, sometimes you have to rely upon others' information. Otherwise, you have nothing upon which to rely.
If you're honestly going to call every report and survey into question, then you have no objective evidence to rely upon except your own experiences. And, unless you've had an experience in the military which led you to know that homosexuals will ruin the efficiency of the military, then you have no objective evidence whatsoever. As I've stated with Kaos, you're free to your opinions. If I come off as trying to change your mind or prove your opinions as wrong, I apologize; that is not my goal. My point is that we can't go about subjecting laws on a specific group of people that alter their rights based upon subjective opinions.
It’s a far cry from the military, but I’m managing a fairly large project right now. For the first six months, I had this one resource on the team who did not relate well with the other team members. He seemed to be a nice enough guy, and I tried to integrate him into the team several times. He just had an awkward sense of humor, and his personality was strange. His mannerisms “freaked people out” as many on the team felt it necessary to speak to me about him. Eventually, these differences led to professional issues. They didn’t trust him. They didn’t value his opinion. And sometimes, they would discredit him in front of other team members, and eventually, they started doing this in front of the client team members. I had to let him go. He became a disruptive force on the team, and I could not continue to support him. I’m sure that he was a capable resource, and at times, he impressed me with his work product. But, I could not continue to keep him on the team.
The workplace is more of a social organization than the military. I could afford to take a chance with him by staffing him on a project. Since then, I’ve staffed him on another engagement. The military is different. By design, it’s not meant to be a social organization, and these types of experiments are far more risky and dangerous.
People often disagree with each other, as is evidenced by our discussion. Some people don't agree with and don't like Christians, Buddhists, Satanists, criminals, pedophiles...the list goes on and on. For every belief and opinion that you have, someone doesn't like it. For every time that you voice one of those beliefs and opinions, someone doesn't like it. If you think that every person in the military keeps their beliefs, opinions, mannerisms, etc., to themselves, then you have unrealistic expectations for service members.
You, and several other people within this thread, appear to be seeking to suppress one particular belief/opinion/lifestyle/mannerism from the military: homosexuality. If this is incorrect, then please do correct me; I'm left to infer many of your actual opinions only from responses that you make, some of which don't completely expound upon your view.
Unless you're willing to bar anyone with any opinions or preferences (which, by the way, is everyone) from the military, then you can't point to one particular group of people and ban them because some people may be uncomfortable with it. Claiming that others won't get along with them because of their views or that we would be accommodating homosexuals at someone else's "expense" is ignoring the fact that many people don't get along with others because of many views, ranging from the most controversial to the silliest of minutia. The military already deals with people who don't get along. They have a system of building group cohesion amongst those who may not want to deal with each other.
You’re a military expert now. Great… It still sounds, smells and tastes like discrimination, no matter how you color it.
I'm no more of an expert than you. However, it's common sense based upon history that wars and military conflicts happen. They happen on foreign soil and they happen here. They have also required active duty of every troop we have at particular points in time. Our most recent war on terrorism has required that we send National Guard members overseas. You'd think that, because of its very nature, the National Guard is safe in regard to remaining within our nation and not having to fight abroad. That's obviously not the case.
My point is that, military expert or not, history has shown us that there is no real "safe" enlistment. You enlist to serve our country in times of need. If those times of need require any or every member to serve, then you need to be able to serve. It can be objectively shown that some people with physical disabilities and diseases will be unable to serve. That's not discrimination no more than refusing to hire an armless person as a welder is discrimination.
I never said that. Are you building one of those straw-tigers to battle? And, as far as capability of a person with Downs Syndrome, I’ve seen some with incredible physical attributes, probably greater than our average GI. So, why would you discriminate against him if he's fully capable of military service?
I stated that you were complaining that homosexuals would interrupt other service members. This is based upon your comment that we would be accommodating homosexuals at others' "expense." As mentioned above, this "expense" is vaguely referred to and is not particularized. If my inferences were incorrect, I apologize, but it's all I had to work with. Feel free to correct me and fully explain yourself at any time.
As far as individuals with Down syndrome, they have physical and mental limitations which will affect their ability to serve. For example, they can and often do have muscle hypotonia, atlanto-axial instability, congenital heart defects, mental retardation, hearing deficits, Alzheimer's, immune deficiencies, epilepsy, and many other symptoms. Strength is not the only concern with the military.
-
Because not all homosexuals are neither of Asian descent or afflicted with Down Syndrome or a related mental affliction, your application of "mongoloid" to homosexuals is uninformed and incorrect.
With all of the functioning gay people in this world, many of which who do much better for themselves than you and I, it's absolutely absurd for you to suggest that they are somehow mentally challenged or otherwise unable to decide for themselves whether they want to be "cured." Sure, you can try to play it off and state that "mongoloid" was only a comparison, but when I made the comment that sexual proclivities have nothing to do with one's intelligence or ability to reason, you responded that they do. Thus, whether you believe that homosexuals are mongoloids or not, you obviously have an unfounded opinion that they are somehow less intelligent and unable to determine whether they want to be "cured."
As you know full well this is not what I said, I find your attempt to stoop to this level extremely weak. While many of your arguments have been (long-winded) but cogent, this was most definitely a step back. Based on what I've seen from you thus far, for you to stoop to this gross misrepresentation is one of two things: Desperation or pandering. Since I don't sense desperation on your part, I will assume pandering. It is, however, beneath you.
there was a lot of blah, blah, blah free speech, blah blah free blah speech prior to this, but we'll return to that momentarily
The reason for content restrictions is that minors often have access to public TV, radio, the internet, etc. Additionally, the content restrictions deal with nudity, sexual content, violence and adult language. They don't deal with minority points of view with which you don't agree. Thus, when Jesse Jackson starts screaming about affirmative action, you can't call the FCC and demand that they restrict the content simply because it's a minority view and you don't like it.
The decisions to restrict nudity, sexual content and adult language are based on standards of morality. WAIT A DAMN MINUTE!! I thought the concept of "free speech" eliminated such backward morality-based restrictions. What the fuck is going on? Somebody better get on the horn to the FCC immediately. The next time my daughter tunes in to iCarly, there better be some titties, some lesbians, some murder, some profanity and somebody better be fucking.
So where do you draw the line? When I was a kid they couldn't show two married people sleeping in the same bed. Is what's on the TV today better since you "free speechers" have pushed the dial further and further toward the vulgar? (Please remember Rome. Would be a good lesson for us all).
If it's okay to restrict profanity or bestiality from the airwaves essentially on a moral basis -- free speech, remember? -- why is it not okay to restrict homosexuality?
You don't quite understand free speech, do you? Regardless of whether it's relevant in a political debate or not, you have the right to say it. Something doesn't have to be up for vote or at stake for you to have the right to publicly say something. Additionally, from the points made by others (within this forum and in the real world), it's obvious that there are people who wish to make homosexuality a reason to not be able to serve in the military. Therefore, it is relevant to the debate on whether homosexuals should be allowed in the military. Within that debate, a person's sexual preferences has no relevancy (or maybe as a better phrase, "has no effect") on whether they can serve efficiently in the military.
I'm not sure you understand free speech either, but we'll get back to that in a moment.
In a round-about way, while trying to derail the topic into another issue (which we can easily talk about in another thread), you admitted that the consequences for the rapist of a five year old should be different from that of a gay man. You may view them both as sinners equally, but you still stated that the consequences would differ.
The punishment for running a red light is a monetary fine. The punishment for murder is death. So? Different actions require different consequences based on the severity and who else is harmed.
Free speech, free speech, blah blah blah. Free blah speech blah blah. Free blah blah blah speech. Back to that in a moment
Don't ask, don't tell if you're Christian. It doesn't affect your efficiency in the military, but we don't want you talking about it, so when you enlist, just forget you're Christian. Some people don't like Christians and don't agree with their views. Telling anyone about your views in the military may upset them and cause them not to perform efficiently. So, the military is instituting a new policy: If you tell that you're Christian, you could be discharged. If someone asks if you're a Christian, they could be discharged. If someone asks and you tell, you both can be discharged. And, of course, no one gives a "flying fuck" about your religious views, so there's no point in being able to express them at any point in the military, right?
Fine by me. If the military has a don't ask don't tell religious policy I'd have no objection. Given the level of mistrust that could be generated by having Islamic soldiers, I'm surprised this isn't already in effect.
What does it matter if you tell someone who you are and what you do? The don't ask, don't tell policy is useless; open gays in the military do not effect efficiency, as is evidenced by Saniflush's obvious "don't give a shit, just do your job" policy, Pell City Tiger's post and the RAND report. No one is advocating that they perform Elton John songs during PT, do their jumping jacks in speedos, or fellate a banana during the USO tour. No one's even advocating that they be allowed to use their homosexuality as a reason to get out of any military activity after enlisting.
I like Sani. Nice guy. Not a military expert. Neither is PCT. Neither are you. Neither am I. When the push for something of this nature comes from WITHIN the active ranks and from the men (and women) who run the military? Then let's talk. When it comes from external factions who are more about agenda than they are the realities and ramifications? It doesn't move me.
I'm sure you'll point to comments from Robert Gates and Mike Mullen, but I think it's telling that they didn't offer these opinions of their own volition, they were pressed by the current administration's agenda. The military didn't ask for this, the administration did. You won't concede this, but that's a significant distinction. This is the same BS that Clinton attempted to jam down the military's throat when he was president (double pun intended) but he was rejected. Not an issue for eight years and then magically when a democrat with socialist leanings and a misguided messiah complex becomes president it's a flaming (another pun) issue again? Right.
The point is that they are restricted from telling anyone about their sexual preference because it's a minority view, yet heterosexuals and Christians can jibber jab all day in the military about how wet their girlfriend's crotch gets and how Jesus loves the smell of flowers (and depending upon whether one prays to Baby Jesus or Raptor Jesus, how Jesus loves the smell of their girlfriend's crotch). Until, of course, a drill sergeant comes by and instructs you to stop pussy-footing around and serve your damn country, which is exactly what will happen if any overzealous Christian or flamboyant homosexual expresses their opinions to the point that it does interfere with the efficiency of the military. Problem resolved. You can be as open with you want about anything until the point at which it begins to interfere with your service. That's how it currently is handled with everyone but homosexuals; I see no reason why they should be targeted and given specific rules about what they can't talk about, meanwhile everyone else is free to openly talk about Satanism, bestiality, kiddie porn, etc.
You never played organized sports did you? You don't understand the dynamic of male interaction when in close quarters, do you? A homosexual in the locker room WILL interfere with the efficient function of the team. Call it fear, call it latent whatever you want, call it ignorance, call it insecurity or brand it in any way you like but the insertion of an openly gay man into a group of heterosexual males will without fail cause some controversy. It WILL impact the performance of the team. Can it be overcome? Maybe. But no matter how you spruce it up, it adds another level of difficulty to the development of the team. I can't imagine that it would be any different in the military, particularly since you're dealing with young men of roughly the same age and intensity as you find on the football fields on Friday night. It won't affect all, but it will affect some.
Actually, it was Mr. Clinton who requested the study and instituted the policy. But they're both liberals who are hell bent on destroying the country, so there's no difference, right?
One's white, one was born during the 24 hours that Kenya was annexed. I have little admiration for either.
And, of course, let's conveniently forget about the fact that the UK completely banned gays from the military and that Germany has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy similar to our own. It's obviously Europe, so it's safe to jump to illogical conclusions that they don't think like us or operate like us in any manner whatsoever.
Hair splitting because you don't have a point. But whatever. Obama models his decisions on the European model and draws at various times from France, Portugal, Spain, England, etc. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the European way of thinking about things is different than the typical American.
Unless he's inferring that homosexuals be given separate showers, I'm pretty sure this is a reference to not wanting them to serve in the military. And, of course, outside of this thread and in the real world, there are those who want to see a complete ban of homosexuals in the military. So yes, there are people saying that homosexuals can't serve in the military.
And here you took two statements, one from GarMan and one from me, mixed them together and arrived at the conclusion that they are somehow created a single thought -- when neither of us said what you deduced.
But okay, Sherlock. Nice work.
Everything considered, my posts are getting quite long (as I often have the tendency to do, and I apologize for any annoyance or difficulty to read that this may cause), so I'll provide a summation of the argument in two points:
Blah, blah, blah freedom of speech, freedom blah of blah speech blah, freedom blah blah of blah speech
Okay. Now it's time to address this.
While I'm not a lawyer, I deal with them enough to know that when a lawyer has no real defense, when they know they can't win on the merits of the issue, when they have no logical or legitimate argument they typically wrap themselves in the flag of free speech and aim for blanket immunity.
Over the years the concept of free speech has been tortured, abused, stretched, twisted and pulled until it is hardly recognizable.
It's your opinion that the nebulous term "free speech" gives people the right to say anything they want at any time they desire. I disagree, but let's back up just a minute first.
The concept of "free speech" is outlined in the first amendment and is decidedly vague.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No law abridging the freedom of speech. Hmmmm. Well what exactly does that cover? It's not really defined there. Does it extend to the right of someone to display portraits of Michelle Obama painted out of dog shit? Some would say yes.
The bounds of "free speech" are ever shifting. What is considered "free speech" today, wasn't permitted a decade or two ago. "Free speech" is essentially determined by cases brought before the Supreme Court -- cases brought by lawyers down to their last gasp -- and as such has been stretched to include (and exclude) all manner of things. Sometimes the court has decided one way only to reverse itself years later based on the political leanings of its members. The concept of free speech in two decades will likely not be the same as it is today.
But let's assume that your contention that anyone can say anything at any time is true.
You're neglecting to mention that even if you have the right to say something, that doesn't mean there are no consequences for your words.
Maybe you disagree on a political or moral issue and the person with which you disagree has cro magnon tendencies and punches you in the face. Your words have consequences.
You're welcome to criticize the president all you want. Freedom of speech and whatnot. Try writing in a blog that you'd like his head on a pike (Dear Secret Service, I am using this as an analogy and am making no threats directly or indirectly). Would your words have consequences? Bet your happy ass they would.
What if you don't like Mickey Mouse. Can you stand at the gates of Cinderella's castle and shout "Mickey's a fucking fag!" over and over? Your speech has consequences.
Nobody is denying them the right to say whatever the fuck they want. But if they choose to speak up, they know the consequences. Free speech and all, you know.
In case you missed it there, your entire free speech flag is limp. It doesn't fly. Get another pony to ride, that one's worn out. Freedom of speech does not, never has and never will mean freedom from consequences. Nor should it.
-
Another situation where the govt needs to STFU and stay out of it.
Going back to the very first page, I discovered this. And I agree 1000%.
Since the push to change the policy is coming from the government, from this administration, from this Congress....
well....
STFU and stay out of it. Let the military make its own determinations.
Could have saved a lot of bytes if we'd just shook on this.
-
Could have saved a lot of bytes bites if we'd just shook on this.
FTFY.
I wondered if you had seen this. Obviously you did not. Skimming my posts in order to post your newest epistle will catch up with you. :poke:
-
FTFY.
I wondered if you had seen this. Obviously you did not. Skimming my posts in order to post your newest epistle will catch up with you. :poke:
I have nothing else to say, really. I've stated my position, although I do think it's been grossly mischaracterized in certain situations.
We could keep going around in the same circles, but I'm not going to change my mind. It would be a violation of my personal morality. Would take a lot more than a message board discussion to evoke that kind of change.
You're not going to change yours.
Vandy Vol isn't going to change his because he's a lawyer and can't let go of the free speech blanket even when it doesn't fit! There's some kind of oath they have to take about that but it's a secret.
We could fill 110 more pages and at the end, I'd still be right where I am, you were you are and the rest where they are. It was, for the most part, a fun exercise because --as I said -- anytime someone challenges your core beliefs it forces you to re-examine them and review them in the light of additional information. It helps you to understand why you think what you think.
I'm not one for agreement. Nothing is really accomplished by agreement. It's only in disagreement that you're exposed to different ideas. Some you accept, others you don't.
-
As you know full well this is not what I said, I find your attempt to stoop to this level extremely weak. While many of your arguments have been (long-winded) but cogent, this was most definitely a step back. Based on what I've seen from you thus far, for you to stoop to this gross misrepresentation is one of two things: Desperation or pandering. Since I don't sense desperation on your part, I will assume pandering. It is, however, beneath you.
Perhaps you should be more clear on your position, as everyone who read this thread interpreted your statements this way. Sorry to burst your bubble that only I had "comprehension problems".
I like Sani. Nice guy. Not a military expert. Neither is PCT. Neither are you. Neither am I. When the push for something of this nature comes from WITHIN the active ranks and from the men (and women) who run the military? Then let's talk. When it comes from external factions who are more about agenda than they are the realities and ramifications? It doesn't move me.
I'm sure you'll point to comments from Robert Gates and Mike Mullen, but I think it's telling that they didn't offer these opinions of their own volition, they were pressed by the current administration's agenda. The military didn't ask for this, the administration did. You won't concede this, but that's a significant distinction. This is the same BS that Clinton attempted to jam down the military's throat when he was president (double pun intended) but he was rejected. Not an issue for eight years and then magically when a democrat with socialist leanings and a misguided messiah complex becomes president it's a flaming (another pun) issue again? Right.
No, I won't concede this. You say you'll discuss this "when the push for something of this nature comes from WITHIN the active ranks and from the men (and women) who run the military", and then poo-poo away the fact that this is only up for discussion because this is coming from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. What military expert's opinion are you waiting on? Colonel Sanders? And what an out to say "Yeah, well, everyone who I just said should be making these decisions are the ones that are advocating repealing DADT, but they really don't want to. Their arms are being twisted and their hands forced." Seriously? Even former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs & Defense Secretary Colin Powell is scratching his head at how you can make such an illogical argument.
You never played organized sports did you? You don't understand the dynamic of male interaction when in close quarters, do you? A homosexual in the locker room WILL interfere with the efficient function of the team. Call it fear, call it latent whatever you want, call it ignorance, call it insecurity or brand it in any way you like but the insertion of an openly gay man into a group of heterosexual males will without fail cause some controversy. It WILL impact the performance of the team. Can it be overcome? Maybe. But no matter how you spruce it up, it adds another level of difficulty to the development of the team. I can't imagine that it would be any different in the military, particularly since you're dealing with young men of roughly the same age and intensity as you find on the football fields on Friday night. It won't affect all, but it will affect some.
Link? Studies to back up this claim? Oh right, there was a study done, and it was presented to you already. But the Rand Corp is just some hippie commie pinko garbage because it doesn't jive with my predetermined position.
One's white, one was born during the 24 hours that Kenya was annexed. I have little admiration for either.
Really? You're a birther too?
Hair splitting because you don't have a point. But whatever. Obama models his decisions on the European model and draws at various times from France, Portugal, Spain, England, etc. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the European way of thinking about things is different than the typical American.
You certainly are. Nothing with European origin is of any merit? I thought you were the one that said this:
This is all funny except for the fact that in recorded human history no other ethnic group has been able to create the kind of industrial and technolgical advances that us white folks have. Now maybe we stole some math from the Arabs and we borrowed some engineering from the Egyptians, but we made it all work together.
So were we just in the dark ages until 1776?
And here you took two statements, one from GarMan and one from me, mixed them together and arrived at the conclusion that they are somehow created a single thought -- when neither of us said what you deduced.
But okay, Sherlock. Nice work.
Read your quote again. You said that Nobody is saying they can't serve in the military. GarMan did.
Okay. Now it's time to address this.
While I'm not a lawyer, I deal with them enough to know that when a lawyer has no real defense, when they know they can't win on the merits of the issue, when they have no logical or legitimate argument they typically wrap themselves in the flag of free speech and aim for blanket immunity.
Over the years the concept of free speech has been tortured, abused, stretched, twisted and pulled until it is hardly recognizable.
It's your opinion that the nebulous term "free speech" gives people the right to say anything they want at any time they desire. I disagree, but let's back up just a minute first.
The concept of "free speech" is outlined in the first amendment and is decidedly vague.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No law abridging the freedom of speech. Hmmmm. Well what exactly does that cover? It's not really defined there. Does it extend to the right of someone to display portraits of Michelle Obama painted out of dog shit? Some would say yes.
The bounds of "free speech" are ever shifting. What is considered "free speech" today, wasn't permitted a decade or two ago. "Free speech" is essentially determined by cases brought before the Supreme Court -- cases brought by lawyers down to their last gasp -- and as such has been stretched to include (and exclude) all manner of things. Sometimes the court has decided one way only to reverse itself years later based on the political leanings of its members. The concept of free speech in two decades will likely not be the same as it is today.
But let's assume that your contention that anyone can say anything at any time is true.
You're neglecting to mention that even if you have the right to say something, that doesn't mean there are no consequences for your words.
Maybe you disagree on a political or moral issue and the person with which you disagree has cro magnon tendencies and punches you in the face. Your words have consequences.
You're welcome to criticize the president all you want. Freedom of speech and whatnot. Try writing in a blog that you'd like his head on a pike (Dear Secret Service, I am using this as an analogy and am making no threats directly or indirectly). Would your words have consequences? Bet your happy ass they would.
What if you don't like Mickey Mouse. Can you stand at the gates of Cinderella's castle and shout "Mickey's a fucking fag!" over and over? Your speech has consequences.
Nobody is denying them the right to say whatever the fuck they want. But if they choose to speak up, they know the consequences. Free speech and all, you know.
In case you missed it there, your entire free speech flag is limp. It doesn't fly. Get another pony to ride, that one's worn out. Freedom of speech does not, never has and never will mean freedom from consequences. Nor should it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Period.
Nothing else really needs to be said, but all this diatribe did was solidify the notion that you don't understand freedom of speech. Of course I should have considered though, that you know all. Certainly more about the law than a lawyer. What do they know? Cooks know nothing about cooking. Accountants know nothing about accounting. Bankers know nothing about banking. :rolleyes:
-
Pray tell, explain to me how exactly we are accommodating homosexuals at the expense of heterosexuals by allowing them in the military? At what "expense?" When you vaguely make such references with no explanation, I'm left to infer what you mean. Obviously my inference was wrong, so explicitly inform me.
Read my previous posts... You’re just being difficult.
Unfortunately, you're not a military researcher, so you have no independent evidence to offer us. Nor am I. As with most things in life, we are not the ones who find the facts; we rely upon others to do it for us, and we rely upon their conclusions. I guess I could attempt to re-invent the wheel and mathematically check Einstein's theory of relativity, but most of us take documented reports and facts on their face. No, they're not always correct, but unless you do it yourself, sometimes you have to rely upon others' information. Otherwise, you have nothing upon which to rely.
OK... Let me put it this way. Apparently unlike you, I don't blindly "rely upon others to do it for us." If I did, I'd believe in global warming, extra-terrestrials, second-hand smoke, poverty causes crime, Santa Claus and the Tooff Fairy. And, I did take an advanced physics course 18+ years ago where we did mathematically prove Einstein's Theory of Relatively. He was right…
If you're honestly going to call every report and survey into question, then you have no objective evidence to rely upon except your own experiences. And, unless you've had an experience in the military which led you to know that homosexuals will ruin the efficiency of the military, then you have no objective evidence whatsoever. As I've stated with Kaos, you're free to your opinions. If I come off as trying to change your mind or prove your opinions as wrong, I apologize; that is not my goal. My point is that we can't go about subjecting laws on a specific group of people that alter their rights based upon subjective opinions.
Good points… But, I do understand group psychology. Many-many moons ago, when in college, I did take courses in industrial and social psychology. Since then, I’ve jumped into the IT world and climbed the ladder to the executive ranks where team management, project management and larger organizational management are necessary skills. I don’t need to know about the military or homosexuals to know how introducing an exception to the local norm would be disruptive. To me, it’s common sense.
People often disagree with each other, as is evidenced by our discussion. Some people don't agree with and don't like Christians, Buddhists, Satanists, criminals, pedophiles...the list goes on and on. For every belief and opinion that you have, someone doesn't like it. For every time that you voice one of those beliefs and opinions, someone doesn't like it. If you think that every person in the military keeps their beliefs, opinions, mannerisms, etc., to themselves, then you have unrealistic expectations for service members.
EXACTLY! BINGO!!! And, this is exactly why introducing challenges to the local norm would be disruptive. Military personnel should not be subjected to these types of challenges. It’s simply not our right to impose, thereby challenging their personal values and beliefs.
You, and several other people within this thread, appear to be seeking to suppress one particular belief/opinion/lifestyle/mannerism from the military: homosexuality. If this is incorrect, then please do correct me; I'm left to infer many of your actual opinions only from responses that you make, some of which don't completely expound upon your view.
You’re correct… If we repeal DADT, then we should return to the original ban.
Unless you're willing to bar anyone with any opinions or preferences (which, by the way, is everyone) from the military, then you can't point to one particular group of people and ban them because some people may be uncomfortable with it. Claiming that others won't get along with them because of their views or that we would be accommodating homosexuals at someone else's "expense" is ignoring the fact that many people don't get along with others because of many views, ranging from the most controversial to the silliest of minutia. The military already deals with people who don't get along. They have a system of building group cohesion amongst those who may not want to deal with each other.
First of all, this is your opinion, but I am willing to bar anyone over any SIGNIFICANT opinions, beliefs, preferences, mannerisms, practices, etc. that challenge and/or violate the status-quo in a team environment. It’s just that simple. Obviously, it’s the extent of that significance that may be called into question, but I personally find homosexuality to be of that significance.
My point is that, military expert or not, history has shown us that there is no real "safe" enlistment. You enlist to serve our country in times of need. If those times of need require any or every member to serve, then you need to be able to serve. It can be objectively shown that some people with physical disabilities and diseases will be unable to serve. That's not discrimination no more than refusing to hire an armless person as a welder is discrimination.
And, as I suggested earlier, EEOC does not directly apply to the military for a number of reasons. You seem to want to draw your line at physical capability, but there are other issues that need to be considered. Obviously, there are religions that would limit a person’s ability to serve as a soldier. There are psychological disorders that would limit a person’s ability to serve. And, there are practices and beliefs that would limit a person’s ability to serve. If someone’s religion required them to slaughter a chicken every night in their sleeping quarters, you can see how this would be disruptive to military service. The point here is that we already “bar” military service for various reasons.
I stated that you were complaining that homosexuals would interrupt other service members. This is based upon your comment that we would be accommodating homosexuals at others' "expense." As mentioned above, this "expense" is vaguely referred to and is not particularized. If my inferences were incorrect, I apologize, but it's all I had to work with. Feel free to correct me and fully explain yourself at any time.
Placing a homosexual in a unit of heterosexual is an accommodation. I can appreciate the fact that you and others have grown to accept certain aspects of homosexuality, but the last time I checked, the majority opinion still isn’t comfortable with mainstreaming homosexuality. That’s it…
As far as individuals with Down syndrome, they have physical and mental limitations which will affect their ability to serve. For example, they can and often do have muscle hypotonia, atlanto-axial instability, congenital heart defects, mental retardation, hearing deficits, Alzheimer's, immune deficiencies, epilepsy, and many other symptoms. Strength is not the only concern with the military.
Agreed… But there are varying extents of these ailments. To exclude the entire group, while some may be completely capable would be just as wrong as banning all homosexuals from serving. (Turned it around on you...)
-
Perhaps you should be more clear on your position, as everyone who read this thread interpreted your statements this way. Sorry to burst your bubble that only I had "comprehension problems".
No, I won't concede this. You say you'll discuss this "when the push for something of this nature comes from WITHIN the active ranks and from the men (and women) who run the military", and then poo-poo away the fact that this is only up for discussion because this is coming from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. What military expert's opinion are you waiting on? Colonel Sanders? And what an out to say "Yeah, well, everyone who I just said should be making these decisions are the ones that are advocating repealing DADT, but they really don't want to. Their arms are being twisted and their hands forced." Seriously? Even former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs & Defense Secretary Colin Powell is scratching his head at how you can make such an illogical argument.
Link? Studies to back up this claim? Oh right, there was a study done, and it was presented to you already. But the Rand Corp is just some hippie commie pinko garbage because it doesn't jive with my predetermined position.
Really? You're a birther too?
You certainly are. Nothing with European origin is of any merit? I thought you were the one that said this:So were we just in the dark ages until 1776?
Read your quote again. You said that Nobody is saying they can't serve in the military. GarMan did.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Period.
Nothing else really needs to be said, but all this diatribe did was solidify the notion that you don't understand freedom of speech. Of course I should have considered though, that you know all. Certainly more about the law than a lawyer. What do they know? Cooks know nothing about cooking. Accountants know nothing about accounting. Bankers know nothing about banking. :rolleyes:
None of my comments were addressed to you.
I disregarded your entire response. Didn't read any of it, really. You can make of that what you will -- because as you've proven here and elsewhere, you typically make up what you think someone said, rather than what was actually said, and attempt to argue that.
In this discussion, Chiz, you know who you are? You're Andrew Jackson. Except you're on the wrong side. I'll leave it to you to figure out what that means.
-
None of my comments were addressed to you.
I disregarded your entire response. Didn't read any of it, really. You can make of that what you will -- because as you've proven here and elsewhere, you typically make up what you think someone said, rather than what was actually said, and attempt to argue that.
In this discussion, Chiz, you know who you are? You're Andrew Jackson. Except you're on the wrong side. I'll leave it to you to figure out what that means.
I know exactly what to make of it. Victory flag.
-
I know exactly what to make of it. Victory flag.
You know where to put it, too.
I wont' ask, so you don't tell.
-
I like Sani. Nice guy. Not a military expert. Neither is PCT.
I consider myself well versed in matters pertaining to the military. I read Sun Tzu for crying out loud. I live by his teachings.
Saying homosexuals are unfit for military service is the same backwards logic our grandfathers used against having blacks in service. Turns out they were wrong.
As I stated before, stringent safeguards are in place to keep the militant flamers out.
-
I consider myself well versed in matters pertaining to the military. I read Sun Tzu for crying out loud. I live by his teachings.
I read The Godfather. I'm a capo.
-
As I stated before, stringent safeguards are in place to keep the militant flamers out.
How in the hell did you make it 20 years then?
-
This thread has to many words. Vaginal sex is good.
-
This thread has to many words. Vaginal sex is good.
Doo doo sex when neither of you have big boobs or a uterus is crossing a line.
-
Doo doo sex when neither of you have big boobs or a uterus is crossing a line.
Jesus approves, as long as there's big boobs or a uterus?
-
Jesus approves, as long as there's big boobs or a uterus?
I don't know. I'll ask His dad and get back with you, Andrew.
-
"All _____ing ______s must _____ing hang!" - Animal Mother
I'm all about the love!
-
This thread has to many words. Vaginal sex is good.
Agreed.
-
This is one of those threads that are very entertaining, as everybody has their opinion and most likely won’t ever change.
Coming from someone who is retired military let me say this; I have been in situations that I did not give a BIG RATS ASS what the person next me did with is sexual choices. I just needed rounds down range.
I have no problem with anyone, as long as they serve honorably.
-
I have no problem with anyone, as long as they serve honorably and mind the step children while giving oral.
FTFY
-
This is one of those threads that are very entertaining, as everybody has their opinion and most likely won’t ever change.
Coming from someone who is retired military let me say this; I have been in situations that I did not give a BIG RATS ASS what the person next me did with is sexual choices. I just needed rounds down range.
I have no problem with anyone, as long as they serve honorably.
Pretty informal poll, but as far as military Xers go - we are 3-0 in favor of "Who cares as long as he can shoot/do his job."
Not saying that is the opinion of ALL military Xers - but still worth pointing out.
-
Pretty informal poll, but as far as military Xers go - we are 3-0 in favor of "Who cares as long as he can shoot/do his job."
Not saying that is the opinion of ALL military Xers - but still worth pointing out.
The poll is flawed.
I believe 2 of the 3 could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.
-
How in the hell did you make it 20 years then?
I'm a mastermind in the ways of espionage.
-
The poll is flawed.
I believe 2 of the 3 could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.
Can I get their numbers?
-
I'll keep this to just a few points, because both you and I have agreed that most of this is something that we just can't agree upon.
As you know full well this is not what I said, I find your attempt to stoop to this level extremely weak. While many of your arguments have been (long-winded) but cogent, this was most definitely a step back. Based on what I've seen from you thus far, for you to stoop to this gross misrepresentation is one of two things: Desperation or pandering. Since I don't sense desperation on your part, I will assume pandering. It is, however, beneath you.
I said that sexual proclivities are not an indicator of one's intelligence or reasoning. You said they were. That is pretty plainly stated in your post. If you're honestly going to deny typing that, then...well, I guess we're stuck in a situation where I've quoted the text multiple times and your response is to merely stick out your tongue and say, "Nuh uh!" As I've mentioned to Garman, if I misquote someone or incorrectly infer something, feel free to correct me. However, simply saying "I didn't say that!" and then not clarifying what you did say only brings the discussion to a halt, because I'm forced to go back, find your quotes, post them, and then wait for you to tell me yet again that you didn't say it even though it's sitting there in a post.
The decisions to restrict nudity, sexual content and adult language are based on standards of morality. WAIT A DAMN MINUTE!! I thought the concept of "free speech" eliminated such backward morality-based restrictions. What the fuck is going on? Somebody better get on the horn to the FCC immediately. The next time my daughter tunes in to iCarly, there better be some titties, some lesbians, some murder, some profanity and somebody better be fucking.
Whether the current restrictions make any sense or not is, yet again, another completely different debate. My point was not that the current restrictions were correct or incorrect. My point was that there is no restriction on speech simply because it's a minority view.
Fine by me. If the military has a don't ask don't tell religious policy I'd have no objection. Given the level of mistrust that could be generated by having Islamic soldiers, I'm surprised this isn't already in effect.
They don't currently have a restricted speech policy on any other group of individuals. Thus, there is a right that all other groups have that homosexuals do not. Regardless of whether you'd be fine with it or not, the current status quo still denies them a right that others have, yet there is no actual justification for this or distinction of the group that warrants the restriction.
You never played organized sports did you? You don't understand the dynamic of male interaction when in close quarters, do you?
Basketball, football, soccer and Austrian rules football, actually.
A homosexual in the locker room WILL interfere with the efficient function of the team. Call it fear, call it latent whatever you want, call it ignorance, call it insecurity or brand it in any way you like but the insertion of an openly gay man into a group of heterosexual males will without fail cause some controversy. It WILL impact the performance of the team. Can it be overcome? Maybe. But no matter how you spruce it up, it adds another level of difficulty to the development of the team. I can't imagine that it would be any different in the military, particularly since you're dealing with young men of roughly the same age and intensity as you find on the football fields on Friday night. It won't affect all, but it will affect some.
Having open Christians in the military won't affect all, but it will affect some. Especially if there are Christians who attempt to convert others. Afterall, spreading the word and converting the lost is a major goal of many believers. I know that you have stated that a restriction on religious speech in the military would be fine with you, but again, that's not what is currently being restricted. Thus, there is only one group being restricted. The basis for this restriction that you've put forward is that it's because their lifestyle has the potential to affect others. If that's the case, then we either need to ban all opinionated, belief based speech from the military or none. You can't suppress one group when there is no apparent distinction as to why they are being singled out.
And here you took two statements, one from GarMan and one from me, mixed them together and arrived at the conclusion that they are somehow created a single thought -- when neither of us said what you deduced.
The quote was from Garman's post; nothing was mixed. And even if you refuse to admit that anyone's stance on this board is that homosexuals should not be in the military, there are those outside of this board and in the real world who actively advocate that stance.
But let's assume that your contention that anyone can say anything at any time is true.
I never said that anyone can say anything at any time. Rather, what I've stated is that gay people can publicly state that they are gay. The fact that you don't like them having gay protests, gay parades or national coming out days doesn't mean that you can restrict their speech. Speech is restricted at different times for different reasons, but it is not restricted because of it being a minority view.
-
Austrian rules football
Played in leiderhosen on the side of a mountain?
-
OK... Let me put it this way. Apparently unlike you, I don't blindly "rely upon others to do it for us."
I'd love to see the research that has been done. That is not a sarcastic comment; seriously, if you've taken the time to research and have found resources that state otherwise, I'd be interested in reading them and seeing the statistics on how open homosexuality in the military has caused a drop in efficiency.
Good points… But, I do understand group psychology. Many-many moons ago, when in college, I did take courses in industrial and social psychology. Since then, I’ve jumped into the IT world and climbed the ladder to the executive ranks where team management, project management and larger organizational management are necessary skills. I don’t need to know about the military or homosexuals to know how introducing an exception to the local norm would be disruptive. To me, it’s common sense.
It was also "common sense" one hundred years ago that minorities in the military would cause an absolute break down of efficiency due to the majority's views on minorities. That common sense view didn't seem to pan out. Psychology's great for theories on how people should likely interact in certain situations. Sure, there may be statistical studies which also back up these theories (although I've yet to see any relating to homosexuals and the military other than the one I posted)...but we can't trust any studies, right?
EXACTLY! BINGO!!! And, this is exactly why introducing challenges to the local norm would be disruptive. Military personnel should not be subjected to these types of challenges. It’s simply not our right to impose, thereby challenging their personal values and beliefs.
Yet it's acceptable to introduce challenges by allowing individuals of different religions, races, etc. to interact within the military and freely express themselves regarding those topics? Either way, their values have the potential to be challenged and imposed upon. I don't see why one should be banned and not the other, at least not without some sort of objective reason other than "it will pose a challenge."
The point here is that we already “bar” military service for various reasons.
But when they place such a bar, they have to make an objective showing that the restriction is due to an actual effect on military efficiency. Your examples of psychological conditions and religions that require sacrifices exemplify situations in which someone will be doing something to actually interrupt military efficiency overall, or make the individual incapable of performing required tasks. Openly being able to state that you are homosexual does not affect efficiency. In theory, yes, you can state that heterosexual males will freak out, be uncomfortable, and generally refuse to do anything with or around homosexuals. However, that's in theory. There are no surveys or studies which show that this has actually happened (at least none that I've found or been shown thus far). And although we have only had posts from a limited number of retired military members on this forum, none of them indicate that this has actually happened in the United States military.
Agreed… But there are varying extents of these ailments. To exclude the entire group, while some may be completely capable would be just as wrong as banning all homosexuals from serving. (Turned it around on you...)
Seizures occur in about 3-13% of Down patients. 40 to 50% of children with Down syndrome have congenital heart defects. Having Down syndrome increases the risk of leukaemia 15-20 times. 66-89% of Down patients have some level of hearing loss in at least one ear. The risk of pneumonia is 62 times higher than in non-Down syndrome individuals. 100% of people with Down syndrome will develop some physiologic signs of Alzheimer’s when they are over 35 years old in the U.S. The statistics show that it is next to impossible to find an individual with Down syndrome who doesn't have a medical disability or disease which would prevent him from efficiently serving in the military. Impossible? Maybe not, but if you're going to make accommodations for individuals with Down syndrome by searching the nation for a handful of acceptable enlistees, then why not scour the nation for timid homosexuals who won't cause problems? You seem to be all for making accommodations for individuals who have an astounding risk of failing to efficiently serve in the military, yet you're not willing to accommodate those who, according to studies, don't affect efficiency.
-
Played in leiderhosen on the side of a mountain?
It's Australian rules, not German rules.
EDIT: My bad, just now saw the typo on my part. Definitely not Austrian rules...Australian.
-
I'm a mastermind in the ways of espionage.
You uneasy rider.
-
You seem to be all for making accommodations for individuals who have an astounding risk of failing to efficiently serve in the military, yet you're not willing to accommodate those who, according to studies, don't affect efficiency.
Gays in the military are already being accommodated. It's called Don't ask, don't tell. Do your job and keep your personal proclivities to yourself and all is well. The military doesn't allow many other non-natural actions to occur openly either. But the whole issue came about when a VERY SMALL percentage of society started trying to force the claim of normal rights on all of us. You have already defined gays as the same as blacks and Christians, when in fact, there is no fact to back that up. And once again, this was not a debate as to whether or not they could serve, it was a debate on having to give rights to the OPENLY gay soldier and how THAT would affect overall moral.
I see that there are gay guys in the NFL, but I never see them come out until AFTER they retire. There is a reason for this, same as in the military.
-
Gays in the military are already being accommodated. It's called Don't ask, don't tell. Do your job and keep your personal proclivities to yourself and all is well. The military doesn't allow many other non-natural actions to occur openly either. But the whole issue came about when a VERY SMALL percentage of society started trying to force the claim of normal rights on all of us. You have already defined gays as the same as blacks and Christians, when in fact, there is no fact to back that up. And once again, this was not a debate as to whether or not they could serve, it was a debate on having to give rights to the OPENLY gay soldier and how THAT would affect overall moral.
I see that there are gay guys in the NFL, but I never see them come out until AFTER they retire. There is a reason for this, same as in the military.
THIS ^^^
When there are close quarters, bathrooms, latrines, etc in play - it DOES matter. It is the equivalent to letting any of us perverts (openly HETEROSEXUAL) prance freely through the women's quarters with no issue. You think that would fly? HA!!!!
Besides - unless I missed it in this thread - no one has mentioned something very obvious about this issue. This is nothing but a secondary social issue that is being used to distract the public from the truly important issues at hand, which Obama is trying to get done under the radar via socialistic and Marxist solutions with little public attention. Oh yes, its true. This has been a tactic for years by politicians that aren't exactly getting their way with policy. Public doesn't approve? Fine, we'll just distract them with a carrot on a string.
Nice write up by Dick Morris:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/pelosi-reid-healthcare-obama/2010/01/24/id/347820 (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/pelosi-reid-healthcare-obama/2010/01/24/id/347820)
-
Tebow has a clear argument, reminds me of Kaos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLpCdWYcdg4&feature=fvhl# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLpCdWYcdg4&feature=fvhl#)
-
Gays in the military are already being accommodated. It's called Don't ask, don't tell. Do your job and keep your personal proclivities to yourself and all is well. The military doesn't allow many other non-natural actions to occur openly either.
If someone starts speaking about bestiality to the point that it interferes with military efficiency, then the military handles it. There is not an outright ban upfront on speech about bestiality. If you want to ban all opinionated or "unnatural" speech in the military, that's fine; you'll have to define "opinionated" and "unnatural" speech in some manner that is satisfactory to all. Otherwise, "don't ask, don't tell" currently just singles out one population, and there has been no legitimate reason given to simply ban their speech and their speech alone.
The reason that is repeatedly being given is that men in the military don't want homosexuals in the showers with them, sleeping near them, dressing near them, etc. Well, that stance sounds like you don't want homosexuals in the military at all. That stance has nothing to do with them being able to freely speak about their homosexuality. That stance infers an outright ban on homosexuals so that no one is imposed by it. Whether they speak about their homosexuality or not, they are homosexual. And if their "unnatural" demeanor is going to cause some sort of problem in the showers or in the bunks, then it's going to cause a problem whether they speak about their sexuality or not. Again, that's an opinion that anyone is welcome to have, but the studies and statements from military members who have served with homosexuals don't suggest that it's such an imposition as it's being made out to be.
-
If someone starts speaking about bestiality to the point that it interferes with military efficiency, then the military handles it. There is not an outright ban upfront on speech about bestiality. I
No shit. There's not an all out librul movement to legitimize animal lovers...yet.
-
No shit. There's not an all out librul movement to legitimize animal lovers...yet.
Jumbo will lead the way.
-
I'll keep this to just a few points, because both you and I have agreed that most of this is something that we just can't agree upon.
I'll humor you.
I said that sexual proclivities are not an indicator of one's intelligence or reasoning. You said they were. That is pretty plainly stated in your post. If you're honestly going to deny typing that, then...well, I guess we're stuck in a situation where I've quoted the text multiple times and your response is to merely stick out your tongue and say, "Nuh uh!" As I've mentioned to Garman, if I misquote someone or incorrectly infer something, feel free to correct me. However, simply saying "I didn't say that!" and then not clarifying what you did say only brings the discussion to a halt, because I'm forced to go back, find your quotes, post them, and then wait for you to tell me yet again that you didn't say it even though it's sitting there in a post.
If I say that lawnmowers and helicopters both have engines will you infer that I need to file a flightplan for my Husqavarna lawn tractor?
Apparently you would.
Whether the current restrictions make any sense or not is, yet again, another completely different debate. My point was not that the current restrictions were correct or incorrect. My point was that there is no restriction on speech simply because it's a minority view.
They don't currently have a restricted speech policy on any other group of individuals. Thus, there is a right that all other groups have that homosexuals do not. Regardless of whether you'd be fine with it or not, the current status quo still denies them a right that others have, yet there is no actual justification for this or distinction of the group that warrants the restriction.
You're wrong here, but I'll get back to it at the end.
Having open Christians in the military won't affect all, but it will affect some. Especially if there are Christians who attempt to convert others. Afterall, spreading the word and converting the lost is a major goal of many believers. I know that you have stated that a restriction on religious speech in the military would be fine with you, but again, that's not what is currently being restricted. Thus, there is only one group being restricted. The basis for this restriction that you've put forward is that it's because their lifestyle has the potential to affect others. If that's the case, then we either need to ban all opinionated, belief based speech from the military or none. You can't suppress one group when there is no apparent distinction as to why they are being singled out.
Other things are restricted as has been illustrated countless times. Rules and all.
The quote was from Garman's post; nothing was mixed. And even if you refuse to admit that anyone's stance on this board is that homosexuals should not be in the military, there are those outside of this board and in the real world who actively advocate that stance.
Should have been specific. By "nobody" I mean I'm not.
I never said that anyone can say anything at any time. Rather, what I've stated is that gay people can publicly state that they are gay. The fact that you don't like them having gay protests, gay parades or national coming out days doesn't mean that you can restrict their speech. Speech is restricted at different times for different reasons, but it is not restricted because of it being a minority view.
Okay. Whatever you say. That has nothing to do with the military issue.
I think it's telling that you completely skirted the concept of speech vs. consequences. But I know why. The fact is that as much as you'd like to portray it as such, this is not a free speech issue
Simply put, gays are not being denied the right to claim their public sexuality. They are free to express it in any way they like. They are not free, however, from the consequences of that action.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...
The right to speak is not being abridged in any way. All the military does is make clear what the expression of those ideas will entail.
Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. No one is guaranteed the right to serve. Now if there were a draft and gays were being conscripted, maybe there would be a different argument. But they are not.
The military does not say "do not disclose" it merely says what the consequences of said disclosure would be.
All the impassioned arguments about what a great soldier Freddy Fancypants might be become extraneous and irrelevant at that point.
Not only does the military turn a blind eye, but it specifically says it will respect the rights of those who wish to keep their preference private and serve anyway. That's the don't ask part.
Suppose I walk in the living room and the lamp is lying shattered on the floor. I ask my daughter if she broke it and tell her that the consequence of her saying she did is that she will have to pay for the damage out of her allowance, have I restricted her free speech? No. I've merely told her what the consequence would be.
If I followed the current military policy, I would look at the lamp, look at her, and leave the room. If she doesn't tell me she broke the lamp, I have to assume there is no broken lamp at all because I'm not going to ask.
Whose rights are being trampled again?
There is no law restricting free speech in this case. There is only a policy that outlines the consequence of that speech.
I told you that pony was worn out. I told you that flag won't fly. But you can keep on looking for Husqvarnas and Craftsmans and John Deeres zooming through the sky if you wish.
-
I'll humor you.
If I say that lawnmowers and helicopters both have engines will you infer that I need to file a flightplan for my Husqavarna lawn tractor?
Apparently you would.
You're wrong here, but I'll get back to it at the end.
Other things are restricted as has been illustrated countless times. Rules and all.
Should have been specific. By "nobody" I mean I'm not.
Okay. Whatever you say. That has nothing to do with the military issue.
I think it's telling that you completely skirted the concept of speech vs. consequences. But I know why. The fact is that as much as you'd like to portray it as such, this is not a free speech issue
Simply put, gays are not being denied the right to claim their public sexuality. They are free to express it in any way they like. They are not free, however, from the consequences of that action.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...
The right to speak is not being abridged in any way. All the military does is make clear what the expression of those ideas will entail.
Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. No one is guaranteed the right to serve. Now if there were a draft and gays were being conscripted, maybe there would be a different argument. But they are not.
The military does not say "do not disclose" it merely says what the consequences of said disclosure would be.
All the impassioned arguments about what a great soldier Freddy Fancypants might be become extraneous and irrelevant at that point.
Not only does the military turn a blind eye, but it specifically says it will respect the rights of those who wish to keep their preference private and serve anyway. That's the don't ask part.
Suppose I walk in the living room and the lamp is lying shattered on the floor. I ask my daughter if she broke it and tell her that the consequence of her saying she did is that she will have to pay for the damage out of her allowance, have I restricted her free speech? No. I've merely told her what the consequence would be.
If I followed the current military policy, I would look at the lamp, look at her, and leave the room. If she doesn't tell me she broke the lamp, I have to assume there is no broken lamp at all because I'm not going to ask.
Whose rights are being trampled again?
There is no law restricting free speech in this case. There is only a policy that outlines the consequence of that speech.
I told you that pony was worn out. I told you that flag won't fly. But you can keep on looking for Husqvarnas and Craftsmans and John Deeres zooming through the sky if you wish.
You are grasping at straws like a fat woman in a milkshake shop.
-
You are grasping at straws like a fat woman in a milkshake shop.
Reality straws. Chock full of common sense.
-
If I say that lawnmowers and helicopters both have engines will you infer that I need to file a flightplan for my Husqavarna lawn tractor?
There was no analogy. I plainly stated that sexual proclivities do not indicate one's intelligence or ability to reason. You said they did. There is no, "I compared them to this and thus really meant this." It was a very straightforward statement which showed that you view homosexuals as being less intelligent because of their sexual proclivities. If you'd like to clarify what you meant, then go right ahead. Otherwise, as I've already mentioned, we've come to a screeching halt because you'd rather insinuate that I've stooped to a level at which I'm attacking you personally when all I've done is point out what you plainly stated. You can either clarify what you meant by that statement and we can move on, or we can listen to you repeatedly deny that you said anything of the sort without clarifying what you did actually say.
Other things are restricted as has been illustrated countless times. Rules and all.
Those restrictions must have an objective, legitimate reason behind them. You don't restrict a person's rights and privileges without some sort of justification. The legislature is not going to exclaim, "Ah hell! You know what? I don't particularly like Rastafarians. They have a minority view, so let's prevent them from doing X while allowing others to do X."
I think it's telling that you completely skirted the concept of speech vs. consequences. But I know why. The fact is that as much as you'd like to portray it as such, this is not a free speech issue
Free speech means that you get to freely say it. Hence the adjective "free" that's attached to the noun "speech." There are no legal consequences to legitimate free speech. Maybe the football team is going to smear the queer, or the military men are going to beat him with a bar of soap in a sock. But those "consequences" aren't legal. I skipped over it because, yet again, you didn't define what you mean by consequences, so there's no point in me attempting to address it. If I did, you'd merely come back five posts later and attempt to redirect the conversation by claiming that you never stated what I was arguing against, and that I am merely attacking you personally by trying to put words into your mouth.
The right to speak is not being abridged in any way. All the military does is make clear what the expression of those ideas will entail.
If the military is attempting to tell you what the expression of your ideas will entail, then they are not allowing free speech; they are giving you "allowed speech." Telling you that you can express X idea but not Y idea without a legitimate reason is not allowing free speech. Regardless of whether being in the military is a privilege, they are still United States citizens and have been given specific rights under the Constitution. There are only a few limitations on soldiers' speech, and those limitations deal with speech which urges violence or encourages violation of military regulations, as well as communications with the enemy. You might want to familiarize yourself with Articles 82, 88, 117, 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice if you're going to start arguing what the military does and does not suppress as far as speech.
Suppose I walk in the living room and the lamp is lying shattered on the floor. I ask my daughter if she broke it and tell her that the consequence of her saying she did is that she will have to pay for the damage out of her allowance, have I restricted her free speech? No. I've merely told her what the consequence would be.
Homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it an action that is legally punished in any way. Owning up to a crime or action that is punishable will, of course, result in punishment. The analogy is flawed.
There is no law restricting free speech in this case. There is only a policy that outlines the consequence of that speech.
We create a law that states you will be kicked out of the military for announcing that you are Christian. No other speech is limited in the military. Not homosexuals, not Muslims, not Satanists, no one. But that's just a consequence of your speech, right? It makes no difference that you are being singled out as the only group that is punished for their speech. So it's acceptable, correct?
-
There was no analogy. I plainly stated that sexual proclivities do not indicate one's intelligence or ability to reason. You said they did. There is no, "I compared them to this and thus really meant this." It was a very straightforward statement which showed that you view homosexuals as being less intelligent because of their sexual proclivities. If you'd like to clarify what you meant, then go right ahead. Otherwise, as I've already mentioned, we've come to a screeching halt because you'd rather insinuate that I've stooped to a level at which I'm attacking you personally when all I've done is point out what you plainly stated. You can either clarify what you meant by that statement and we can move on, or we can listen to you repeatedly deny that you said anything of the sort without clarifying what you did actually say.
You plainly stated that lawnmowers do not have engines. I said they did. You inferred, therefore, that lawnmowers could also fly.
Do I question the reasoning ability of anyone who choses to be a homosexual, if the behavior is not genetic? Yes I do. I also question the reasoning ability of women who marry abrasive assholes, of men who judge their self-worth by how many deer they can shoot, of people who love the winter olympics, of fat women who squeeze themselves into bikinis, of people who think Dave Matthews is a musical genius, of people who believe in global warming (as they dig themselves out from under three feet of snow), and of people who get in their car to drive two blocks when they could have walked.
By your illogical leap, I must also consider them all mongoloids.
You know better. Stop pandering. Attacking personally? Something else I didn't say.
Those restrictions must have an objective, legitimate reason behind them. You don't restrict a person's rights and privileges without some sort of justification. The legislature is not going to exclaim, "Ah hell! You know what? I don't particularly like Rastafarians. They have a minority view, so let's prevent them from doing X while allowing others to do X."
Really? Does the phrase "hate speech" mean anything?
Free speech means that you get to freely say it. Hence the adjective "free" that's attached to the noun "speech." There are no legal consequences to legitimate free speech. Maybe the football team is going to smear the queer, or the military men are going to beat him with a bar of soap in a sock. But those "consequences" aren't legal. I skipped over it because, yet again, you didn't define what you mean by consequences, so there's no point in me attempting to address it. If I did, you'd merely come back five posts later and attempt to redirect the conversation by claiming that you never stated what I was arguing against, and that I am merely attacking you personally by trying to put words into your mouth.
If the military is attempting to tell you what the expression of your ideas will entail, then they are not allowing free speech; they are giving you "allowed speech." Telling you that you can express X idea but not Y idea without a legitimate reason is not allowing free speech. Regardless of whether being in the military is a privilege, they are still United States citizens and have been given specific rights under the Constitution. There are only a few limitations on soldiers' speech, and those limitations deal with speech which urges violence or encourages violation of military regulations, as well as communications with the enemy. You might want to familiarize yourself with Articles 82, 88, 117, 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice if you're going to start arguing what the military does and does not suppress as far as speech.
Failure here. Yes, they are US citizens. They have plenty of rights as civilians that they surrender as members of the military. This is YOUR perception of how you think things should be, not a representation of how things are.
Homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it an action that is legally punished in any way. Owning up to a crime or action that is punishable will, of course, result in punishment. The analogy is flawed.
Really? There's that whole homosexual marriage thing. That's so super legal...
We create a law that states you will be kicked out of the military for announcing that you are Christian. No other speech is limited in the military. Not homosexuals, not Muslims, not Satanists, no one. But that's just a consequence of your speech, right? It makes no difference that you are being singled out as the only group that is punished for their speech. So it's acceptable, correct?
Irrelevant.
But since you're hellbent on making illogical analogies, if the military made the decision that the presence of active golfers in the unit was disruptive and led to inefficiency and put the squad in danger then they should have the right to exclude people who admitted to golfing.
Simple concept. You can say whatever you want. Your rights are not denied. But you should know that if you do, there are certain privileges in which you cannot partake. That's not an abridgment of free speech. (Trying to force arguments like this is why people hate lawyers...)
-
You are all still taking the bait on this social issue.....while Obama schemes his Marxist agenda behind closed doors.
-
Little off main topic but nothing new for this place.
Freedom of speech is not the same as having a freedom from consequences for what you may or may not have said.
Too many people confuse them to be one in the same. They are not.
-
Did I mention I like oral sex.....with woman.
-
Did I mention I like oral sex.....with woman.
Just one woman? Wait, I fixed it for you, accidently added a w and o.
-
Just one woman?
I am married
-
I am married
But only in Massachusetts and San Francisco.
-
Simply put, this is not a free speech issue. Why? The reasons are simple. You are not arguing for the right to say they are gay you are actually advocating that they be allowed to be gay. That's a significant difference. Free speech is a noble smoke screen.
1) The military has a policy in place that bars admitted homosexuals from serving. If that policy didn't exist neither would this discussion. Whether you agree or disagree with that policy is not germane to this discussion. It's there. You are not asking that the policy be changed, you are clamoring for the repeal of a "don't ask, don't tell" restriction which, in essence, bypasses the policy.
2) Gays are not prohibited from expressing their preference. They are only told what the ramifications of such disclosure are. There is a societal rule against bigamy. If I walk into a police station and proclaim that I have eight wives my expectation is that I would be charged with that offense. The fact that I may be a perfectly capable husband to all (and I would be), that I serve the community with honor or that I love my lifestyle is of zero consequence. The rule exists. In society they're laws, in the military they're policies. Apples, apples, apples.
By attempting to claim free speech, you're actually pushing it to include freedom from consequence. Again, it's a privilege not a demand so there's no ground to stand on there. Gays are not being forced to serve in the military and keep their preference hidden, they are attempting to join the military and then force the rules to be changed. Different circumstances.
You're not asking for free speech. That's just the bogus bleeding heart flag you hope will rally the cause. Some will be duped by it. What you're asking for instead is a completely different thing -- the revision of a military policy (and not the don't ask, don't tell portion).
Free speech is a red herring. It's, as I said repeatedly, the shield of last defense for desperate lawyers when they have nothing else on which to rest.
-
Simply put, this is not a free speech issue. Why? The reasons are simple. You are not arguing for the right to say they are gay you are actually advocating that they be allowed to be gay. That's a significant difference. Free speech is a noble smoke screen.
1) The military has a policy in place that bars admitted homosexuals from serving. If that policy didn't exist neither would this discussion. Whether you agree or disagree with that policy is not germane to this discussion. It's there. You are not asking that the policy be changed, you are clamoring for the repeal of a "don't ask, don't tell" restriction which, in essence, bypasses the policy.
2) Gays are not prohibited from expressing their preference. They are only told what the ramifications of such disclosure are. There is a societal rule against bigamy. If I walk into a police station and proclaim that I have eight wives my expectation is that I would be charged with that offense. The fact that I may be a perfectly capable husband to all (and I would be), that I serve the community with honor or that I love my lifestyle is of zero consequence. The rule exists. In society they're laws, in the military they're policies. Apples, apples, apples.
By attempting to claim free speech, you're actually pushing it to include freedom from consequence. Again, it's a privilege not a demand so there's no ground to stand on there. Gays are not being forced to serve in the military and keep their preference hidden, they are attempting to join the military and then force the rules to be changed. Different circumstances.
You're not asking for free speech. That's just the bogus bleeding heart flag you hope will rally the cause. Some will be duped by it. What you're asking for instead is a completely different thing -- the revision of a military policy (and not the don't ask, don't tell portion).
Free speech is a red herring. It's, as I said repeatedly, the shield of last defense for desperate lawyers when they have nothing else on which to rest.
I haven't read a whole lot through these 14 pages, but I tend to agree with everything just written here.
-
I am married
But only in Massachusetts and San Francisco.
I caught it. +1
-
I haven't read a whole lot through these 14 pages, but I tend to agree with everything just written here.
I do too - because he's right.
-
I'd love to see the research that has been done. That is not a sarcastic comment; seriously, if you've taken the time to research and have found resources that state otherwise, I'd be interested in reading them and seeing the statistics on how open homosexuality in the military has caused a drop in efficiency.
Well, I didn’t think it was my responsibility to do this, but if you help me secure a $10M gubm’et grant to conduct such a study, I’ll be happy to track down all of the “experts” to say and publish whatever you want to hear. It’s just overwhelmingly obvious that if you take a person with differences and place him into a situation where those differences deviate substantially from the local norm, some level of disruption is to be expected. As a white boy working in predominantly black Detroit, I can confirm that I’ve been approached more than once for being the only white boy in a bar. It’s not that hard to figure out the local psychology, and the models usually hold true across different situations.
It was also "common sense" one hundred years ago that minorities in the military would cause an absolute break down of efficiency due to the majority's views on minorities. That common sense view didn't seem to pan out. Psychology's great for theories on how people should likely interact in certain situations. Sure, there may be statistical studies which also back up these theories (although I've yet to see any relating to homosexuals and the military other than the one I posted)...but we can't trust any studies, right?
Oh no… There were lots of studies that also suggested that minorities in the military would be disruptive, and early on, there were disruptions. I don’t disagree with all studies. I just don’t accept every single one of them, or any of them for that matter, as the final word. You seem to be more willing to trust one of these so-called "studies" more than common sense psychology... Does that make sense?
Yet it's acceptable to introduce challenges by allowing individuals of different religions, races, etc. to interact within the military and freely express themselves regarding those topics? Either way, their values have the potential to be challenged and imposed upon. I don't see why one should be banned and not the other, at least not without some sort of objective reason other than "it will pose a challenge."
It’s the social experimentation side of this that presents challenges. Once upon a time, you didn’t have to worry about serving pork chops or bacon to the troops at meal time, but now, the military has had to adopt requirements to account for Jewish and Muslim religions. I see that as accommodation. When will we be forced to account for the cross-dressers?
But when they place such a bar, they have to make an objective showing that the restriction is due to an actual effect on military efficiency. Your examples of psychological conditions and religions that require sacrifices exemplify situations in which someone will be doing something to actually interrupt military efficiency overall, or make the individual incapable of performing required tasks. Openly being able to state that you are homosexual does not affect efficiency. In theory, yes, you can state that heterosexual males will freak out, be uncomfortable, and generally refuse to do anything with or around homosexuals. However, that's in theory. There are no surveys or studies which show that this has actually happened (at least none that I've found or been shown thus far). And although we have only had posts from a limited number of retired military members on this forum, none of them indicate that this has actually happened in the United States military.
Because you’ve grown or evolved to socially accept homosexuals, others must be forced to accept them… That just doesn’t make sense to me.
Seizures occur in about 3-13% of Down patients. 40 to 50% of children with Down syndrome have congenital heart defects. Having Down syndrome increases the risk of leukaemia 15-20 times. 66-89% of Down patients have some level of hearing loss in at least one ear. The risk of pneumonia is 62 times higher than in non-Down syndrome individuals. 100% of people with Down syndrome will develop some physiologic signs of Alzheimer’s when they are over 35 years old in the U.S.
Not all homosexuals are qualified to serve in the military either, and many more just don’t want to serve… The threat of breaking a nail or having to wear those beastly uncomfortable uniforms is just too much. I’m also certain that you can find statistics for other groups, minority and otherwise, for increased health issues and other defects. So what?
The statistics show that it is next to impossible to find an individual with Down syndrome who doesn't have a medical disability or disease which would prevent him from efficiently serving in the military. Impossible? Maybe not, but if you're going to make accommodations for individuals with Down syndrome by searching the nation for a handful of acceptable enlistees, then why not scour the nation for timid homosexuals who won't cause problems?
Sorry… You’ve got it backwards. If you’re willing to “scour the nation for timid homosexuals” willing to serve or open the fag gates, why not do similar for other groups?
You seem to be all for making accommodations for individuals who have an astounding risk of failing to efficiently serve in the military, yet you're not willing to accommodate those who, according to studies, don't affect efficiency.
Until we physically allow homosexuals in the military, there is no study that can be accurate or convincing. It’s like all of those economic studies that claim Socialism and Communism are superior economic systems. Conducting the study in a third-world country, or limiting your study to third-world standards, and applying it to America doesn’t work.
-
My only thought on removing the DADT is are we going to have to build separate barracks for gays/lesbians/bi/transgendered? If so, how much is it going to cost? Are we going to have separate boot camps for the same? Is that going to cost us more money as taxpayers?
What about on a boat in the Navy? Different squad bays? Or do we take all the gays, and put them on their own boat?
-
When will we be forced to account for the cross-dressers?
(http://www.smokeysoffice.com/Entertain/MASH/MashPhoto/MiscCast/Klinger8.jpg)
What?
-
My only thought on removing the DADT is are we going to have to build separate barracks for gays/lesbians/bi/transgendered? If so, how much is it going to cost? Are we going to have separate boot camps for the same? Is that going to cost us more money as taxpayers?
What about on a boat in the Navy? Different squad bays? Or do we take all the gays, and put them on their own boat?
That's not my only thought...
What happens when one of your military comrades is injured in the field? If you suspect or know that he's gay, are you as willing to plunge your hands into his chest, abdoman or thigh to pinch-off an artery to save his life? And if the answer's yes, would you do so knowing that gay men are far more likely to contract HIV, hepatitis and other great lifetime benefits? Now, that may seem extreme to some, so let's forget about the critical injuries for a moment. Let's just consider the close-quarters nature of the military and combine that with the increased incidents of serious communicable diseases in the gay community. I'm completely unwilling to force others into that situation just as much as I would not want to be forced into that situation. Yet others in this thread don't seem to have a problem with that, and I find that seriously disturbing and F'd Up...
-
Wouldn't a person run the same risk, if not greater, in administering first aid to a whore hopper? Just saying, because the likelihood of encountering blood borne diseases is the same in hetero and homosexuals.
-
Wouldn't a person run the same risk, if not greater, in administering first aid to a whore hopper? Just saying, because the likelihood of encountering blood borne diseases is the same in hetero and homosexuals.
Initially, I would be inclined to agree, but the incidents of blood borne diseases is greater in homosexual and bisexual men than in heterosexual men. Of course, I realize that it's not Politically Correct to point out that fact, but it's the truth.
-
I'm the least politically correct guy on the planet. The numbers just don't add up, though. The odds of being exposed to hepatitis, herpes, and the like are higher with heterosexuals simply because there are more of us. Unprotected sex is unprotected sex; be it with a chick or a dude.
Repealing DADT isn't going to open a floodgate to deviants. Also, every swinging dick and split tail in the military is required to undergo mandatory HIV testing annually, in addition to normal bloodwork common with a physical.
-
Initially, I would be inclined to agree, but the incidents of blood borne diseases is greater in homosexual and bisexual men than in heterosexual men. Of course, I realize that it's not Politically Correct to point out that fact, but it's the truth.
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/images/race.gif)
Blacks are almost twice as likely as whites to contract HIV!!! Better kick the negros out as well!!!
The sad thing is if you probably agree with that logic. And if you don't now, I guarantee you did (or would have) forty years ago.
-
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/images/race.gif)
I guess I'll just mess around with Asian and other Pacific Islander women then.
-
I guess I'll just mess around with Asian and other Pacific Islander women then.
I mean, that's pretty much a given anyway. At least I'm playing it safer with my hispanic girlfriend than I was with any cracker hoes from my past.
-
I'm the least politically correct guy on the planet. The numbers just don't add up, though. The odds of being exposed to hepatitis, herpes, and the like are higher with heterosexuals simply because there are more of us.
I understand you point, but here's something to consider. According to the CDC, more than half of all new HIV cases every year occur with homosexual and bisexual males. Playing the odds, the numbers seem pretty serious, and that's only one of the many fringe benefits.
Unprotected sex is unprotected sex; be it with a chick or a dude.
I can't discount that fact... However, these numbers aren't based on opinion polls or surveys. They're legit stats. I suppose that you could argue that the "traditional" non-monogamous lifestyle of the homosexual community plays a significant role in this.
Repealing DADT isn't going to open a floodgate to deviants. Also, every swinging tool and split tail in the military is required to undergo mandatory HIV testing annually, in addition to normal bloodwork common with a physical.
Seems like a gamble if you ask me... Recognizing that we have options/choices outside of the military, I wouldn't assume the risk with my own health or life. Additionally, I wouldn't impose such a risk on others.
-
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/images/race.gif)
Blacks are almost twice as likely as whites to contract HIV!!! Better kick the negros out as well!!!
The sad thing is if you probably agree with that logic. And if you don't now, I guarantee you did (or would have) forty years ago.
I believe that science has proven the increased incidents to be associated with behavior rather than race, but nice try from a race-baiting perspective...
:thumsup:
-
I suppose that you could argue that the "traditional" non-monogamous lifestyle of the homosexual community plays a significant role in this.
So you endorse same sex marriage? You'd like to see them be monogamous is what you're saying, right? But yeah, I'm with you. No heterosexuals have sex with more than one person in their lifetime.
How in the hell can you make these two quotes:
I understand you point, but here's something to consider. According to the CDC, more than half of all new HIV cases every year occur with homosexual and bisexual males. Playing the odds, the numbers seem pretty serious, and that's only one of the many fringe benefits.
I can't discount that fact... However, these numbers aren't based on opinion polls or surveys. They're legit stats.
And then say this:
I believe that science has proven the increased incidents to be associated with behavior rather than race, but nice try from a race-baiting perspective...
:thumsup:
...boggles the mind.
So black people contract AIDS as a victim of circumstance, but homosexuals deliberately contract AIDS because they're gay? I'm sorry to break this to you, but all people, homosexual or not, contract AIDS the same way. Sharing needles, and more commonly fucking.
The statistics are apples and apples. 51% of new HIV cases are from a population that only represents 10% of the general population. If your statistics are correct, a random black person you meet on the street is MORE likely to have HIV than a random homosexual you meet.
The point is, it's not fucking likely. It's yet another stupid red herring argument you're desperately trying to cling to
The only difference? You've probably met a few black people. You even know some you think are decent people (I'm assuming). In your twisted mind, ALL homosexuals are evil fuck machines whose sole objective in life is to spread AIDS to the general population.
-
Also from the CDC:
HIV/AIDS: Number of Persons Living with Chronic Infection 1,106,400 persons (95% confidence interval 1,056,400-1,156,400) with 21% undiagnosed.
Hepatitis B: Number of Persons Living with Chronic Infection 800,000 - 1.4 million persons
Hepatitis C: Number of Persons Living with Chronic Infection 2.7–3.9 million persons (the most common chronic blood borne infection in the U.S.)
I know what disease I would be more worried about.
-
So you endorse same sex marriage? You'd like to see them be monogamous is what you're saying, right? But yeah, I'm with you. No heterosexuals have sex with more than one person in their lifetime.
That's a ridiculous unrelated stretch. Of course not, but are you suggesting that same sex marriage, or any marriage for that matter, guarantees monogamy? I mean, seriously???
How in the hell can you make these two quotes:And then say this:...boggles the mind.
Yes... It does boggle the mind. Try this from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm... (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm...)
The term men who have sex with men (MSM) refers to all men who have sex with other men, regardless of how they identify themselves (gay, bisexual, or heterosexual). In the United States, HIV and AIDS have had a tremendous impact on MSM. Consider these facts:
- AIDS has been diagnosed for more than half a million MSM. Over 300,000 MSM with AIDS have died since the beginning of the epidemic.
- MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.
- In a 2005 study of 5 large US cities, 46% of African American MSM were HIV-positive.
...
Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents.
I didn't pull that out of my ass... Would you refute the CDC's claims?
So black people contract AIDS as a victim of circumstance, but homosexuals deliberately contract AIDS because they're gay?
We've already established that it's likely behavior-based, but why would it be so prevelant in the gay community? Perhaps, the predominant lifestyle is not just about having homosexual interests/urges... Is it that hard for you to "swallow"?
I'm sorry to break this to you, but all people, homosexual or not, contract AIDS the same way. Sharing needles, and more commonly phuking.
Don't disagree...
The statistics are apples and apples. 51% of new HIV cases are from a population that only represents 10% of the general population. If your statistics are correct, a random black person you meet on the street is MORE likely to have HIV than a random homosexual you meet.
Wrong... See above...
The point is, it's not phuking likely. It's yet another stupid red herring argument you're desperately trying to cling to
So, CDC stats are less reliable than opinion polls and other surveys? Right...
:thumsup:
The only difference? You've probably met a few black people. You even know some you think are decent people (I'm assuming). In your twisted mind, ALL homosexuals are evil phuk machines whose sole objective in life is to spread AIDS to the general population.
Nice characterization... My personal opinion of homosexuals doesn't matter, but I'd bet you'd prefer for the "thought-police" to jam some of those "enlightened" politically correct views of yours down my throat. No thanks!
-
I know what disease I would be more worried about.
Me too!
-
That's a ridiculous unrelated stretch. Of course not, but are you suggesting that same sex marriage, or any marriage for that matter, guarantees monogamy? I mean, seriously???
Who said anything about a guarantee? I guaranfuckingtee you that you can survey ten married guys and ten single guys and let's see who had the most sexual partners over the last year, I'm pretty sure I know how those results will turn out. You insinuated something about the "tradition" of promiscuity in homosexuals. That's a complete crock of shit. Again, it goes back to your propagandized perception of the average homosexual as some predator. I can't change that. It's bigoted stereotyping, but hey, that's your bag.
Yes... It does boggle the mind. Try this from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm... (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm...)I didn't pull that out of my ass... Would you refute the CDC's claims?
We've already established that it's likely behavior-based, but why would it be so prevelant in the gay community? Perhaps, the predominant lifestyle is not just about having homosexual interests/urges... Is it that hard for you to "swallow"?
What are you insinuating here? I'm assuming that there is an insidious plot by the homosexual community to spread AIDS throughout the world. If not, explain yourself now, so that you don't come back 10 threads later and say I interpreted one of your vague accusations incorrectly.
Wrong... See above...
So, CDC stats are less reliable than opinion polls and other surveys? Right...
No wonder you don't like statistics. You have a hard time comprehending them.
The only statistic I utilized at all was the one you presented that homosexuals account for half of new AIDS cases. I assumed you were correct, and made my point based upon it. Then you post this link from the CDC that confirms it, yet try to pin me for refuting the CDC's claims. Where did I refute any of that? Your study shows 53%.
I then presented another study that shows African Americans accounted for 51% FROM THE SAME SOURCE.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm)
The point is, you realize how ridiculous it would be to suggest that African Americans are unfit for military service because they're at a higher risk of HIV infection than Caucasions (again, I'm left to assume this). You simply can't wrap your ahead around the same rules applying to homosexuals.
Here are more graphs from the same link.
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/images/us_all_adults.gif)
So, yes, contracting HIV is more likely to occur during homosexual sex than heterosexuals sex. I never contested that. But really? 32% vs. 53%? That's grounds to ban a faction of society from military service? Talk about a stretch.
And when you look at the other graphs, you'll see that really the only reason homosexual sex is more likely to pass on AIDS is because you have twice the dudes fucking.
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/images/us_males.gif)
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/images/us_females.gif)
The only way to be safe is to bar all men from service. We don't want the women risking their lives by getting some male blood on them!
The bottom line is your entire argument, especially this portion of it as it pertains to worrying about having to dig a bullet out of a gay person because it's a foregone conclusion that they are HIV positive, is beyond ridiculous and doesn't dignify the lengthy response I just gave it.
-
All that chart tells me is if I want some advice on window treatments then I am twice a likely to get good advice from an African American.
-
The disease I'm most worried about is stupidity.
There are a couple of Sanchos spreading that shit in here.
-
All that chart tells me is if I want some advice on window treatments then I am twice a likely to get good advice from an African American.
Then perhaps you're statistically impaired as well, since I stated what it represents and provided the link to the CDC page I pulled it off of to show it in the context it was presented.
-
The disease I'm most worried about is stupidity.
There are a couple of Sanchos spreading that shit in here.
Tell me about it. Nothing's as ignorant as blind bigotry.
Failure to comprehend simple pie charts is up there, though.
-
Then perhaps you're statistically impaired as well, since I stated what it represents and provided the link to the CDC page I pulled it off of to show it in the context it was presented.
Apparently we could also use a pie chart for the sarcasm impaired.
-
Who said anything about a guarantee? I guaranphukingtee you that you can survey ten married guys and ten single guys and let's see who had the most sexual partners over the last year, I'm pretty sure I know how those results will turn out.
Hey man... You're the one stretching here. And, I suppose you know this from "experience"... This doesn't even relate to this discussion.
You insinuated something about the "tradition" of promiscuity in homosexuals. That's a complete crock of poop. Again, it goes back to your propagandized perception of the average homosexual as some predator. I can't change that. It's bigoted stereotyping, but hey, that's your bag.
There you go with that PC-crap again... Whah! That's bigoted stereotyping!!! You can't say that! You F-tards have no problem stereotyping anyone you disagree with, but if somebody else does it, you cry foul. More than two-thirds of all known HIV cases in the US belong to a proud homosexual. What do you think? Is there some evil right-wing mastermind behind it infecting gay males? Or, is it a result of the behavior of the individual? And, if so many heterosexuals are swapping partners and behaving just as "badly" as those helpless poor homosexuals, why wouldn't HIV be more prevalent among heterosexuals? Play the numbers... If only 5-7% of our society is gay, why would 68% of all HIV infections reside in the gay community?
What are you insinuating here? I'm assuming that there is an insidious plot by the homosexual community to spread AIDS throughout the world. If not, explain yourself now, so that you don't come back 10 threads later and say I interpreted one of your vague accusations incorrectly.No wonder you don't like statistics. You have a hard time comprehending them.
I'm "insinuating" that the stats are a direct result of their behavior. Try again... If only 5-7% of our society is gay, why would 68% of all HIV infections reside in the gay community?
The only statistic I utilized at all was the one you presented that homosexuals account for half of new AIDS cases. I assumed you were correct, and made my point based upon it. Then you post this link from the CDC that confirms it, yet try to pin me for refuting the CDC's claims. Where did I refute any of that? Your study shows 53%.
So, what's the problem? I assumed your "boggles the mind" comment meant that I was somehow wrong for pointing out the obvious. Or, were you "boggled" that 68% of all HIV cases still reside in the gay community? Or, are you still confused that behavior somehow relates to the increased infection rates in the gay male community?
I then presented another study that shows African Americans accounted for 51% FROM THE SAME SOURCE.
<snip>
The point is, you realize how ridiculous it would be to suggest that African Americans are unfit for military service because they're at a higher risk of HIV infection than Caucasions (again, I'm left to assume this). You simply can't wrap your ahead around the same rules applying to homosexuals.
Now, I see where you're going with this. You're attempting to play the race card with homosexuality. These people were born gay just as much as an African American would be born black. I understand you're point. The only problem is the behavior aspect of this. Race doesn't typically involve behavior unless you're an inner-city thug.
Here are more graphs from the same link.
<snip>
So, yes, contracting HIV is more likely to occur during homosexual sex than heterosexuals sex. I never contested that. But really? 32% vs. 53%? That's grounds to ban a faction of society from military service? Talk about a stretch.
Wait a minute... That's intentionally misleading. It's male-to-male versus "high-risk" hetersexual contact, not gay sex versus straight sex... Not homosexual versus heterosexual... Talk about comprehending stats...
And when you look at the other graphs, you'll see that really the only reason homosexual sex is more likely to pass on AIDS is because you have twice the dudes phuking.
What? :blink:
Do you think that really accounts for more than half of all new cases and 68% overall?
The only way to be safe is to bar all men from service. We don't want the women risking their lives by getting some male blood on them!
Nice... While you're stretching, why don't you throw gay marriage in there?
The bottom line is your entire argument, especially this portion of it as it pertains to worrying about having to dig a bullet out of a gay person because it's a foregone conclusion that they are HIV positive, is beyond ridiculous and doesn't dignify the lengthy response I just gave it.
You're being absolutely ridiculous. That was not my "entire argument", and "this portion of it" actually pertains to all communicable diseases. But, I forgot... You have all the fuggin' answers. You're oh-so-much-more enlightened than everyone else.
-
Nothing's as ignorant as blind bigotry.
Yeah! There's got to be a pie chart on that somewhere. Blind bigotry... Really?
-
Yeah! There's got to be a pie chart on that somewhere. Blind bigotry... Really?
Not sure there is a pie chart on blind bigotry but here is one just for the blind.
http://home.comcast.net/~grand_uncle_mark/black.html (http://home.comcast.net/~grand_uncle_mark/black.html)
-
The vast majority of your last post can be paraphrased simply by "I hate fags, so fuck them and any basic human right they think they're entitled to." Again, I can't change that. Go right ahead and live in ignorance.
As for the rest of your post...
Hey man... You're the one stretching here. And, I suppose you know this from "experience"... This doesn't even relate to this discussion.
Tell me about it. Very little of your "arguments" have anything to do with the original topic. Wait, you think I brought that up?
Could you really not read the line just above the line you just quoted there, where I quoted you? I'll repost for you.
That's a ridiculous unrelated stretch. Of course not, but are you suggesting that same sex marriage, or any marriage for that matter, guarantees monogamy? I mean, seriously???
Your stupid argument, not mine.
What? :blink:
Do you think that really accounts for more than half of all new cases and 68% overall?
Nice... While you're stretching, why don't you through gay marriage in there?
Read the fact sheet I linked to.
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/images/us_sex.gif)
Males are three times as likely to contract HIV than females are. Do you dispute the CDC's claims?
-
The vast majority of your last post can be paraphrased simply by "I hate fags, so fuck them and any basic human right they think they're entitled to. Again, I can't change that. Go right ahead and live in ignorance.
As for the rest of your post...
Tell me about it. Very little of your "arguments" have anything to do with the original topic. Wait, you think I brought that up?
Could you really not read the line just above the line you just quoted there, where I quoted you? I'll repost for you.
Your stupid argument, not mine.
Read the fact sheet I linked to.
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/images/us_sex.gif)
Males are three times as likely to contract HIV than females are. Do you dispute the CDC's claims?
Congratulations.
You have attained the rank of major in the confederacy.
-
(http://www.rall.com/uploaded_images/7-4-09-730944.jpg)
-
The vast majority of your last post can be paraphrased simply by "I hate fags, so phuk them and any basic human right they think they're entitled to. Again, I can't change that. Go right ahead and live in ignorance.
How in the hell do you stretch to such ridiculous and unreasonble conclusions? It's incredible. I also love the "human right" angle. Wow, Hillary! Now, military service is a "human right"... And, I thought that I was just entitled to that free healthcare.
I really don't need to defend myself as it relates to your pathetic accusation. I knew that if I took this angle, this was going to occur by the gay and gay-friendlies in here. You discriminate and challenge religious values quite frequently, yet you probably don't consider yourself a bigot or someone who hates religion. And, I don't think anyone has ever called you a bigot over your views. But, you sure are quick to sling the term around at others...
:thumsup:
So, tell me again... If only 5-7% of our society is gay, why would 68% of all HIV infections reside in the gay community? Wait... WAIT... I got it. Mother Nature is a bigot!
As for the rest of your post...
Tell me about it. Very little of your "arguments" have anything to do with the original topic. Wait, you think I brought that up?
Could you really not read the line just above the line you just quoted there, where I quoted you? I'll repost for you.
Your stupid argument, not mine.
This is where you and others took this discussion. I merely answered or countered your points, and this is where we drifted. And, yes... You brought up gay marriage as if it would have an affect on monogamy.
Read the fact sheet I linked to.
<snip>
Males are three times as likely to contract HIV than females are. Do you dispute the CDC's claims?
Of course not, but there are additional attributes that your simple pie chart doesn't disclose. I know you seem to hate it when I say it, but BEHAVIOR is probably the most significant attribute resulting in the increased infection rates among homosexuals. Cry foul all you want. You posted the pie chart illustrating that.
-
Here's another way to look at it:
Slightly more than 1M people of the 300+ million people in the US have HIV/AIDS.
Gay men with HIV/AIDS account for nearly 532,000 of that 1M. That equals out to .17% of the total population.
There are 1,454,515 active duty military personnel (as of February 2009).
Per the 2000 census, there are 36,000 gay people (men and women) in the military. Per the Census, approximately 11,000 of those gay military people are women, reducing the potental pool of HIV/AIDS people to 25,000. If you apply the HIV numbers in general population to the military, that means that of 1,454,515 active duty military personnel, 42.5 of them have HIV/AIDS. That is assuming that only gay men will get HIV/AIDS, and that these 42.5 gay men managed to evade the almost continual medical monitoring of military personnel, which includes HIV testing.
So you would be afraid of getting HIV/AIDS because the bleeding soldier might be gay. A .0028% chance of getting infected by a gay soldier. (I am not too good with teh maths, so someone check my cipherin'...)
Hepatitis B is estimated to be 50 to 100 times more infectious than HIV. High-risk groups are injecting drug users, and people who have unprotected sex with multiple sex partners. Viral hepatitis is the leading cause of liver cancer and the most common reason for liver transplantation. In the United States, an estimated 1.2M people are living with chronic Hepatitis B and 3.2 M are living with chronic Hepatitis C. Sixty thousand new cases every year. Spreading faster than HIV/AIDS.
Based on those figures from the CDC,I would be MUCH more afraid of getting Hep B or C from the soldier who cut a swath through the whorehouses of Manilla or partied with the bar flies that swarm Ft Benning or Ft Rucker or Pax River or Norfolk or Paris Island.
-
Here's another way to look at it:
Slightly more than 1M people of the 300+ million people in the US have HIV/AIDS.
Gay men with HIV/AIDS account for nearly 532,000 of that 1M. That equals out to .17% of the total population.
There are 1,454,515 active duty military personnel (as of February 2009).
Per the 2000 census, there are 36,000 gay people (men and women) in the military. Per the Census, approximately 11,000 of those gay military people are women, reducing the potental pool of HIV/AIDS people to 25,000. If you apply the HIV numbers in general population to the military, that means that of 1,454,515 active duty military personnel, 42.5 of them have HIV/AIDS. That is assuming that only gay men will get HIV/AIDS, and that these 42.5 gay men managed to evade the almost continual medical monitoring of military personnel, which includes HIV testing.
So you would be afraid of getting HIV/AIDS because the bleeding soldier might be gay. A .0028% chance of getting infected by a gay soldier. (I am not too good with teh maths, so someone check my cipherin'...)
Hepatitis B is estimated to be 50 to 100 times more infectious than HIV. High-risk groups are injecting drug users, and people who have unprotected sex with multiple sex partners. Viral hepatitis is the leading cause of liver cancer and the most common reason for liver transplantation. In the United States, an estimated 1.2M people are living with chronic Hepatitis B and 3.2 M are living with chronic Hepatitis C. Sixty thousand new cases every year. Spreading faster than HIV/AIDS.
Based on those figures from the CDC,I would be MUCH more afraid of getting Hep B or C from the soldier who cut a swath through the whorehouses of Manilla or partied with the bar flies that swarm Ft Benning or Ft Rucker or Pax River or Norfolk or Paris Island Camp Lejeune.
-
See. If there are no gays int he military, I won't ever be tempted to have sex with one of them. Therefore my chances of catching any of those diseases form a gay soldier are reduced to zero. I'm good with math too.
I do know that there is at least one infantry soldier who says to keep it like it is. He does not want to know if the guy next to him in a trench is gay. He seems to think this is the prevalent opinion in the infantry.
-
I would contend that no fully functional infantry unit has anyone that is homosexual that is not known by the other members in his squad/platoon.
-
Here's another way to look at it:
<number crunchin'>
So you would be afraid of getting HIV/AIDS because the bleeding soldier might be gay. A .0028% chance of getting infected by a gay soldier. (I am not too good with teh maths, so someone check my cipherin'...)
I definitely appreciate where you're attempting to go with this, but my original point wasn't based solely on HIV or AIDS... As I suggested, that's just one of many risks. Also, you're estimates are limited to what we understand the current stats to be. If DADT were to be lifted, wouldn't we expect these numbers to grow? Just sayin'...
Hepatitis B ...
... Hepatitis C.
...
Spreading faster than HIV/AIDS.
Based on those figures from the CDC,I would be MUCH more afraid of getting Hep B or C from the soldier who cut a swath through the whorehouses of Manilla or partied with the bar flies that swarm Ft Benning or Ft Rucker or Pax River or Norfolk or Paris Island.
And, I completely agree, but let's consider some other facts from the CDC...
Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at elevated risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia. Despite the availability of safe and effective vaccines, many MSM have not been adequately vaccinated against viral hepatitis. Approximately 15%–25% of all new Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States are among MSM. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B vaccination for MSM. Because of higher rates of infection among this population, CDC also recommends testing MSM for chronic HBV infection.
http://www.cdc.gov/Hepatitis/Populations/MSM.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/Hepatitis/Populations/MSM.htm)
So, to summarize...
- Homosexual males account for 5-7% of the population
- Homosexual males account for over 50% of all new HIV infections
- Homosexual males account for more that 68% of all known HIV infections
- Homosexual males account for 15-25% of all new Hepatitis B infections
...
I'm sure that I can play on the CDC website and get more, but aren't we starting to see the trend here? Such a small percentage of the total population has incredibly high incident rates for some very nasty communicable diseases. Of all the things that that the military needs to worry about, this really doesn't need to be at the top of their list.
-
Forget statistical realities. We should worry about their feelings and self-esteem.
Ignore hard truths. Instead rely on half-baked and highly prejudicial "surveys" and white papers.
The utopian (and communist) standards of political correctness and equality of outcome must triumph over productivity, efficiency and even security.
-
If homosexuals account for over 50% of new HIV/AIDS cases, and 68% of the total number of HIV/AIDS cases, then that means that slightly less than 50% of new HIV/AIDS cases are not from homosexuals, and 32% of the total number of HIV/AIDS cases are not from homosexuals.
Neither of those percentages are a majority, but they're also not percentages to simply overlook. Even if the military bans homosexuals, there are still a large number of heterosexuals who have HIV/AIDS that must be somehow screened by the military. As PCT and TW have pointed out, the military already does screening for HIV/AIDS, as well as other diseases and viruses which are detectable by blood tests. Despite the fact that homosexuals have a statistically higher chance of contracting (or already having) HIV/AIDS, there is already a system in place to screen infected individuals, homosexual or heterosexual.
-
Despite the fact that homosexuals have a statistically higher chance of contracting (or already having) HIV/AIDS, there is already a system in place to screen infected individuals, homosexual or heterosexual.
That's like saying, because we already have health facilities, hospitals and clinics in most communities across the United States, why not make healthcare free (via some Robin Hood steal-from-the-rich to benefit the underachievers)?
-
That's like saying, because we already have health facilities, hospitals and clinics in most communities across the United States, why not make healthcare free (via some Robin Hood steal-from-the-rich to benefit the underachievers)?
The military will still be funded; no one's altering the cost of or the funding for entrance health exams.
-
The military will still be funded; no one's altering the cost of or the funding for entrance health exams.
The entrance health exam is just one area. Would annual examinations be enough? If more testing were necessary, should that apply to all military personnel? What about the added cost of turnover due to potential increases in medical issues? If you contract HIV or any Hepatitis variant in the military, what sort of VA benefits would you be entitled to? And so on... As I said at the start of this, the military is not a social organization. Forcing this on them is unreasonable at best.
-
The entrance health exam is just one area. Would annual examinations be enough? If more testing were necessary, should that apply to all military personnel? What about the added cost of turnover due to potential increases in medical issues? If you contract HIV or any Hepatitis variant in the military, what sort of VA benefits would you be entitled to? And so on...
None, if you are really lucky.
-
Would annual examinations be enough? If more testing were necessary, should that apply to all military personnel?
I don't know if the exams are currently annual or not, but whatever the frequency is, I'm sure it's based upon some medically accepted (or possibly even just a militarily accepted) standard. HIV/AIDS and other diseases/viruses are going to have the same incubation periods in homosexuals as they would in heterosexuals. If the current frequency of the examinations is sufficient to effectively identify and filter those infected individuals, then I don't see why the frequency would need to be changed.
What about the added cost of turnover due to potential increases in medical issues? If you contract HIV or any Hepatitis variant in the military, what sort of VA benefits would you be entitled to?
Assuming that the annual examinations are sufficient enough to effectively screen people who have those medical issues, then there won't be an increase in medical issues and required healthcare. If the annual examinations are not sufficient enough to effectively screen diseased and infected individuals, then we already have a problem with unnecessary medical expenses being paid, and that current problem would need to be fixed even if the introduction of homosexuals never occurs.
-
I don't know if the exams are currently annual or not, but whatever the frequency is, I'm sure it's based upon some medically accepted (or possibly even just a militarily accepted) standard. HIV/AIDS and other diseases/viruses are going to have the same incubation periods in homosexuals as they would in heterosexuals. If the current frequency of the examinations is sufficient to effectively identify and filter those infected individuals, then I don't see why the frequency would need to be changed.
It was only a suggestion as the infection rates in the homosexual community is accelerated compared to the heterosexual community. Just something to consider...
Assuming that the annual examinations are sufficient enough to effectively screen people who have those medical issues, then there won't be an increase in medical issues and required healthcare. If the annual examinations are not sufficient enough to effectively screen diseased and infected individuals, then we already have a problem with unnecessary medical expenses being paid, and that current problem would need to be fixed even if the introduction of homosexuals never occurs.
Your assumption is based on the standard medical practices for a predominantly hetersexual military. For homosexuals, the CDC recommends outright vaccination for Hepatitis. That's a fairly significant recommendation suggesting that health concerns for homosexuals are greater than that of heterosexuals. That's all I'm saying. Now, who would you have pay for it? Do you force vaccinations on them? And, if you don't, do you pay for their medical care if they contract one of these diseases while in service?
-
It was only a suggestion as the infection rates in the homosexual community is accelerated compared to the heterosexual community. Just something to consider...
The infection rates are higher, there is no doubt about that. Nonetheless, the incubation period is the same in every person regardless of sexual preference. If they have deemed that an annual inspection is sufficient to detect HIV/AIDS, then it's sufficient for everyone. And while homosexuals may make up the majority of HIV/AIDS cases, it's still just as feasible for a heterosexual to contract HIV/AIDS sometime between annual screenings. Thus, if you view the annual screening as insufficient for homosexuals, then it's just as insufficient for heterosexuals.
Your assumption is based on the standard medical practices for a predominantly hetersexual military. For homosexuals, the CDC recommends outright vaccination for Hepatitis. That's a fairly significant recommendation suggesting that health concerns for homosexuals are greater than that of heterosexuals. That's all I'm saying. Now, who would you have pay for it? Do you force vaccinations on them? And, if you don't, do you pay for their medical care if they contract one of these diseases while in service?
The current status quo would still apply to those examples that you mentioned. For instance, because homosexuals are a minority in relation to the entire population, the military would still be predominantly heterosexual. Additionally, the Air Force already requires Hepatitis vaccinations, and all branches require Hepatitis vaccinations when deploying to most areas, as well as for those members who are "high risk occupational groups."
-
The infection rates are higher, there is no doubt about that. Nonetheless, the incubation period is the same in every person regardless of sexual preference. If they have deemed that an annual inspection is sufficient to detect HIV/AIDS, then it's sufficient for everyone. And while homosexuals may make up the majority of HIV/AIDS cases, it's still just as feasible for a heterosexual to contract HIV/AIDS sometime between annual screenings. Thus, if you view the annual screening as insufficient for homosexuals, then it's just as insufficient for heterosexuals.
The current status quo would still apply to those examples that you mentioned. For instance, because homosexuals are a minority in relation to the entire population, the military would still be predominantly heterosexual. Additionally, the Air Force already requires Hepatitis vaccinations, and all branches require Hepatitis vaccinations when deploying to most areas, as well as for those members who are "high risk occupational groups."
No, no, no, no, Brad.
You don't get it.
Once they allow the homosexuals that they're already allowing to serve admit to being gay without being discharged, the military automatically becomes this.
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w314/chan1954/Gay-parade-1998-002.jpg)
-
As I said at the start of this, the military is not a social organization. Forcing this on them is unreasonable at best.
This is the only thing that matters. Whenever open-minded people want to get everyone to agree with them, they look for ways to force the issue.
The only real survey that should matter is the one asking EVERY guy that has to sit in a foxhole if he would rather have this as another issue to think about while trying to fight a battle.
All of the reasons for this come down to what Garman said, social experimentation on a group of people who HAVE to follow what they are told.
There is no reason to change DADT.
-
This is the only thing that matters. Whenever open-minded people want to get everyone to agree with them, they look for ways to force the issue.
The only real survey that should matter is the one asking EVERY guy that has to sit in a foxhole if he would rather have this as another issue to think about while trying to fight a battle.
All of the reasons for this come down to what Garman said, social experimentation on a group of people who HAVE to follow what they are told.
There is no reason to change DADT.
So integration of black men and women into the military was just social experimentation too? And a bad idea?
-
All of the reasons for this come down to what Garman said, social experimentation on a group of people who HAVE to follow what they are told.
There is no reason to change DADT.
GarMan's initial contention was concerning social experimentation. He has recently shifted to the medical aspect of the discussion. Of course, this isn't to say that the social experimentation aspect is no longer an argument of his; I'm sure that it is.
Nonetheless, my point is that if the medical issues of homosexuals are legitimate concerns, and if one's stance is that these concerns can not be addressed by the current system for screening recruits for medical problems, then shouldn't it be argued that DADT should be repealed? If you're unaware that someone is homosexual, then you're unaware of their statistical probability to have HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, or any other number of diseases/viruses that have been mentioned thus far. The medical discussion that was brought up seems to favor an argument for repealing DADT and/or banning homosexuals from the military; it doesn't really support the argument that DADT should remain.
The only real survey that should matter is the one asking EVERY guy that has to sit in a foxhole if he would rather have this as another issue to think about while trying to fight a battle.
If the military is not a social organization, then they're not concerned with the level of comfort that males have or don't have with other members of their unit. There are racist people in the military. Regardless, you don't see the federal government conducting surveys to determine if every guy is comfortable sitting in a foxhole with a Korean.
-
So integration of black men and women into the military was just social experimentation too? And a bad idea?
That's an entirely different discussion. You can pull it all the way back to integration of the schools.
Some would argue that the decline of American education began at that point.
-
That's an entirely different discussion. You can pull it all the way back to integration of the schools.
Some would argue that the decline of American education began at that point.
This is who we're dealing with.
Oh yeah, and we're the ignorant ones.
-
This is who we're dealing with.
Oh yeah, and we're the ignorant ones.
Sancho can't read.
I didn't say what I believed, only what some have postulated.
For argument's sake, I can provide reams of statistical evidence, white papers and surveys that can show a cause and effect relationship between integration and educational decline.
I can also show the same type of theoretical connections between the elimination of school prayer and a precipitous drop in test scores.
I can do the same for the mainstreaming of developmentally disabled children.
I can find statistical evidence to make a correlation between divorce rates and educational decline.
Doesn't mean any of those things are entirely true. I would never say that integration was the reason schools declined -- but I do think it would be fair to examine the way in which integration was manifested and determine if that did create a situation that led to relaxed standards or inferior opportunities for all involved.
The point is that you can argue whatever you want. You will find "surveys" (what a joke) that support your position, others can provide similar evidence to support theirs. This whole gayness in the military discussion is not a (pardon the pun) black and white issue. You can't claim "rightness" just because you reject the morality or values that lead others to hold their position. Just because you are willing to accept certain things does not mean that those who are not are less enlightened or intellectually inferior. On the contrary, some of the positions I've seen you take call your cognitive abilities into question (as is the case for all of us).
What that is, Chizad, is bullshit of the highest order. One day you'll grow up and realize that.
You claim you're interested in "healthy debate." Nothing could be further from the truth. You're interested in grandstanding. I personally don't care about healthy debate. My objective is to push the bounds of the discussion and see how big an ass you're willing to make of yourself. My opinions are already formed on most issues. I don't do it lightly and the last thing that's going to alter my thinking is some rant from a message board doink.
-
That's an entirely different discussion. You can pull it all the way back to integration of the schools.
Some would argue that the decline of American education began at that point.
Jesus Christ dude. That's one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on this board...
-
Jesus Christ dude. That's one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on this board...
Do you disagree that there are those who would argue such?
Because I guarantee you those people exist.
-
Sancho can't read.
I didn't say what I believed, only what some have postulated.
For argument's sake, I can provide reams of statistical evidence, white papers and surveys that can show a cause and effect relationship between integration and educational decline.
I can also show the same type of theoretical connections between the elimination of school prayer and a precipitous drop in test scores.
I can do the same for the mainstreaming of developmentally disabled children.
I can find statistical evidence to make a correlation between divorce rates and educational decline.
Doesn't mean any of those things are entirely true. I would never say that integration was the reason schools declined -- but I do think it would be fair to examine the way in which integration was manifested and determine if that did create a situation that led to relaxed standards or inferior opportunities for all involved.
The point is that you can argue whatever you want. You will find "surveys" (what a joke) that support your position, others can provide similar evidence to support theirs. This whole gayness in the military discussion is not a (pardon the pun) black and white issue. You can't claim "rightness" just because you reject the morality or values that lead others to hold their position. Just because you are willing to accept certain things does not mean that those who are not are less enlightened or intellectually inferior. On the contrary, some of the positions I've seen you take call your cognitive abilities into question (as is the case for all of us).
What that is, Chizad, is bullshit of the highest order. One day you'll grow up and realize that.
You claim you're interested in "healthy debate." Nothing could be further from the truth. You're interested in grandstanding. I personally don't care about healthy debate. My objective is to push the bounds of the discussion and see how big an ass you're willing to make of yourself. My opinions are already formed on most issues. I don't do it lightly and the last thing that's going to alter my thinking is some rant from a message board doink.
You sure do have a hard-on for me that won't go down.
-
Do you disagree that there are those who would argue such?
Because I guarantee you those people exist.
I am sure they do exist. Just like radical muslim, black and any other form of "hate groups" that are out there.
What does this prove? You are quoting ignorant white racist fucks as a basis for an argument? Why bring it up? What does that have to do with y'alls slap fight? You bringing this shit up is ignorant at best...
-
You claim you're interested in "healthy debate." Nothing could be further from the truth. You're interested in grandstanding. I personally don't care about healthy debate. My objective is to push the bounds of the discussion and see how big an ass you're willing to make of yourself. My opinions are already formed on most issues. I don't do it lightly and the last thing that's going to alter my thinking is some rant from a message board doink.
There's a shocker. Yet we are all supposed to alter our own opinions because of a well written rant from a message board doink?
But it begs the question - If you don't care about healthy debate, then why not bow out and let the rest of us actually, you know, debate? Instead of discussing the issue, it becomes "ALL ABOUT KEVIN", and your insatiable need to be the center of attention. The personal insults don't seem to come flying until you arrive on the scene in your golden chariot, proclaiming to all that The Word of Kevin is forthcoming - ignorance be banished!! If Kevin is not involved in the conversation, well then, aren't we all just a little poorer for the experience? If Kevin has not made sure his voice, and only his voice, is the one leading us poor sinners out of the wilderness, well then, aren't we all just going to hell?? We wind up ignoring the topic and discussing KEVIN's opinion - because if it is not about Kevin's opinion, well, it just ain't worth discussing.
Your ego may have you convinced that we little people are in desperate need of your guidance and direction, but in reality, few of us are as stupid as you like to think we are. We really don't need your "Ultimate Opinion" to either validate our positions, or "challenge us" to think. No one asked you to be the "boundary pusher" around here, especially when all you do is come across as an egotistical, pompous, bloviated, dismissive, snooty self-righteous asshole who is truly incapable of seeing the other side of any argument, regardless of the topic. But then it doesn't matter, does it? Your opinion is the only correct one anyway. No need for the other side. We just make asses of ourselves if we try to respond. Better to shut up. Better not to start any kind of discussion thread because Kevin will just take it over with his Gospel According to Kevin anyway. We should just post things in the form of a question and then wait for Kevin to enlighten us with his wisdom.
Even if it is an "act", as you claim from time to time, it is just ridiculous - the ultimate in personal ego trip, since it is all about you and not about consideration for the others on this board. It kills real discussion and annoys the living shit out of a lot of people as thread after thread is hijacked. That probably just thrills you right down to your twinkle toes, because for some reason, you desperately need to bring out the worst in people. You need to bring people down to build yourself up. You need to keep people looking at you so they won't notice how you might compare to others around you. I will say it again - you and Chopper/Prowler are the SAME GUY - only you just have a better vocabulary. And unfortunately, your gift for writing gives you a false sense of superiority over those who may not write as well as you. It is not how you say it, it is what you say. But if no one reads what you write, it doesn't matter how "awesome" you think it is.
I am a fool for even responding to you, since I know you get some little orgasmic ego boost from any kind of response, and I despise giving you that validation. Enjoy your little frisson of glee. But just remember that it came with a price.
-
There's a shocker. Yet we are all supposed to alter our own opinions because of a well written rant from a message board doink?
But it begs the question - If you don't care about healthy debate, then why not bow out and let the rest of us actually, you know, debate? Instead of discussing the issue, it becomes "ALL ABOUT KEVIN", and your insatiable need to be the center of attention. The personal insults don't seem to come flying until you arrive on the scene in your golden chariot, proclaiming to all that The Word of Kevin is forthcoming - ignorance be banished!! If Kevin is not involved in the conversation, well then, aren't we all just a little poorer for the experience? If Kevin has not made sure his voice, and only his voice, is the one leading us poor sinners out of the wilderness, well then, aren't we all just going to hell?? We wind up ignoring the topic and discussing KEVIN's opinion - because if it is not about Kevin's opinion, well, it just ain't worth discussing.
Your ego may have you convinced that we little people are in desperate need of your guidance and direction, but in reality, few of us are as stupid as you like to think we are. We really don't need your "Ultimate Opinion" to either validate our positions, or "challenge us" to think. No one asked you to be the "boundary pusher" around here, especially when all you do is come across as an egotistical, pompous, bloviated, dismissive, snooty self-righteous asshole who is truly incapable of seeing the other side of any argument, regardless of the topic. But then it doesn't matter, does it? Your opinion is the only correct one anyway. No need for the other side. We just make asses of ourselves if we try to respond. Better to shut up. Better not to start any kind of discussion thread because Kevin will just take it over with his Gospel According to Kevin anyway. We should just post things in the form of a question and then wait for Kevin to enlighten us with his wisdom.
Even if it is an "act", as you claim from time to time, it is just ridiculous - the ultimate in personal ego trip, since it is all about you and not about consideration for the others on this board. It kills real discussion and annoys the living shit out of a lot of people as thread after thread is hijacked. That probably just thrills you right down to your twinkle toes, because for some reason, you desperately need to bring out the worst in people. You need to bring people down to build yourself up. You need to keep people looking at you so they won't notice how you might compare to others around you. I will say it again - you and Chopper/Prowler are the SAME GUY - only you just have a better vocabulary. And unfortunately, your gift for writing gives you a false sense of superiority over those who may not write as well as you. It is not how you say it, it is what you say. But if no one reads what you write, it doesn't matter how "awesome" you think it is.
I am a fool for even responding to you, since I know you get some little orgasmic ego boost from any kind of response, and I despise giving you that validation. Enjoy your little frisson of glee. But just remember that it came with a price.
(http://www.guzer.com/pictures/boxing-punch.jpg)
-
I am sure they do exist. Just like radical muslim, black and any other form of "hate groups" that are out there.
What does this prove? You are quoting ignorant white racist fucks as a basis for an argument? Why bring it up? What does that have to do with y'alls slap fight? You bringing this shit up is ignorant at best...
Right.
What's ignorant is to pretend that differing views don't exist and to dismiss them out of hand. That really leads to progress.
TW brought up the point of integration with her comments regarding the integration of the military. I merely pointed out that despite the sense of certainty that came with her sentiment there is a sizable population that would disagree with her premise. There are many who think that the military HAS suffered as a result of integration.
I assure you those who consider this position are not all mullet-wearing, 400-lb bubbas with bad teeth and a bulging dip. Not all are white. The problem is that because of your very response (and the overbearing babble of those like Chizad) people who may think this way don't express it -- except privately.
Real progress is impeded because people don't speak their minds and bring topics into the open where they can be LEGITIMATELY debated without chowder heads shouting people down as ignorant.
We've seen enough of that here to validate that.
-
There's a shocker. Yet we are all supposed to alter our own opinions because of a well written rant from a message board doink?
But it begs the question - If you don't care about healthy debate, then why not bow out and let the rest of us actually, you know, debate? Instead of discussing the issue, it becomes "ALL ABOUT KEVIN", and your insatiable need to be the center of attention. The personal insults don't seem to come flying until you arrive on the scene in your golden chariot, proclaiming to all that The Word of Kevin is forthcoming - ignorance be banished!! If Kevin is not involved in the conversation, well then, aren't we all just a little poorer for the experience? If Kevin has not made sure his voice, and only his voice, is the one leading us poor sinners out of the wilderness, well then, aren't we all just going to hell?? We wind up ignoring the topic and discussing KEVIN's opinion - because if it is not about Kevin's opinion, well, it just ain't worth discussing.
Your ego may have you convinced that we little people are in desperate need of your guidance and direction, but in reality, few of us are as stupid as you like to think we are. We really don't need your "Ultimate Opinion" to either validate our positions, or "challenge us" to think. No one asked you to be the "boundary pusher" around here, especially when all you do is come across as an egotistical, pompous, bloviated, dismissive, snooty self-righteous asshole who is truly incapable of seeing the other side of any argument, regardless of the topic. But then it doesn't matter, does it? Your opinion is the only correct one anyway. No need for the other side. We just make asses of ourselves if we try to respond. Better to shut up. Better not to start any kind of discussion thread because Kevin will just take it over with his Gospel According to Kevin anyway. We should just post things in the form of a question and then wait for Kevin to enlighten us with his wisdom.
Even if it is an "act", as you claim from time to time, it is just ridiculous - the ultimate in personal ego trip, since it is all about you and not about consideration for the others on this board. It kills real discussion and annoys the living shit out of a lot of people as thread after thread is hijacked. That probably just thrills you right down to your twinkle toes, because for some reason, you desperately need to bring out the worst in people. You need to bring people down to build yourself up. You need to keep people looking at you so they won't notice how you might compare to others around you. I will say it again - you and Chopper/Prowler are the SAME GUY - only you just have a better vocabulary. And unfortunately, your gift for writing gives you a false sense of superiority over those who may not write as well as you. It is not how you say it, it is what you say. But if no one reads what you write, it doesn't matter how "awesome" you think it is.
I am a fool for even responding to you, since I know you get some little orgasmic ego boost from any kind of response, and I despise giving you that validation. Enjoy your little frisson of glee. But just remember that it came with a price.
You're assuming I give a damn.
You're wrong.
-
I am sure they do exist. Just like radical muslim, black and any other form of "hate groups" that are out there.
What does this prove? You are quoting ignorant white racist fucks as a basis for an argument? Why bring it up? What does that have to do with y'alls slap fight? You bringing this shit up is ignorant at best...
I hate white people.
-
I hate white people.
Thank you Governor Barkley.
-
Right.
What's ignorant is to pretend that differing views don't exist and to dismiss them out of hand. That really leads to progress.
TW brought up the point of integration with her comments regarding the integration of the military. I merely pointed out that despite the sense of certainty that came with her sentiment there is a sizable population that would disagree with her premise. There are many who think that the military HAS suffered as a result of integration.
I assure you those who consider this position are not all mullet-wearing, 400-lb bubbas with bad teeth and a bulging dip. Not all are white. The problem is that because of your very response (and the overbearing babble of those like Chizad) people who may think this way don't express it -- except privately.
Real progress is impeded because people don't speak their minds and bring topics into the open where they can be LEGITIMATELY debated without chowder heads shouting people down as ignorant.
We've seen enough of that here to validate that.
The whole basis for this explanation is bullshit. And you know it.
-
The whole basis for this explanation is bullshit. And you know it.
I know nothing of the sort.
Who has the sole right to determine what is "ignorant" and what is not? (Other than me, that is).
Why do you (or anybody other than me) get to marginalize a group of people just because you don't agree?
Based on what Ive read, I imagine the number of people who think integration was mishandled and has negatively affected many facets of life for ALL ethnicities is at least as high as the number agitating for open homosexuality in the military. But out of fear of reprisal or concern of being branded bigoted (as you were quick to do here) they are less vocal.
All political correctness does is put up a facade. It discourages honest expression. It hides reality behind plastered on smiles.
-
"Integration being mishandled" is a lot different than "integration was the down fall of our modern school system".
The first leaves room for discussion. The second sounds like a racist ass hat.
-
I hate white people.
Kill whitey!
-
Kill whitey!
Your pickin' up what I'm puttin' down.
-
Your pickin' up what I'm puttin' down.
When can I pick you up, baby?
-
When can I pick you up, baby?
Takes more than a mommas love unlike that gutter slut Taylor you are use to.
-
Takes more than a mommas love unlike that gutter slut Taylor you are use to.
I work with what I got.
-
I hate white people.
Watch dog bark
do he bite?
Kill my landlord, kill my landlord.
Sneak in his door and break his neck.
Why? Oh what da heck.
Kill my landlord, kill my landlord.
C-I-L, my landlord.
-
Takes more than a mommas love unlike that gutter slut Taylor you are use to.
I wish I knew how to quit him.
-
Your pickin' up what I'm puttin' down.
Cut me some slack Jack, Chump don't want na' help, don't get na' help, you a jive ass turkey anyway!
-
"Integration being mishandled" is a lot different than "integration was the down fall of our modern school system".
The first leaves room for discussion. The second sounds like a racist ass hat.
That is exactly how I saw his statement. Of course we always have those that jump on the first statement that even looks like it might put a brutha down.
Integration in education was the beginning of the downfall of our educational system. However, it was not integration within itself, it was how it was implemented.
They are using the same tactic today with universal health care.
Instead of insuring that those in need are afforded the same opportunities at the same levels everyone else, they do not attempt to bring the needy up, but the system down. SO instead of holding to the standards that were already in place in the supposedly better white schools, the requirements were dropped for everyone so that the small amount of minorities could be seen as functioning at the same level as the whites. Had we implemented it to the point in which everyone had to function at the higher level or stay where you were until you could, then we would have had only one generation of minorities that took longer to finish school. Then every one would have been on the higher track. Instead we dumbed down the education system in an effort to give the impression that everything was equal.
SO in order to make sure that the 10-15% of Americans that cannot afford health care get theirs, the whole system that is functioning well (not great) today has to get knocked down to basic care. That way we are all equal to the least fortunate/unlucky/lazy/oppressed of us.
Did integration of the military have the same effect? I'm not sure. As long as individuals were promoted according to merit, then I don't think it had the same effect. But as soon as you mandate promotion according to racial percentages, then yes, you degraded the quality of the military. I have no idea if that was done or not, but that is the only way I could see it causing an issue.
But to equate gays with blacks in terms of rights is ridiculous.
Nobody I have talked to that has their job consist of living in a foxhole for days at a time, wants to worry about whether the guy next to him is gay. They do not want to know or have to deal with it. The issue of DADT is just another smokescreen to keep us off track and to promote the librul agenda that the dims are known for.
If they want to screw with it, then have an all gay division. We'll even let them go in first.
-
...If they want to screw with it, then have an all gay division. We'll even let them go in first.
Most of the stuff in this thread is ridiculus.
This, however, made me chortle, almost a guffaw.
-
Most of the stuff in this thread is ridiculus.
This, however, made me chortle, almost a guffaw.
Well. With all of the trepidation surrounding this decision, I didn't think anyone would want them bringing up the rear.
-
The infection rates are higher, there is no doubt about that. Nonetheless, the incubation period is the same in every person regardless of sexual preference. If they have deemed that an annual inspection is sufficient to detect HIV/AIDS, then it's sufficient for everyone. And while homosexuals may make up the majority of HIV/AIDS cases, it's still just as feasible for a heterosexual to contract HIV/AIDS sometime between annual screenings. Thus, if you view the annual screening as insufficient for homosexuals, then it's just as insufficient for heterosexuals.
I would consider that to be a leap of faith at best... Your rationalization is based on too many assumptions. If your logic was reasonable, why would the CDC recommend outright vaccination for Hepatitis in the gay community? It seems that if infection rates are accelerated for a subset that participates in risky behavior, you'd want to screen more often. The "incubation periods" don't reset themselves at the annual screenings. Look... I don't have the answer here. It was only a suggested consequence that some may not be adequately considering. It seems to be a significant risk whenever the government experiments with society... like affirmative action eroding educational standards and EEOC handicapping capitalism.
The current status quo would still apply to those examples that you mentioned. For instance, because homosexuals are a minority in relation to the entire population, the military would still be predominantly heterosexual. Additionally, the Air Force already requires Hepatitis vaccinations, and all branches require Hepatitis vaccinations when deploying to most areas, as well as for those members who are "high risk occupational groups."
Another leap... So, since vaccinations may already be required for some, that makes it ok? This doesn't make any sense to me.
-
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w314/chan1954/Gay-parade-1998-002.jpg)
Wow... Sharing your PRIDE pics again? "You people" have no shame.
-
GarMan's initial contention was concerning social experimentation. He has recently shifted to the medical aspect of the discussion. Of course, this isn't to say that the social experimentation aspect is no longer an argument of his; I'm sure that it is.
Wait a minute... The medical aspect of this is very much part of the social experimentation argument.
If the military is not a social organization, then they're not concerned with the level of comfort that males have or don't have with other members of their unit. There are racist people in the military. Regardless, you don't see the federal government conducting surveys to determine if every guy is comfortable sitting in a foxhole with a Korean.
Comparing a subculture's sexual practices and other deviant behaviors to individual thoughts/beliefs makes no sense to me.
-
This is who we're dealing with.
Oh yeah, and we're the ignorant ones.
Nah... You're the "enlightened" ones...
-
I would consider that to be a leap of faith at best... Your rationalization is based on too many assumptions. If your logic was reasonable, why would the CDC recommend outright vaccination for Hepatitis in the gay community?
They also recommended that children in certain states get the Hepatitis vaccine, as well as other individuals they deemed as high risk for a variety of reasons. Regardless of why they recommend it, the fact still stands that the incubation period for such diseases and viruses are the same in heterosexuals as they are in homosexuals.
It seems that if infection rates are accelerated for a subset that participates in risky behavior, you'd want to screen more often. The "incubation periods" don't reset themselves at the annual screenings.
This is a conclusion that is based upon incorrect assumptions derived from statistics that do not indicate anything about acceleration. You've assumed that the infection rate is "accelerated;" this suggests that they somehow contract HIV/AIDS quicker than other individuals. This is simply not the case. A homosexual does not develop HIV/AIDS any more quickly than anyone else.
The statistics only show that homosexuals make up the majority of HIV/AIDS cases. It does not show that there is some sort of acceleration. Blacks are more likely to have sickle cell anemia, but we don't simply turn them away from the military, nor do we assume that they contract it quicker merely because the disease is more prominent in blacks. They are screened like everyone else, and despite the fact that someone with sickle cell trait may develop sickle cell anemia later, they can still enter the military and are screened annually just like everyone else.
Another leap... So, since vaccinations may already be required for some, that makes it ok? This doesn't make any sense to me.
My point was that vaccines are already required in certain branches, and are required of virtually all deployed military members. Thus, when we're at war with at-risk countries (which we've been doing off and on since the 50's), vaccines are required of all deployed military members. The presence of homosexuals is not going to suddenly require the number of vaccines to skyrocket, as we've had to vaccinate the majority of military members due to frequent deployment of most military members since the 50's.
Nonetheless, let's look at your contention that more homosexuals = more Hepatitis, and more Hepatitis = more Hepatitis vaccines. There is an initial screening when you join the military. If you have Hepatitis, then you don't get in; vaccines don't cure all types of Hepatitis, and even for the ones that can be cured, you're not allowed in the military if you previously had Hepatitis. After being screened and deemed to be healthy enough for the military, you are given the same screenings and the same vaccines as everyone else. Again, the incubation period for any disease or virus is going to be the same in anyone. If it's sufficient to annually screen heterosexuals to determine if they've contracted any disease or virus, then it's sufficient for homosexuals as well.
Let's also not forget another important factor. If you contract Hepatitis after being enlisted six months or less, you will be medically discharged. If you contracted the disease after being in more than six months, you will be allowed to stay in until you can no longer perform your duties. Thus, if homosexuals truly do contract Hepatitis at some warp speed, then they'll be medically discharged and no medical bills for vaccines or anything else are paid for by the military. Again, that is their current policy which effectively deals with everyone, including homosexuals.
As I've mentioned before, if the medical screenings and current medical policies for military members are as faulty as you claim, then we've already got a serious issue without even introducing homosexuals. Speaking of the introduction of homosexuals to the military, homosexuals have already been "introduced;" they just can't be open about their sexuality. Unless I've missed something on the news, there has not been some rampant outbreak of Hepatitis and HIV/AIDS which required millions of dollars to treat all of the infected soldiers. Nor have there been outbreaks in countries which allow homosexuals to openly serve.
Diseases are diseases; if we can't efficiently screen them in homosexuals, then we can't efficiently screen them in heterosexuals. A straight sailor on leave can catch a disease between annual screenings just like anyone else. In fact, military members on leave are probably in a higher risk category than your "average" individual who has not spent elongated periods of time away from the opposite sex. Some people view promiscuity and adultery as deviant behavior, too. Maybe we should give a morality test before entering the military so as to further reduce any chances of infection? That seems to be along the lines of what you're advocating.
Wait a minute... The medical aspect of this is very much part of the social experimentation argument.
Your medical argument, as you've presented it in recent posts, dealt with the costs and medical risks of introducing homosexual soldiers.
Comparing a subculture's sexual practices and other deviant behaviors to individual thoughts/beliefs makes no sense to me.
There was no comparison between the two, other than to say that many people are uncomfortable with being in X situation (such as the military) with a variety of types of people. The point that I was making is that the military isn't concerned with how comfortable you are with the guy next to you. This point continues to be made by others when they state that the military isn't a social organization that bends to the whims and preferences of homosexuals. Yet at the same time, many of those same people keep bringing up the fact that heterosexuals may not like being around homosexuals in the military.
The two statements are contradictory. Either the military does cater to individual's preferences on who they would like to serve with or it doesn't. If it does, then the military should take a poll and ask whether homosexuals should serve (as was already suggested by someone else). Additionally, they might as well take a poll and ask if X, Y and Z ethnicities can serve. Afterall, racists exist in the military, and if we're going to make sure everyone's comfortable in the military, then we've got to poll them, too. On the other hand, if they don't cater to individuals' preferences and comfort levels, then it shouldn't matter what Harold Hetero thinks of Gary Gay sitting next to him. You either get to eat your cake or you get to look at it on the plate, not both.
-
They also recommended that children in certain states get the Hepatitis vaccine, as well as other individuals they deemed as high risk for a variety of reasons. Regardless of why they recommend it, the fact still stands that the incubation period for such diseases and viruses are the same in heterosexuals as they are in homosexuals.
I've got nothing... They? I've got nothing...
This is a conclusion that is based upon incorrect assumptions derived from statistics that do not indicate anything about acceleration. You've assumed that the infection rate is "accelerated;" this suggests that they somehow contract HIV/AIDS quicker than other individuals. This is simply not the case. A homosexual does not develop HIV/AIDS any more quickly than anyone else.
The statistics only show that homosexuals make up the majority of HIV/AIDS cases. It does not show that there is some sort of acceleration. Blacks are more likely to have sickle cell anemia, but we don't simply turn them away from the military, nor do we assume that they contract it quicker merely because the disease is more prominent in blacks. They are screened like everyone else, and despite the fact that someone with sickle cell trait may develop sickle cell anemia later, they can still enter the military and are screened annually just like everyone else.
You're playing semantics here. You know what I meant. You have increased incidents of these types of diseases among a group that is characterized by their behavior, not just their sexual preference. Accelerated... Increased... Semantics... Again, I've got nothing.
My point was that vaccines are already required in certain branches, and are required of virtually all deployed military members. Thus, when we're at war with at-risk countries (which we've been doing off and on since the 50's), vaccines are required of all deployed military members. The presence of homosexuals is not going to suddenly require the number of vaccines to skyrocket, as we've had to vaccinate the majority of military members due to frequent deployment of most military members since the 50's.
Oh, I see... So, deployed to at-risk countries, it makes sense to mandate vaccinations. Open enlistment to a group that has increased incidents of these diseases, you don't. Makes a lot of sense... :blink:
Nonetheless, let's look at your contention that more homosexuals = more Hepatitis, and more Hepatitis = more Hepatitis vaccines. There is an initial screening blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah; blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah incubation period for any disease or virus is going to be the same in anyone. If it's sufficient to annually screen heterosexuals to determine if they've contracted any disease or virus, then it's sufficient for homosexuals as well.
Sorry Doctor... I wasn't aware of your expertise on the subject.
Blah blah blah...
Blah blah blah...
Diseases are diseases; if we can't efficiently screen them in homosexuals, then we can't efficiently screen them in heterosexuals. A straight sailor on leave can catch a disease between annual screenings just like anyone else. In fact, military members on leave are probably in a higher risk category than your "average" individual who has not spent elongated periods of time away from the opposite sex.
Again, sorry Doctor... You have all the answers. I don't buy your logic... I don't buy your reasoning... It contradicts CDC information.
Some people view promiscuity and adultery as deviant behavior, too. Maybe we should give a morality test before entering the military so as to further reduce any chances of infection? That seems to be along the lines of what you're advocating.
Only sailors... those filthy beggars!
Your medical argument, as you've presented it in recent posts, dealt with the costs and medical risks of introducing homosexual soldiers.
All very much a part of the social experimentation aspect of this argument.
There was no comparison between the two, other than to say that many people are uncomfortable with being in X situation (such as the military) with a variety of types of people. blah blah blah...
Eric Massa will invite you to his next "tickle party"... Apparently, that's what they do in the military. Unless, that's just another right-wing conspiracy.
-
I've got nothing... They? I've got nothing...
I'm referring to the CDC. They recommended that children in specific states be vaccinated; this probably came from the same CDC report you were referencing, but I guess you conveniently overlooked that and feigned ignorance by asking who is "they."
You're playing semantics here. You know what I meant. You have increased incidents of these types of diseases among a group that is characterized by their behavior, not just their sexual preference. Accelerated... Increased... Semantics... Again, I've got nothing.
Accelerated and an increased number of incidents have two distinct meanings. I may have taken it upon myself to correct you, but I am hardly playing semantics games. My point is that the diseases you refer to don't have a different incubation period in homosexuals; they are not accelerated in any way. A promiscuous sailor could just as easily catch Hepatitis between annual screenings. Is he statistically more likely to do so? Not when compared to a homosexual, but this doesn't change the fact that he could. In fact, because heterosexuals make up the vast majority in the military, and because heterosexuals make up almost half of all HIV/AIDS cases, you've got just about the same chance that your next infected military member is a heterosexual as you do him being a homosexual.
Oh, I see... So, deployed to at-risk countries, it makes sense to mandate vaccinations. Open enlistment to a group that has increased incidents of these diseases, you don't. Makes a lot of sense... :blink:
Maybe you should have read the portion of my response that explained that there is an initial screening upon joining the military. If you have Hepatitis or have had Hepatitis before, you're not allowed in. There is no point in mandating vaccinations for people that you are going to screen. Regardless of the increased number of incidents amongst that particular group of individuals, you're going to know whether they have Hepatitis based upon their screening.
Again, sorry Doctor... You have all the answers. I don't buy your logic... I don't buy your reasoning... It contradicts CDC information.
I didn't see anywhere in the CDC's statistics or reports where it was stated that annual screenings would not be sufficient to screen homosexuals. You're taking the increased number of incidents amongst homosexuals and assuming that an annual screening would not be sufficient to screen homosexuals. It appears that you're the one trying to play doctor by implying that we would have to increase the frequency of screening. Again, either the current screening methods are sufficient or they are not; incubation periods in humans do not differ due to sexual preferences. Let's also not forget that due to the number of heterosexuals in the military and the fact that heterosexuals make up close to half of all HIV/AIDS cases, the odds are pretty much equal as to whether a homosexual or heterosexual military member will become infected.
All very much a part of the social experimentation aspect of this argument.
Medical costs and risks that the military may or may not experience are not part of the social experimentation argument. Your social experimentation argument dealt with individuals' reactions to homosexuals being allowed to openly serve. Others' opinions and reactions don't have anything to do with medical costs and risks. The fact that Harry Hetero is uncomfortable around Gene Gay isn't going to make Hepatitis spread.
Eric Massa will invite you to his next "tickle party"... Apparently, that's what they do in the military. Unless, that's just another right-wing conspiracy.
Ben Cloud can invite you to some of his white "friends'" parties. That's also what racism can do in the military.
-
I'm referring to the CDC. They recommended that children in specific states be vaccinated; this probably came from the same CDC report you were referencing, but I guess you conveniently overlooked that and feigned ignorance by asking who is "they."
CDC or not, you're completely full of freshly packed crap. You saw my reference to the CDC, and there was no mention of "children in specific states" at all.
Accelerated and an increased number of incidents have two distinct meanings. I may have taken it upon myself to correct you, but I am hardly playing semantics games. My point is that the diseases you refer to don't have a different incubation period in homosexuals; they are not accelerated in any way. blah blah whine bitch moan...
You most definitely are playing the semantics game by frolicking down this line of reasoning that focuses on the literal definition of "accelerated". The ratio of homosexuals who have the types of diseases that were discussed is far greater than the ratio of heterosexuals who have these diseases. This incubation period that you reference has nothing to do with this point or this discussion.
Maybe you should have read the portion of my response that explained that there is an initial screening upon joining the military. If you have Hepatitis or have had Hepatitis before, you're not allowed in. There is no point in mandating vaccinations for people that you are going to screen. Regardless of the increased number of incidents amongst that particular group of individuals, you're going to know whether they have Hepatitis based upon their screening.
Your position assumes that this "particular group of individuals" will discontinue the risky behaviors mentioned on the CDC site after they join or after they are screened. It's just a weak nonsensical position.
I didn't see anywhere in the CDC's statistics or reports where it was stated that annual screenings would not be sufficient to screen homosexuals. You're taking the increased number of incidents amongst homosexuals and assuming that an annual screening would not be sufficient to screen homosexuals. It appears that you're the one trying to play doctor by implying that we would have to increase the frequency of screening. Again, either the current screening methods are sufficient or they are not; incubation blah blah blah, whine bitch moan...
Well actually, I just floated the suggestion based on my understanding of the evidence. I even stated something to the effect that I don't have the answer here. You're the guy arguing as though I took the hard position and claimed that additional screenings were absolutely necessary. And, if annual screenings are enough for the military, why else would the CDC recommend outright vaccinations for the MSM community? (That's a rhetorical question... no answer from you is desired.)
Medical costs and risks that the military may or may not experience are not part of the social experimentation argument. Your social experimentation argument dealt with individuals' reactions to homosexuals being allowed to openly serve. Others' opinions and reactions don't have anything to do with medical costs and risks. The fact that Harry Hetero is uncomfortable around Gene Gay isn't going to make Hepatitis spread.
More nonsense... Unbelievable... I'm not concerned about feelings. I don't care about emotions. That's for Liberals, Socialists, little girls and flaming homosexuals. You've jumped to another half-assed conclusion. At least from my perspective, the social experimentation aspect of this has everything to do with consequences, and some of those consequences could lead to things that we're not adequately considering here. Comfort levels? Really?
Ben Cloud can invite you to some of his white "friends'" parties. That's also what racism can do in the military.
There we go. BINGO! To you guys, this discussion about homosexuals is a modern day civil rights debate. It's racist... Well, you've taken a subgroup of individuals and characterized them by their behaviors, as unpopular and risky as those behaviors may be. Now, you want to extend rights, privileges and protections to them. That's absolutely ridiculous. Why don't we protect intravenous drug users? Why don't we protect people who eat their own boogers? Why don't we protect people who eat their own scat? It makes no sense.
-
CDC or not, you're completely full of freshly packed crap. You saw my reference to the CDC, and there was no mention of "children in specific states" at all.
Page 2 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5803.pdf)
In 1996, CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended administration of hepatitis A vaccine for persons at increased risk, including international travelers, men who have sex with men (MSM), injection- and noninjection-drug users, and children living in communities with high rates of disease (1). In 1999, ACIP also recommended that routine vaccination be implemented for children living in 11 states with average hepatitis A rates during 1987–1997 of >20 cases per 100,000 population and also be considered for children in six states with rates of 10–20 cases per 100,000 population (2). In 2006, ACIP expanded these recommendations to include routine vaccination of children in all 50 states (3).
You most definitely are playing the semantics game by frolicking down this line of reasoning that focuses on the literal definition of "accelerated".
When reading the English language, you typically use the literal meaning of a word. It's only when you attempt to supplant alternate, less accepted definitions in order to change the meaning of someone's argument that you play semantics games. Maybe you didn't intend to utilize the mainstream literal meaning of the word "accelerate," but that's no fault of my own.
Your position assumes that this "particular group of individuals" will discontinue the risky behaviors mentioned on the CDC site after they join or after they are screened. It's just a weak nonsensical position.
No, my position assumes that there are heterosexual men in the military who also exhibit risky behaviors which can lead to the contraction of HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and other diseases and infections. If an annual screening is not sufficient to screen homosexuals, then it's not sufficient to screen heterosexuals either. Let's face it: Homosexuals may have a higher incident ratio for HIV/AIDS, but there are far less of them. And because of policies like DADT, there are probably fewer homosexuals in the military relative to heterosexuals than there are in the general public, which is the population to which your CDC stats apply.
Thus, while they make up a slight majority of total HIV/AIDS cases in the general population (between 50-55%), the ratio of homosexual men with HIV/AIDS and heterosexual men with HIV/AIDS in the military will be slightly different. Even if it is a very slight difference (or even no difference), you're still talking about approximately 45% of HIV/AIDS cases being made up by heterosexuals. As mentioned before, the incident ratio does not indicate anything about how quickly or when homosexuals contract the disease. Therefore, while a homosexual may be more likely to contract the disease, you have a relatively high chance of one of your heterosexual military members also catching the disease. If screening is not sufficient for one, it's not sufficient for the other.
And Hepatitis? Well, 39% of new HBV infections among adults are due to heterosexual transmission (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5516.pdf) (Page 6). 16% is due to injection drug use. Meanwhile, only 24% are due to intercourse between men. If you're going to claim that a higher percentage of new infections of a disease amongst a particular group shows an "accelerated" rate of infection within that group that can't be detected by annual screenings, then it looks like we need to step up our efforts in order to stop the spread of Hepatitis B in the military because of all of these deviant heterosexuals.
Well actually, I just floated the suggestion based on my understanding of the evidence. I even stated something to the effect that I don't have the answer here. You're the guy arguing as though I took the hard position and claimed that additional screenings were absolutely necessary.
You floated it. Regardless of whether you took a hard stance on the point, you threw it out there as a question and I explained why additional screenings would not be necessary. If you don't buy my stance, that's fine. However, if you still feel the urge to ask if current annual screenings aren't sufficient based on homosexuals having an "accelerated" risk of contracting HIV/AIDS, then you logically must ask if annual screenings are sufficient for heterosexuals who make up 39% of new HBV transmissions.
And, if annual screenings are enough for the military, why else would the CDC recommend outright vaccinations for the MSM community?
If annual screenings aren't enough for homosexuals because they make up a larger number of new HIV/AIDS cases, then annual screenings aren't enough for heterosexuals because they make up a larger number of new HBV cases.
More nonsense... Unbelievable... I'm not concerned about feelings. I don't care about emotions. That's for Liberals, Socialists, little girls and flaming homosexuals. You've jumped to another half-assed conclusion. At least from my perspective, the social experimentation aspect of this has everything to do with consequences, and some of those consequences could lead to things that we're not adequately considering here. Comfort levels? Really?
If I understand the rest of your posts, you'll just mix the homosexuals with the heterosexuals. You seem so willing to put other people into uncomfortable and potentially disruptive situations.
The homosexual thing doesn't really bother me that much anymore, but if I end up in close-quarters with homosexuals, outside of the military, I have a choice to remove myself or avoid the situation altogether. In the military, you don't have those choices, and we have absolutely no right to force our soldiers into these uncomfortable situations to satisfy your pathetic fetish with "fairness and equality" for all.
You repeatedly reference the comfort level of these troops. If you're not concerned with feelings, comfort levels, beliefs, etc., then I'm not sure why you keep mentioning it. Does your concern for their comfort make you a liberal, socialist, little girl or flaming homosexual?
There we go. BINGO! To you guys, this discussion about homosexuals is a modern day civil rights debate. It's racist... Well, you've taken a subgroup of individuals and characterized them by their behaviors, as unpopular and risky as those behaviors may be. Now, you want to extend rights, privileges and protections to them. That's absolutely ridiculous. Why don't we protect intravenous drug users? Why don't we protect people who eat their own boogers? Why don't we protect people who eat their own scat? It makes no sense.
When you deny a particular group of people of something, it typically becomes a civil rights issue. We denied blacks and women voting rights because they were unpopular and/or suppressed groups at the time. There was no logical or legitimate reason to this; it was simply done because they lacked the political power to change that for years. Our judicial history has shown that if a right or privilege is going to be denied to anyone, much less an entire sub-group, there must be a legitimate reason behind it. If you were to allow the majority to suppress whatever it wanted simply because they were the majority, then you would wind up with the English system of oppression from which our founding fathers fled.
-
Why don't we protect people who eat their own boogers?
Wait, we don't let booger eaters in the military?
-
Page 2 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5803.pdf)
In 1996, CDC’s Advisory Committee on...
Like I suggested, this isn't my original reference. Granted, it's still the CDC, but you had to navigate away from the original summary page and get into the details to find this. Your "feined ignorance" comment is still full of crap, and your pissing matches are boring me...
When reading the English language, you typically...
Really? Seriously??? :taunt:
And Hepatitis? Well, 39% of new HBV infections among adults are due to heterosexual transmission (Page 6). 16% is due to injection drug use. Meanwhile, only 24% are due to intercourse between men. If you're going to claim that a higher percentage of new infections of a disease amongst a particular group shows an "accelerated" rate of infection within that group that can't be detected by annual screenings, then it looks like we need to step up our efforts in order to stop the spread of Hepatitis B in the military because of all of these deviant heterosexuals.
Of course, you do realize that a group making up only 5-7% of the total population also makes up 24% of all new HBV infections. The incident rate is much higher in the homosexual community, so your position is nonsense.
However, if you still feel the urge to ask if current annual screenings aren't sufficient based on homosexuals having an "accelerated" risk of contracting HIV/AIDS, then you logically must ask if annual screenings are sufficient for heterosexuals who make up 39% of new HBV transmissions.
Umm... No... Once again, you do realize that a group making up only 5-7% of the total population also makes up 24% of all new HBV infections. The incident rate is much higher in the homosexual community, so your position is still nonsense.
If annual screenings aren't enough for homosexuals because they make up a larger number of new HIV/AIDS cases, then annual screenings aren't enough for heterosexuals because they make up a larger number of new HBV cases.
But, you do realize that the incident rate is far less in the heterosexual community. Logically, it wouldn't make sense to increase screening for a group that has a significantly lower incident rate.
You repeatedly reference the comfort level of these troops. If you're not concerned with feelings, comfort levels, beliefs, etc., then I'm not sure why you keep mentioning it. Does your concern for their comfort make you a liberal, socialist, little girl or flaming homosexual?
There you go. You got me. Of course, the "comfort level" argument wasn't based on feelings, emotions or the silly concepts of superficial differences that "you people" like to spin. Throw someone into close quarters who may find his comrades sexually appealing. Throw someone into close quarters who has an increased risk of contracting deadly communicable diseases because of their extracurricular activities. Throw someone into close quarters who may have one of those diseases. Throw a deviant like Eric Massa into close quarters who fondles subordinate officers at "tickle parties". We're not talking "comfort levels" as they relate to feelings and emotions; we're talking about disruptive forces and increased risk scenarios that shouldn't be introduced in the military.
When you deny a particular group of people of something, it typically becomes a civil rights issue. We denied blacks and women voting rights because they were unpopular and/or suppressed groups at the time. There was no logical or legitimate reason to this; it was simply done because they lacked the political power to change that for years. Our judicial history has shown that if a right or privilege is going to be denied to anyone, much less an entire sub-group, there must be a legitimate reason behind it. If you were to allow the majority to suppress whatever it wanted simply because they were the majority, then you would wind up with the English system of oppression from which our founding fathers fled.
You've characterized "a particular group of people" by their behavior. There is no right to vote, as the Constitution does not explicitly protect or deny such rights. None of us have a right to join the military. That pretty much sums it up.
Finally, if we continue to let "you people" play your games, we'll have to extend anti-discrimination policies from race, creed, color, religion, sex, age, and sometimes disability to include race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, favorite sexual positions, marital status, number of sexual partners, national origin, booger picking ability, age, sometimes disability, occasionally illness, favorite sport, shoe size, breast size, ass size, eye color, appearance, belt size, baldness and <fill-in-the-blank>. Disgusting...
-
Like I suggested, this isn't my original reference. Granted, it's still the CDC, but you had to navigate away from the original summary page and get into the details to find this. Your "feined ignorance" comment is still full of crap, and your pissing matches are boring me...
You point to a statement from the CDC and it's fine. I point to a statement from the CDC and I'm starting a pissing match. Not to mention that I am referred to as being "completely full of freshly packed crap" for citing to the document which your reference summarized. I guess I'm the bad guy for referring to the same source and taking the time to actually skim the source instead of the summary.
Of course, you do realize that a group making up only 5-7% of the total population also makes up 24% of all new HBV infections. The incident rate is much higher in the homosexual community, so your position is nonsense.
Based on the fact that 39% of new HBV cases come from heterosexual intercourse, you have a larger number of HBV cases coming from heterosexuals than homosexuals. Higher incident rate or not, you have a larger chance of your next HBV infection in the military coming from a heterosexual (and more overall HBV infections being in heterosexuals). Thus, we better make sure that heterosexuals are properly screened.
I understand that a homosexual has a higher chance of contracting HBV. However, there are far fewer of them, and more HBV transmissions occur in heterosexuals. You're going to have more heterosexuals with HBV, and their transmission numbers are higher. If you're truly concerned about the health of the military members, then you recognize that heterosexuals pose a larger threat in regard to HBV due to their higher transmission numbers and their much larger percentage of the population.
There you go. You got me. Of course, the "comfort level" argument wasn't based on feelings, emotions or the silly concepts of superficial differences that "you people" like to spin. Throw someone into close quarters who may find his comrades sexually appealing. Throw someone into close quarters who has an increased risk of contracting deadly communicable diseases because of their extracurricular activities. Throw someone into close quarters who may have one of those diseases. Throw a deviant like Eric Massa into close quarters who fondles subordinate officers at "tickle parties". We're not talking "comfort levels" as they relate to feelings and emotions; we're talking about disruptive forces and increased risk scenarios that shouldn't be introduced in the military.
You used the word "uncomfortable," which is a reference as to how they would feel. You even went as far as to chastise me for even mentioning "comfort levels," as if you had never made the argument. A heterosexual feeling "uncomfortable" has nothing to do with the likelihood that a homosexual will fondle someone or spread a disease. Stating that someone would be "uncomfortable" is referring directly to their feelings; it's not a reference to any risk of a disruptive homosexual force.
As far as these disruptive forces wreaking havoc, homosexuals have already been introduced into the military. I have not heard of an epidemic of Hepatitis, HIV/AIDS or any other disease. I have not heard of frequent incidents of homosexual rape or molestation. You refer to Eric Massa, which is one incident. You also fail to refer to numerous instances involving racists, sexists and heterosexuals. If a handful of instances over several years is enough for you to warrant banning an entire group of people, then I guess we need to ban racists, sexists and even heterosexuals for their sporadic instances of misconduct.
But don't take my word for it; take the word of the posters who have served with homosexuals. Take the word of other countries who have homosexuals serving, some of which allow open homosexuality; they haven't seen disease outbreaks or mass disruption. You've referred to Eric Massa as if that situation is an every day occurrence, or as if it is an occurrence that has decimated our military's ability to function. There are studies and individuals' testimonies on this very forum that refute your exaggerated claims of instant spread of disease and disruptive homosexual debauchery on a large scale.
You've characterized "a particular group of people" by their behavior.
I haven't grouped or characterized them; our government has grouped them by enacting the DADT policy. They opened the door to classify them as a group of people by enacting laws that affect them as a group. My only argument is that the denial of a right or privilege to an entire group requires a legitimate reason. Your "disruptive forces" argument has not proven true in the U.S. military, and it has not proven true in other countries. Your medical argument appears to be a double standard, because you do not advocate that anything be done differently with heterosexuals when it is shown that they actually pose a larger risk for some diseases such as HBV. Maybe I'm being absurdly unreasonable, but I haven't seen a legitimate reason for singling out homosexuals yet.
There is no right to vote, as the Constitution does not explicitly protect or deny such rights. None of us have a right to join the military. That pretty much sums it up.
Please tell me you're not serious about the non-existence of a right to vote? The 26th Amendment states:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
Or maybe Amendment 15, which states:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Or maybe Amendment 19, which states:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
I'm not sure how you could state that there is no right to vote when the Constitution explicitly uses the phrase "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" repeatedly. I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusion that no rights are acknowledged by the Constitution at all. You might want to read Amendments 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, 19, 24 and 26. All of these Amendments explicitly refer to rights of individuals. Of those that don't use the word "right," there are many that still imply that a right exists by stating that the government can not infringe upon certain actions/abilities, such as Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 13.
Regardless, you'll note that I also used the word privilege in my response. Afterall, I never claimed that joining the military was a right; I merely stated that you can not deny a particular group of people a right or a privilege without legitimate reasons. Being able to drive, for instance, is a privilege. Would it be proper for the majority to pass a law that states that Indians can't drive?
Finally, if we continue to let "you people" play your games, we'll have to extend anti-discrimination policies from race, creed, color, religion, sex, age, and sometimes disability to include race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, favorite sexual positions, marital status, number of sexual partners, national origin, booger picking ability, age, sometimes disability, occasionally illness, favorite sport, shoe size, breast size, ass size, eye color, appearance, belt size, baldness and <fill-in-the-blank>. Disgusting...
If you want to ban people from the military because their favorite sport is curling, then yes, "us people" are going to call "you people" out on the absurdity of such a baseless rule.
-
You point to a statement from the CDC and it's fine. I point to a statement from the CDC and I'm starting a pissing match. Not to mention that I am referred to as being "completely full of freshly packed crap" for citing to the document which your reference summarized. I guess I'm the bad guy for referring to the same source and taking the time to actually skim the source instead of the summary.
Nah... You're not a "bad guy". You're just making assumptions again. You also didn't cite my same reference. You went deeper into the CDC site. And yes, at this stage, it's just a pissing match of who can find more facts again. I'm not interested in that... It's boring.
If you're truly concerned about the health of the military members, then you recognize that heterosexuals pose a larger threat in regard to HBV due to their higher transmission numbers and their much larger percentage of the population.
Another pissing match... You're trying to argue the overall quantity of incidents. I don't see any reasonable comparison here. We're talking about admitting a subgroup of individuals who have a higher incident rate. In other words, you're 12 times more likely to find a homosexual with HBV and over 40 times more likely to find a homosexual with HIV compared to heterosexuals.
You used the word "uncomfortable," which is a reference as to how they would feel. You even went as far as to chastise me for even mentioning "comfort levels," as if you had never made the argument. A heterosexual feeling "uncomfortable" has nothing to do with the likelihood that a homosexual will fondle someone or spread a disease. Stating that someone would be "uncomfortable" is referring directly to their feelings; it's not a reference to any risk of a disruptive homosexual force.
Like I said, you got me... You're right to the extent that I mentioned. The "uncomfortable situations" that I mentioned earlier has EVERYTHING to do with being in close proximity of someone who would molest, spread disease or cause disruption. Perhaps, you didn't want to understand my perspective. Another pissing match...
As far as these disruptive forces wreaking havoc, homosexuals have already been introduced into the military. I have not heard of an epidemic of Hepatitis, HIV/AIDS or any other disease. I have not heard of frequent incidents of homosexual rape or molestation. You refer to Eric Massa, which is one incident. You also fail to refer to numerous instances involving racists, sexists and heterosexuals. If a handful of instances over several years is enough for you to warrant banning an entire group of people, then I guess we need to ban racists, sexists and even heterosexuals for their sporadic instances of misconduct.
Eric Massa was "one incident" that's been burried for years. How many others are burried? And, didn't this occur when homosexuals were banned from the military? I don't know about all of these other instances that you reference. Do we really have a problem with racism, sexism and heterosexual issues in the military? Not that I know of, and not that I have heard.
Please tell me you're not serious about the non-existence of a right to vote?
Re-read everything that you've posted and do a little more research. You have no right to vote. The US Constitution does not guarantee this right. Yes, there are amendments that address voting discrimination, but we have no right to vote. It's a common misconception that I thought most people understood. Everything you posted on this confirms my statement.
If you want to ban people from the military because their favorite sport is curling, then yes, "us people" are going to call "you people" out on the absurdity of such a baseless rule.
What if my favorite sport is dog fighting? What about men who like to beat women or have sex with children? How about transgenders and cross-dressers? What about fat people? Why is any subgroup more deserving of protection than another?
-
Nah... You're not a "bad guy". You're just making assumptions again. You also didn't cite my same reference. You went deeper into the CDC site. And yes, at this stage, it's just a pissing match of who can find more facts again. I'm not interested in that... It's boring.
It's boring when I cite stats, but informational when you do it. Got it.
We're talking about admitting a subgroup of individuals who have a higher incident rate. In other words, you're 12 times more likely to find a homosexual with HBV and over 40 times more likely to find a homosexual with HIV compared to heterosexuals.
A smaller subgroup which, while it has a higher incident rate per person, has fewer total infected individuals and fewer total new transmissions each year. More heterosexuals have HBV than homosexuals, and more heterosexuals transmit HBV than homosexuals. Regardless of the fact that any randomly chosen homosexual has a higher chance of getting HBV, the homosexual population is not the subgroup which contributes the most to the spreading of the disease. Again, if it's the number of outbreaks with which you're concerned, then you might want to look at the portion of the population that contributes the most new transmissions and constitutes the most current infections. They're the subgroup that's going to contribute the most to the outbreaks and to the medical costs associated with treating those outbreaks.
Eric Massa was "one incident" that's been burried for years. How many others are burried? And, didn't this occur when homosexuals were banned from the military? I don't know about all of these other instances that you reference. Do we really have a problem with racism, sexism and heterosexual issues in the military? Not that I know of, and not that I have heard.
How many racist incidents are buried? I guess we should ban racists based upon the few instances of misbehavior of which we're aware, because if there was one, then surely we can assume there were others. You blame me for making assumptions, yet your conclusions are drawn on assumptions that there is or will be mass disruption and spreading of diseases. There simply is not any statistical or testimonial indication of this.
Re-read everything that you've posted and do a little more research. You have no right to vote. The US Constitution does not guarantee this right. Yes, there are amendments that address voting discrimination, but we have no right to vote. It's a common misconception that I thought most people understood. Everything you posted on this confirms my statement.
Then please explain exactly what the Constitution is referring to when it uses the phrase "the right of citizens of the United States to vote." Excluding the prepositional phrase "of citizens of the United states" which operates as an adjective that modifies the noun "right," the phrase explicitly reads "the right to vote." Either the Constitution refers to something that doesn't exist, or the right to vote does exist.
What if my favorite sport is dog fighting? What about men who like to beat women or have sex with children? How about transgenders and cross-dressers? What about fat people? Why is any subgroup more deserving of protection than another?
It's not about affording one group more protection; it's about affording each group the same protection. When you single out one group and take away a right or privilege that other groups have, you're affording those other groups more protection. Or, more accurately I guess, you're affording those other groups more privileges/rights. The only acceptable manner in which you can remove the rights or privileges of one group is for a legitimate purpose.
-
It's boring when I cite stats, but informational when you do it. Got it.
It just becomes a pissing match, when you start playing your games of attempting to trump the other guy by spinning alternative stats. You know what you're doing.
A smaller subgroup which, while it has a higher incident rate per person...
You're spinning again...
There simply is not any statistical or testimonial indication of this.
... and the same is true of the counter position as well.
Then please explain exactly what the Constitution is referring to when it uses the phrase "the right of citizens of the United States to vote." Excluding the prepositional phrase "of citizens of the United states" which operates as an adjective that modifies the noun "right," the phrase explicitly reads "the right to vote." Either the Constitution refers to something that doesn't exist, or the right to vote does exist.
Here we go... The Constitution does not explicitly ensure the right to vote, as it does the right to speech. Further, try a court case... In Alexander v Mineta, the Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote.” Need me to go on? How about qualifications? The states are actually empowered with qualifying voters, and as long as they don't violate any of the amendments that you've presented, they can do just about anything to "qualify" voters.
It's not about affording one group more protection; it's about affording each group the same protection. When you single out one group and take away a right or privilege that other groups have, you're affording those other groups more protection. Or, more accurately I guess, you're affording those other groups more privileges/rights. The only acceptable manner in which you can remove the rights or privileges of one group is for a legitimate purpose.
Hey Buttercup... I never said "more protection." You’re arguing with that straw-tiger again. I’m only left to believe that you're just as headstrong permitting pedophiles and cross-dressers to teach adolescent school children. I mean, there’s no “legitimate” reason for preventing them from doing so. You can’t predict that a pedophile will do anything wrong. After all, that’s just an assumption at best… "There simply is not any statistical or testimonial indication" that anything improper would occur.
This thread has gotten so ridiculously twisted... It's boring me...
-
... and the same is true of the counter position as well.
Except for the study I submitted that shows no mass disruption in other countries' militaries due to open homosexuality. And, of course, the testimony of individuals on this forum who stated that they saw no such disruption when individuals were open in their units. You can disprove those sources if you'd like, but pretending like they've never been referenced is patently false.
Here we go... The Constitution does not explicitly ensure the right to vote, as it does the right to speech.
I never said it did. I said that the Constitution refers to "the right to vote." Unless the Constitution is referring to something that doesn't exist, then the right to vote exists.
Further, try a court case... In Alexander v Mineta, the Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote.”
Of course the Constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote; not all citizens are eighteen years of age. Additionally, you're taking the Court's decision completely out of context.
First, the case was not about whether there was a right to vote or not. Rather, it was whether felons could be stripped of the right to vote. Therefore, the Court never stated that there is not a right to vote.
Second, what the Court did state is the following:
"[The Constitution] does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote."
So you see, even the Court in the decision to which you reference recognizes that there is a right to vote. That right may only protect qualified citizens, but it is a right nonetheless. Otherwise, the Court and the Constitution would not have utilized the word "right."
Need me to go on? How about qualifications? The states are actually empowered with qualifying voters, and as long as they don't violate any of the amendments that you've presented, they can do just about anything to "qualify" voters.
The fact that a right can be removed does not mean that it isn't a right. As the Court stated in Alexander v. Mineta, the right to vote is granted to qualified individuals. If you do something that makes you unqualified, then you no longer have that right. This doesn't mean that it's still not a right amongst qualified individuals. And as we've seen with women's suffrage and the civil rights movement, the Court has indicated that you must have a legitimate reason to define someone as unqualified.
You can find this in a variety of other situations. For example, the right to bear arms can be taken away when you achieve felon status. Or, since you have acknowledged that there is a right to free speech, then you might be interested in knowing that your speech can be limited in certain "unqualified" situations. The fact that a right can be removed does not mean it isn't a right.
Hey Buttercup... I never said "more protection." You’re arguing with that straw-tiger again.
However, you did say "more deserving of protection." If we view someone as more deserving of protection, then we are going to give them more protection, are we not? At the very least, you're insinuating that we're going to insure that they're given the same protections as everyone else, but that we're going to watch them more closely and protect their interests more adamantly. Either way, you suggested that we're somehow tiptoeing around them and affording them something extra.
I’m only left to believe that you're just as headstrong permitting pedophiles and cross-dressers to teach adolescent school children. I mean, there’s no “legitimate” reason for preventing them from doing so. You can’t predict that a pedophile will do anything wrong.
There is a difference between a homosexual who is screened and determined to be disease free, and a pedophile who has molested a child previously, and thus does not pass "screening." I mean, afterall, we wouldn't know they were a pedophile unless they had previously been convicted of child molestation, statutory rape or something similar. In one situation, you've got a person who poses no current medical risk and is going to be screened just like everyone else to prevent any medical risks from arising. In the other situation, you have a pedophile who has already done wrong, and thus there is a legitimate reason for restricting their ability to teach kids. It's no different than a convicted felon being stripped of the ability to purchase a gun.
But hey, way to fabricate a strawman argument about me supporting pedophiles and cross dressers. You have a knack for utilizing tactics that you incorrectly call me out on.
-
More pissing...
Except for the study I submitted that shows no mass disruption in other countries' militaries due to open homosexuality. And, of course, the testimony of individuals on this forum who stated that they saw no such disruption when individuals were open in their units. You can disprove those sources if you'd like, but pretending like they've never been referenced is patently false.
Here's a reference...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/18/us.gays.military.srebrenica/index.html?hpt=T2 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/18/us.gays.military.srebrenica/index.html?hpt=T2)
"As a result, they declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military," he said. "That includes the unionization of their militaries. It includes open homosexuality demonstrated in a series of other activities, with a focus on peacekeeping operations, because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back.
"That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war. The case in point that I'm referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs. The battalion was under-strength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off and executed them," Sheehan said.
"That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II."
Note the phrases "socialize their military" and "unionization of their militaries". It's easy to play games in 50,000 foot diatribes without adequately considering the longer term consequences of such actions. But, I'm sure that he's just another bigot... A racist, white Republican... Go ahead and attack him now. That seems to be the modus operandi with you people.
I never said it did. I said that the Constitution refers to "the right to vote." Unless the Constitution is referring to something that doesn't exist, then the right to vote exists.
Of course the Constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote...
So you see, even the Court in the decision...
Blah, blah, blah...
They call that backpedaling.
There is a difference between a homosexual who is screened and determined to be disease free, and a pedophile who has molested a child previously, and thus does not pass "screening." I mean, afterall, we wouldn't know they were a pedophile unless they had previously been convicted of child molestation, statutory rape or something similar. In one situation, you've got a person who poses no current medical risk and is going to be screened just like everyone else to prevent any medical risks from arising. In the other situation, you have a pedophile who has already done wrong, and thus there is a legitimate reason for restricting their ability to teach kids. It's no different than a convicted felon being stripped of the ability to purchase a gun.
But hey, way to fabricate a strawman argument about me supporting pedophiles and cross dressers. You have a knack for utilizing tactics that you incorrectly call me out on.
That's absolutely ridiculous. Didn't you throw this at me a few posts ago?
When you deny a particular group of people of something, it typically becomes a civil rights issue. We denied blacks and women voting rights because they were unpopular and/or suppressed groups at the time. There was no logical or legitimate reason to this; it was simply done because they lacked the political power to change that for years. Our judicial history has shown that if a right or privilege is going to be denied to anyone, much less an entire sub-group, there must be a legitimate reason behind it. If you were to allow the majority to suppress whatever it wanted simply because they were the majority, then you would wind up with the English system of oppression from which our founding fathers fled.
If you truly believe what you have articulated, then you should have no problem extending or protecting these "rights" for cross-dressers, pedophiles, transgenders and others. You're jumping to another half-assed assumption by suggesting a pedophile has victimized a child, and defending your position based on that constraint. A pedophile does not have to act in order to be characterized as a pedophile. That's ridiculous. Of course, I agree with your conviction scenario.
-
Here's a reference...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/18/us.gays.military.srebrenica/index.html?hpt=T2 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/18/us.gays.military.srebrenica/index.html?hpt=T2)Note the phrases "socialize their military" and "unionization of their militaries".
You cite an article that states that one step they took was to allow homosexuals to serve in the military? Did you happen to notice that the article also states that they took to peacekeeping operations, because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again? Call me foolish, but the fact that their ass got stomped might be because they incorrectly believed that the Germans wouldn't attack, which resulted in them not being prepared for the attack. Let's not forget that your own article states the following:
. . . the gay ban was suspended during the Gulf War with no apparent detrimental impact on military readiness.
So, let's see here. During the Gulf War, the gay ban was lifted and no detrimental impact was noted. During the Bosnian massacre, the gay ban was lifted, they took to peacekeeping operations and they weren't expecting the Germans to attack. There is a common denominator in both instances, yet their failure only occurred during one instance. A logical conclusion would be that the common denominator was not the cause of failure, but that the newly introduced factors were. Afterall, if the common denominator in both instances was the reason that they failed, then they would have failed in both instances. However, they didn't.
They call that backpedaling.
Backpedaling? Go back and read my other posts. Please tell me where I ever stated that the Constitution enforces the right to vote. I have repeatedly stated that the Constitution references the right to vote. And if you've ever bothered to read the text of the Constitution, you'd realize that it expressly uses the phrase "the right to vote" (excluding the prepositional phrase that operates as an adjective). My point has consistently been that the Constitution refers to the right. Either the Constitution refers to something that doesn't exist, or the right to vote does exist.
And although you conveniently skipped over the portions of my response which deal with the case that you cited, it is very clear that the Supreme Court agrees with me that a right does exist. So not only did you cite to a case which proved my point, but you then ignored the fact that I pointed this out.
:thumsup:
That's absolutely ridiculous. Didn't you throw this at me a few posts ago?
Nope. At one point I stated that I have no clue as to whether a pedophile's affinity toward children is genetic or not. I also mentioned pedophiles while listing off groups of people to make a point, but I did not state anything about pedophiles in particular. I've never made a statement that pedophiles should be able to teach, serve in the military or any other activity. You're conjuring statements out of thin air, just like you did with the accusation that I was back pedaling from "my" statement that the right to vote is enforced in the Constitution, when I had merely stated that it was referred to in the Constitution. I think this book may be of assistance to you:
(http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6163/1031d.jpg)
If you truly believe what you have articulated, then you should have no problem extending or protecting these "rights" for cross-dressers, pedophiles, transgenders and others.
Have I ever stated that cross dressers should not be able to join the military, or that they should not be able to announce openly that they are cross dressers? Have I said anything like that about transgenders? Have I said anything like that about pedophiles?
You make assumptions that I'm only applying this to homosexuals. Your assumptions are wrong. Unless you can point to a legitimate reason for any subgroup of people to not be in the military, then they can not be banned. Unless you can point to a legitimate reason for disallowing them to voice their lifestyle preferences, then they can not be silenced. This goes for every group: homosexuals, heterosexuals, Satanists, Christians, racists, sexists, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, minorities, etc. You can't legally deny a right or a privilege without a legitimate reason. And before you misread that statement as well, let me make it very clear: I am not stating that all or any of those groups should be in the military. I am simply stating that before you ban any group, you must have a legitimate reason.
You're jumping to another half-assed assumption by suggesting a pedophile has victimized a child, and defending your position based on that constraint. A pedophile does not have to act in order to be characterized as a pedophile. That's ridiculous. Of course, I agree with your conviction scenario.
How do you know them to be a pedophile unless they've acted on their desires? I seriously doubt they're going to check "pedophile" on a military entrance exam. My point was that we're not able to classify someone as a pedophile unless you know they've affected a child, and you're likely not going to know that they've done something to a child until they've been charged and/or convicted with child molestation, statutory rape, child pornography or something similar. Therefore, the classification of a person as a pedophile is not going to be realized until the crime is committed.
-
You cite an article that states that one step they took was to allow homosexuals to serve in the military? Did you happen to notice that the article also states that they took to peacekeeping operations, because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again? Call me foolish, but the fact that their ass got stomped might be because they incorrectly believed that the Germans wouldn't attack, which resulted in them not being prepared for the attack.
So, you refute the General's position. He's wrong, and you're right. His real-world experience must be nothing compared to your vast military experience. I see...
Let's not forget that your own article states the following:
<snip>
So, let's see here. During the Gulf War, the gay ban was lifted and no detrimental impact was noted. During the Bosnian massacre, the gay ban was lifted, they took to peacekeeping operations and they weren't expecting the Germans to attack. There is a common denominator in both instances, yet their failure only occurred during one instance. A logical conclusion would be that the common denominator was not the cause of failure, but that the newly introduced factors were. Afterall, if the common denominator in both instances was the reason that they failed, then they would have failed in both instances. However, they didn't.
Um... That was the counter-position submitted by American Psychological Association. I'm sure that their military expertise is top-notch! Nice spin by the way... I'll leave the final word with the General.
Backpedaling? Go back and read my other posts. Please tell me where I ever stated that the Constitution enforces the right to vote. I have repeatedly stated that the Constitution references the right to vote. And if you've ever bothered to read the text of the Constitution, you'd realize that it expressly uses the phrase "the right to vote" (excluding the prepositional phrase that operates as an adjective). My point has consistently been that the Constitution refers to the right. Either the Constitution refers to something that doesn't exist, or the right to vote does exist.
And although you conveniently skipped over the portions of my response which deal with the case that you cited, it is very clear that the Supreme Court agrees with me that a right does exist. So not only did you cite to a case which proved my point, but you then ignored the fact that I pointed this out.
Unbelievable... Let's try this. You're contending that the Constitution's reference to a "right to vote" implies that the right exists without having to explicitly state that it is as a right. Do you believe that any right can be implied? Is an "implied right" as protected as an explicit right? I don't buy it, and a lot of other folks don't either. And, I don't completely buy into your response to the court case. The states can define the qualifications for voting. Those qualifications can't violate the Amendments that you have referenced, but the states can further qualify or deny voting as they see fit. Again, there really isn't a Constitutional right to vote, just protections from certain qualifications or discrimination.
Nope. At one point I stated that I have no clue as to whether a pedophile's affinity toward children is genetic or not. I also mentioned pedophiles while listing off groups of people to make a point, but I did not state anything about pedophiles in particular. I've never made a statement that pedophiles should be able to teach, serve in the military or any other activity. You're conjuring statements out of thin air, just like you did with the accusation that I was back pedaling from "my" statement that the right to vote is enforced in the Constitution, when I had merely stated that it was referred to in the Constitution. I think this book may be of assistance to you:
Have I ever stated that cross dressers should not be able to join the military, or that they should not be able to announce openly that they are cross dressers? Have I said anything like that about transgenders? Have I said anything like that about pedophiles?
You make assumptions that I'm only applying this to homosexuals. Your assumptions are wrong. Unless you can point to a legitimate reason for any subgroup of people to not be in the military, then they can not be banned. Unless you can point to a legitimate reason for disallowing them to voice their lifestyle preferences, then they can not be silenced. This goes for every group: homosexuals, heterosexuals, Satanists, Christians, racists, sexists, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, minorities, etc. You can't legally deny a right or a privilege without a legitimate reason. And before you misread that statement as well, let me make it very clear: I am not stating that all or any of those groups should be in the military. I am simply stating that before you ban any group, you must have a legitimate reason.
You're nuckin' futs! You've just contradicted yourself again!!! You claim to have not said anything about transgenders, cross-dressers and pedophiles, then you follow up with your statement above. Which is it, and who defines the "legitamte reason(s)" for the denial of anything? I know that you're willing to apply this to all subgroups, and I also know that there are legitimate reasons for denying certain things to certain subgroups.
How do you know them to be a pedophile unless they've acted on their desires? I seriously doubt they're going to check "pedophile" on a military entrance exam. My point was that we're not able to classify someone as a pedophile unless you know they've affected a child, and you're likely not going to know that they've done something to a child until they've been charged and/or convicted with child molestation, statutory rape, child pornography or something similar. Therefore, the classification of a person as a pedophile is not going to be realized until the crime is committed.
Now, you're just plain wacko... Really going off the deep-end here.
-
So, you refute the General's position. He's wrong, and you're right. His real-world experience must be nothing compared to your vast military experience. I see...
I don't refute it; the studies I posted refute it, and your own article cites a source that also refutes him. I would tend to believe multiple sources, two of which are generated reports by multiple researchers, than the opinion of one General.
Um... That was the counter-position submitted by American Psychological Association. I'm sure that their military expertise is top-notch! Nice spin by the way... I'll leave the final word with the General.
You're taking the word of one American General on the reasons for the failure of the Dutch army to prevent the Russians and Germans from attacking Muslims in Bosnia. This was a military conflict in which America was not involved (as far as actual combat goes) until after the 1995 massacre, yet you think that his military knowledge somehow informs him of why the Dutch failed in this particular conflict?
Let's not forget that his military experience is from a country's military that does not allow homosexuals to openly serve. When you combine this with the fact that the Dutch suffered no negative consequences subsequent to lifting the gay ban the first time, this General's opinion fails to be very authoritative. It doesn't take an experienced military genius to see that. The fact that multiple other sources also refute his opinion doesn't help.
I'm also confused by the fact that you initially would not accept my sources and would not cite sources of your own because if you blindly relied upon the research and conclusions/opinions of others, then you'd "believe in global warming, extra-terrestrials, second-hand smoke, poverty causes crime, Santa Claus and the Tooff Fairy." Yet you've mysteriously developed the urge to cite to the opinion of this American General and defend it adamantly despite your previous statements.
Unbelievable... Let's try this. You're contending that the Constitution's reference to a "right to vote" implies that the right exists without having to explicitly state that it is as a right.
The Constitution expressly refers to the "right to vote." It either expressly refers to something that exists, or it expressly refers to something that doesn't exist. Either way, there is no implicit reference; it's very explicit.
Do you believe that any right can be implied? Is an "implied right" as protected as an explicit right? I don't buy it, and a lot of other folks don't either.
Read Roe v. Wade. You won't find the "right to privacy" expressly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court determined that it was an implied right. Read Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. You won't find the "right to die" expressly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court determined that it was an implied right.
The Court's stance on implied rights not mentioned in the Constitution is supported by the text of the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Therefore, the Constitution acknowledges that there are rights which are not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, and it indicates that even those implied rights should be protected.
In case you also don't completely buy this response either, then you might want to look to the founding father who proposed the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment:
James Madison
It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
But of course, all of this discussion about implied rights is irrelevant, as the Constitution expressly makes mention of the "right to vote." Something isn't implicit if it's expressly named. Nonetheless, even if you attempt to reject the argument that the right to vote is expressly within the Constitution, the above information shows that implied rights do exist. Considering that the Court has acknowledged a right to vote, it would at the very least be an implied right, just as the right to privacy and the right to die are implied rights due to the Court's rulings.
And, I don't completely buy into your response to the court case. The states can define the qualifications for voting. Those qualifications can't violate the Amendments that you have referenced, but the states can further qualify or deny voting as they see fit. Again, there really isn't a Constitutional right to vote, just protections from certain qualifications or discrimination.
The states can not deny voting rights to a group of people for any reason they want; it must be a legitimate one. Read Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections. The Court explains that the denial of the right to vote must meet constitutional standards, and it must not be either racially discriminatory or indefensible as rational policy. It's worth noting that in this particular case, the Court determined that Virginia could not single out the poor and remove their right to vote.
You'll also be interested in reading the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It requires some states to seek federal approval before altering their voting rules. Broadly declaring that a state can deny voting rights as they see fit is ignoring the federal oversight involved via the judicial branch's ability to determine constitutionality and the federal approval required by legislation.
You're nuckin' futs! You've just contradicted yourself again!!! You claim to have not said anything about transgenders, cross-dressers and pedophiles, then you follow up with your statement above.
I'm not trying to be an ass here, but please work on your reading comprehension. Not once did I state that I never said "anything" about any of those individuals. See the following:
But hey, way to fabricate a strawman argument about me supporting pedophiles and cross dressers. You have a knack for utilizing tactics that you incorrectly call me out on.
You were under the impression that in some point in time I had made an argument (or otherwise would make an argument) for supporting pedophiles in their attempts to be employed as teachers. Yes, I did mention pedophiles, but no, I never once made any sort of statement that I supported them in anything. Nor did I ever deny not mentioning pedophiles at all; I simply denied making an argument in support of them for anything.
. . . who defines the "legitamte reason(s)" for the denial of anything? I know that you're willing to apply this to all subgroups, and I also know that there are legitimate reasons for denying certain things to certain subgroups.
You're asking a question that can be answered by looking at the basic structure of our government. The legislative branch develops the laws. Ultimately, however, the judicial branch is who decides if the law serves a legitimate purpose (or as the Court put it, it must be rational policy) or if it is a Constitutional violation.
Now, you're just plain wacko... Really going off the deep-end here.
Yes, I'm so crazy that I forgot that you can magically determine if someone is a pedophile before they actually commit a crime against a child. School boards should look into hiring you so that they don't have to rely on criminal background checks to classify individuals as drug dealers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. before they even commit a crime.
-
Vandy Vol is like the British at New Orleans. The war is over, he lost pages and pages ago, but still he wanders into a firefight and gets slaughtered. Carry on, General Pickering.
-
Vandy Vol is like the British at New Orleans. The war is over, he lost pages and pages ago, but still he wanders into a firefight and gets slaughtered. Carry on, General Pickering.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :haha: :haha: :bong: :high: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I'm also confused by the fact that you initially would not accept my sources and would not cite sources of your own because if you blindly relied upon the research and conclusions/opinions of others, then you'd "believe in global warming, extra-terrestrials, second-hand smoke, poverty causes crime, Santa Claus and the Tooff Fairy." Yet you've mysteriously developed the urge to cite to the opinion of this American General and defend it adamantly despite your previous statements.
I don't blindly believe it or "defend it adamantly". I just find it interesting that a retired general "comes out" with the exact same position that I've stated in this very thread. Plus, the fact that you can't seem to have an opinion of your own without cited references, I thought it would help to expand your horizons a little.
The Constitution expressly refers to the "right to vote." It either expressly refers to something that exists, or it expressly refers to something that doesn't exist. Either way, there is no implicit reference; it's very explicit.
Right... Do you think before you type this stuff? Explicit? Really???
The Court's stance on implied rights not mentioned in the Constitution is supported by the text of the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Therefore, the Constitution acknowledges that there are rights which are not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, and it indicates that even those implied rights should be protected.
I'm good with that explanation and generally agree with it. You've shown that a right could "exist", but without "enumeration" in the Constitution, it is not explicit and cannot necessarily be considered as Constitutionally protected. This is where many have a problem.
The states can not deny voting rights to a group of people for any reason they want; it must be a legitimate one. Read Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections. The Court explains that the denial of the right to vote must meet constitutional standards, and it must not be either racially discriminatory or indefensible as rational policy. It's worth noting that in this particular case, the Court determined that Virginia could not single out the poor and remove their right to vote.
You'll also be interested in reading the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It requires some states to seek federal approval before altering their voting rules. Broadly declaring that a state can deny voting rights as they see fit is ignoring the federal oversight involved via the judicial branch's ability to determine constitutionality and the federal approval required by legislation.
Again, your quest for a pissing match... I never challenged any of the above. You're attempting to make an argument where one does not exist. It's like challenging the "wetness" of water. Frustrating and annoying...
I'm not trying to be an ass here, but please work on your reading comprehension. Not once did I state that I never said "anything" about any of those individuals.
You were under the impression that in some point in time I had made an argument (or otherwise would make an argument) for supporting pedophiles in their attempts to be employed as teachers. Yes, I did mention pedophiles, but no, I never once made any sort of statement that I supported them in anything. Nor did I ever deny not mentioning pedophiles at all; I simply denied making an argument in support of them for anything.
Oh... So now, we're playing the literal game. I see. By the way, it seems that you don't have to try...
You're asking a question that can be answered by looking at the basic structure of our government. The legislative branch develops the laws. Ultimately, however, the judicial branch is who decides if the law serves a legitimate purpose (or as the Court put it, it must be rational policy) or if it is a Constitutional violation.
This is unbelievable. Wake me up when you're done espousing this schit... In this thread, you seemed pretty quick to discredit everyone else's "legitamate reason(s)". Now, you're throwing this out?
Yes, I'm so crazy that I forgot that...
Seriously, do you hear yourself? Was it really necessary to walk down that street?
-
Right... Do you think before you type this stuff? Explicit? Really???
Do you read the Constitution before you type this stuff?
Main Entry: ex·plic·it
Pronunciation: \ik-ˈspli-sət\
Function: adjective
1 a : precisely and clearly expressed or readily observable; leaving nothing to implication; "explicit instructions"
The phrase "the right to vote" is in the Constitution. You do not have to read anything into the Constitution to determine if the right to vote exists; it is readily observable within the Constitution.
I'm good with that explanation and generally agree with it. You've shown that a right could "exist", but without "enumeration" in the Constitution, it is not explicit and cannot necessarily be considered as Constitutionally protected. This is where many have a problem.
First, it is enumerated in the Constitution, as the "right to vote" is plainly within the text. Second, even if you still unreasonably refute this, implied rights are Constitutionally protected. Again, I'd suggest that you read Roe v. Wade and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. The Court finds that implied rights are Constitutionally protected. This is due to the fact that the implication was derived from the Constitution itself.
Again, your quest for a pissing match... I never challenged any of the above. You're attempting to make an argument where one does not exist. It's like challenging the "wetness" of water. Frustrating and annoying...
There is no pissing match. You made an incorrect statement about the ability of states to remove voting rights as they see fit. Because there is federal oversight on the judicial and legislative levels, states can not remove voting rights as they see fit.
Oh... So now, we're playing the literal game. I see.
Call it a game if you'd like, but this was simply another instance in which you made a false statement. You attempted to declare that I had made a statement about never saying "anything" about pedophiles. In actuality I had agreed that I had mentioned pedophiles, but that I had never made any sort of argument for pedophiles. If you're going to get butt sore about being called out on making incorrect statements, then don't make them.
This is unbelievable. Wake me up when you're done espousing this schit... In this thread, you seemed pretty quick to discredit everyone else's "legitamate reason(s)". Now, you're throwing this out?
Banning or otherwise limiting homosexuals in the military simply because you find their behavior deviant or immoral is not a legitimate reason. Ensuring that heterosexual military members are comfortable is not a legitimate reason. Ensuring the medical safety of military members is a legitimate reason. However, you point to possibilities and not actualities. All homosexuals don't have AIDS, Hepatitis, or any other disease. Do they have a higher chance of contracting some diseases? Sure, but you also have a higher chance of having more heterosexuals contract HBV due to A) the higher number of transmissions amongst heterosexuals, and B) the far greater number of heterosexuals. Thus, your medical safety argument based on possibilities and not actualities would lead to us banning heterosexuals because of the potential risk they pose to medical safety.
Seriously, do you hear yourself? Was it really necessary to walk down that street?
I'd love to hear how you're going to identify a pedophile when they've committed no crime against a child. Sure, you can continue to ignore my points with ad hominem attacks, but that's not advancing your argument any.
-
Do you read the Constitution before you type this stuff?
Main Entry: ex·plic·it
Pronunciation: \ik-ˈspli-sət\
Function: adjective
1 a : precisely and clearly expressed or readily observable; leaving nothing to implication; "explicit instructions"
The phrase "the right to vote" is in the Constitution. You do not have to read anything into the Constitution to determine if the right to vote exists; it is readily observable within the Constitution.
Really? Because right to vote is only discussed in subsequent amendments, not the original Constitution and at no time even in those is the phrase "right to vote" utilized in a manner that supports your position.
First, it is enumerated in the Constitution, as the "right to vote" is plainly within the text. Second, even if you still unreasonably refute this, implied rights are Constitutionally protected. Again, I'd suggest that you read Roe v. Wade and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. The Court finds that implied rights are Constitutionally protected. This is due to the fact that the implication was derived from the Constitution itself.
There is no pissing match. You made an incorrect statement about the ability of states to remove voting rights as they see fit. Because there is federal oversight on the judicial and legislative levels, states can not remove voting rights as they see fit.
Other than the right to prevent people from voting for reasons of race, color or previous servitude (1870); the right to deny voting privileges based on sex (1920); the right to deny voting for unpaid tax (1964); or to deny those over 18 (1971) the Constitution (and its amendments) doesn't prevent states from barring citizens to vote for any legitimate reason.
In fact, perhaps you should review Amendment 14:
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
It implicitly (and by your definition, therefore also explicitly) gives states the right to bar citizens from voting as it provides a remedy for what happens when states do.
-
Really? Because right to vote is only discussed in subsequent amendments, not the original Constitution and at no time even in those is the phrase "right to vote" utilized in a manner that supports your position.
Are you suggesting that the right to free speech and the right to bear arms are not rights or are otherwise "lesser" rights because they're in an Amendment? The Supreme Court has never stated that Amendments are not part of the Constitution or otherwise less important.
My position is that the right to vote is indeed a right. The Constitution refers to it as a right and the Supreme Court refers to it as a right. Additionally, the Supreme Court has determined that the right to vote can not be removed if it violates Constitutional standards or is otherwise not a rational policy. Thus, my position is very well supported.
Other than the right to prevent people from voting for reasons of race, color or previous servitude (1870); the right to deny voting privileges based on sex (1920); the right to deny voting for unpaid tax (1964); or to deny those over 18 (1971) the Constitution (and its amendments) doesn't prevent states from barring citizens to vote for any legitimate reason.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. They prevented a state from denying the poor the right to vote despite the fact that there is no Amendment which mentions anything about the poor.
In fact, perhaps you should review Amendment 14:
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Perhaps you should review Supreme Court case law. They are, afterall, the authoritative figure on constitutional interpretation, and they have determined that states can not remove the right to vote from a group of people for any reason they wish.
-
Are you suggesting that the right to free speech and the right to bear arms are not rights or are otherwise "lesser" rights because they're in an Amendment? The Supreme Court has never stated that Amendments are not part of the Constitution or otherwise less important.
My position is that the right to vote is indeed a right. The Constitution refers to it as a right and the Supreme Court refers to it as a right. Additionally, the Supreme Court has determined that the right to vote can not be removed if it violates Constitutional standards or is otherwise not a rational policy. Thus, my position is very well supported.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. They prevented a state from denying the poor the right to vote despite the fact that there is no Amendment which mentions anything about the poor.
Perhaps you should review Supreme Court case law. They are, afterall, the authoritative figure on constitutional interpretation, and they have determined that states can not remove the right to vote from a group of people for any reason they wish.
Ok, so now you say it's not in the Constitution, but has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. That has nothing to do with one being lesser or greater, it only goes to your inaccuracy.
Your original contention was that it was very plainly in the Constitution. It's not. So you shift to later Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court has ruled in specific cases, but has not issued any mandate that says voting rights CANNOT be restricted for any reason. States do have the right to restrict such -- pending SC review, of course -- and you certainly cannot determine how the court will rule the next time (if there is one) this issue is brought before it.
There has been discussion of restricting people who've had DUI arrests from voting. The state may determine that if you don't participate in the national healthcare plan you can't vote. Those who are penalized may petition that their rights have been abridged and could potentially have that case heard by the SC. Then, perhaps, you'd see yet another ruling.
To assume as broadly as you do is wrong, however.
-
Ok, so now you say it's not in the Constitution, but has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. That has nothing to do with one being lesser or greater, it only goes to your inaccuracy.
Your original contention was that it was very plainly in the Constitution. It's not. So you shift to later Supreme Court rulings.
Nope. I never once said it wasn't in the Constitution. Stating that the Supreme Court has ruled X does not mean that it is no longer in the Constitution. In fact, one of the Supreme Court's major roles is to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, when they make a ruling on something constitutional, they are ruling that it is in the Constitution. So no, my reliance on the Supreme Court's rulings does not contradict or negate the fact that the right to vote is still in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled in specific cases, but has not issued any mandate that says voting rights CANNOT be restricted for any reason. States do have the right to restrict such -- pending SC review, of course -- and you certainly cannot determine how the court will rule the next time (if there is one) this issue is brought before it.
If you've ever read a Supreme Court ruling, then you realize that they often make broad rules governing a variety of situations. Although they ruled on Virginia's specific ban on the poor in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, they also stated the general rule that voting rights can not be removed if it is not a rational policy. Their ruling further defined constitutional protections for voters; it did not only apply to poor voters.
There has been discussion of restricting people who've had DUI arrests from voting. The state may determine that if you don't participate in the national healthcare plan you can't vote. Those who are penalized may petition that their rights have been abridged and could potentially have that case heard by the SC. Then, perhaps, you'd see yet another ruling.
According to the Voting Rights Act, these changes would have to be approved by the federal government. And despite the fact that state legislators make succeed in making such laws, that doesn't make them constitutionally valid. Laws have been overturned.
-
Do you read the Constitution before you type this stuff?
Main Entry: ex·plic·it
Pronunciation: \ik-ˈspli-sət\
Function: adjective
1 a : precisely and clearly expressed or readily observable; leaving nothing to implication; "explicit instructions"
The phrase "the right to vote" is in the Constitution. You do not have to read anything into the Constitution to determine if the right to vote exists; it is readily observable within the Constitution.
Wow... Are you kidding me? That's incredible. You're a master of the American English language in your own mind. I'm going to let you sit in your own scat for a while.
First, it is enumerated in the Constitution, as the "right to vote" is plainly within the text.
Right... Yeah... OK...
There is no pissing match. You made an incorrect statement about the ability of states to remove voting rights as they see fit. Because there is federal oversight on the judicial and legislative levels, states can not remove voting rights as they see fit.
Still pissing... Of course, this "federal oversight" that you speak of only came later, after the Constitution. States can still further qualify voters, as we have already discussed.
Call it a game if you'd like, but this was simply another instance in which you made a false statement. You attempted to declare that I had made a statement about never saying "anything" about pedophiles. In actuality I had agreed that I had mentioned pedophiles, but that I had never made any sort of argument for pedophiles. If you're going to get butt sore about being called out on making incorrect statements, then don't make them.
Well, that's just another instance where you're wrong. I never accused you have making any particular statement, other than the fact that you extended your concept of "civil rights" to groups like homosexuals, pedophiles, cross-dressers and such. You technically agreed, but then you backpedaled a bit.
Banning or otherwise limiting homosexuals in the military simply because you find their behavior deviant or immoral is not a legitimate reason. Ensuring that heterosexual military members are comfortable is not a legitimate reason. Ensuring the medical safety of military members is a legitimate reason. However, you point to possibilities and not actualities. All homosexuals don't have AIDS, Hepatitis, or any other disease. Do they have a higher chance of contracting some diseases? Sure, but you also have a higher chance of having more heterosexuals contract HBV due to A) the higher number of transmissions amongst heterosexuals, and B) the far greater number of heterosexuals. Thus, your medical safety argument based on possibilities and not actualities would lead to us banning heterosexuals because of the potential risk they pose to medical safety.
So now, you're the judge, doctor and final say on this. I see... :rofl:
I'd love to hear how you're going to identify a pedophile when they've committed no crime against a child. Sure, you can continue to ignore my points with ad hominem attacks, but that's not advancing your argument any.
The stupidity of your position applies to homosexuals in the same exact way. How do you know that someone is a <fill-in-the-blank>? They have to tell you, and if they don't admit to it, they're lying. You had to get all goofy by bringing crime into this. That makes it a completely different situation.
-
Nope. I never once said it wasn't in the Constitution. Stating that the Supreme Court has ruled X does not mean that it is no longer in the Constitution. In fact, one of the Supreme Court's major roles is to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, when they make a ruling on something constitutional, they are ruling that it is in the Constitution. So no, my reliance on the Supreme Court's rulings does not contradict or negate the fact that the right to vote is still in the Constitution.
If you've ever read a Supreme Court ruling, then you realize that they often make broad rules governing a variety of situations. Although they ruled on Virginia's specific ban on the poor in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, they also stated the general rule that voting rights can not be removed if it is not a rational policy. Their ruling further defined constitutional protections for voters; it did not only apply to poor voters.
According to the Voting Rights Act, these changes would have to be approved by the federal government. And despite the fact that state legislators make succeed in making such laws, that doesn't make them constitutionally valid. Laws have been overturned.
Dude - do you ever get any work done?
-
Still pissing... Of course, this "federal oversight" that you speak of only came later, after the Constitution. States can still further qualify voters, as we have already discussed.
It's only pissing if you don't like facts. Regardless, the Voting Rights Act was challenged on its constitutionality and it was found valid. The fact that a law was developed after the Constitution does not mean it has no authority, nor does it mean that it is unconstitutional. No matter how much you want to beat around the bush, your statement that any state can regulate voting as they wish is simply not true.
Well, that's just another instance where you're wrong. I never accused you have making any particular statement, other than the fact that you extended your concept of "civil rights" to groups like homosexuals, pedophiles, cross-dressers and such. You technically agreed, but then you backpedaled a bit.
If you want to keep arguing this, then I'm just going to have to point out what exactly was said, because you apparently don't remember anything you've previously stated.
I’m only left to believe that you're just as headstrong permitting pedophiles and cross-dressers to teach adolescent school children.
But hey, way to fabricate a strawman argument about me supporting pedophiles and cross dressers. You have a knack for utilizing tactics that you incorrectly call me out on.
That's absolutely ridiculous. Didn't you throw this at me a few posts ago?
Nope. At one point I stated that I have no clue as to whether a pedophile's affinity toward children is genetic or not. I also mentioned pedophiles while listing off groups of people to make a point, but I did not state anything about pedophiles in particular. I've never made a statement that pedophiles should be able to teach, serve in the military or any other activity.
You're nuckin' futs! You've just contradicted yourself again!!! You claim to have not said anything about transgenders, cross-dressers and pedophiles, then you follow up with your statement above.
You were under the impression that in some point in time I had made an argument (or otherwise would make an argument) for supporting pedophiles in their attempts to be employed as teachers. Yes, I did mention pedophiles, but no, I never once made any sort of statement that I supported them in anything. Nor did I ever deny not mentioning pedophiles at all; I simply denied making an argument in support of them for anything.
If you still think that I'm somehow contradicting myself, playing "literal games," or some other nonsense after reading the above exchange, then I'm afraid you're beyond help when it comes to comprehending what a sentence written in English says.
So now, you're the judge, doctor and final say on this. I see... :rofl:
You look at some stats from the CDC, draw a conclusion about why homosexuals shouldn't be in the military, and your final determination is self declared as the correct conclusion. You expect this to be accepted as gospel and that no one should have a differing opinion, and if they do, then they're blubbering idiots who you proceed to assume think they know everything. Yet when I look at stats from the CDC and draw a conclusion about why homosexuals should be in the military, I'm labeled as the judge, doctor and final say?
The stupidity of your position applies to homosexuals in the same exact way. How do you know that someone is a <fill-in-the-blank>? They have to tell you, and if they don't admit to it, they're lying. You had to get all goofy by bringing crime into this. That makes it a completely different situation.
Then how exactly do you plan to prevent homosexuals from entering the military? How can you trust the CDC stats that you have paraded about if we don't know who is a homosexual, much less who is a homosexual with X disease? You're adamantly professing that they're going to bring a plague upon the military, yet you admit that you have no way of identifying them, and therefore can't prevent them from spreading this assumed plague of epic proportions.
-
Dude - do you ever get any work done?
Yup. The majority of work that I do can be done at any time of the day.
And, of course, the majority of my posts come after 1:00PM. This is more than can be said for some people...
:poke:
-
It's only pissing if you don't like facts...
Wrong again, Sweetheart... It's pissing when you spin the discussion way off-topic in an attempt to prove some silly semi-related position.
If you want to keep arguing this, then I'm just going to have to point out what exactly was said, because you apparently don't remember anything you've previously stated.
<snip>
If you still think that I'm somehow contradicting myself, playing "literal games," or some other nonsense after reading the above exchange, then I'm afraid you're beyond help when it comes to comprehending what a sentence written in English says.
Way to go with the "quote" function! Some people still haven't figured it out in here. The only problem is that you forgot what initiated my little jab...
It's not about affording one group more protection; it's about affording each group the same protection. When you single out one group and take away a right or privilege that other groups have, you're affording those other groups more protection. Or, more accurately I guess, you're affording those other groups more privileges/rights. The only acceptable manner in which you can remove the rights or privileges of one group is for a legitimate purpose.
Followed by...
Hey Buttercup... I never said "more protection." You’re arguing with that straw-tiger again. I'm only left to believe that you're just as headstrong permitting pedophiles and cross-dressers to teach adolescent school children. I mean, there's no "legitimate" reason for preventing them from doing so. You can't predict that a pedophile will do anything wrong. After all, that's just an assumption at best... "There simply is not any statistical or testimonial indication" that anything improper would occur.
So, piss and whine all you want... Rather than refuting my jab, you went down some silly criminal argument that's completely unrelated to this. Wacko, if you ask me...
You look at some stats from the CDC, draw a conclusion about why homosexuals shouldn't be in the military, and your final determination is self declared as the correct conclusion. You expect this to be accepted as gospel and that no one should have a differing opinion, and if they do, then they're blubbering idiots who you proceed to assume think they know everything. Yet when I look at stats from the CDC and draw a conclusion about why homosexuals should be in the military, I'm labeled as the judge, doctor and final say?
Along the way, through our little exchange, I've said that I'm no expert several times. Rather than accept that, you challenged my positions with your own rants, points and specs of research. I said that I was leaving the final say with the General, and you're still making this about me. Perhaps, if you didn't rant like a know-it-all expert on everything under the sun, you'd have a little more credibility on the board.
Then how exactly do you plan to prevent homosexuals from entering the military? How can you trust the CDC stats that you have paraded about if we don't know who is a homosexual, much less who is a homosexual with X disease? You're adamantly professing that they're going to bring a plague upon the military, yet you admit that you have no way of identifying them, and therefore can't prevent them from spreading this assumed plague of epic proportions.
You've lost me. You were the one who said... Oh nevermind... I'm done fooling with your silly-assed pissing matches. Grow up. Experience some life... successes and failures. Establish some perspective. And, let me know when you're ready to discuss something without Googling for the latest lamestream opinion.
-
I want to give ya'll a huge fist up the ass, Jumbo style. For mastering the quote function.
:thumsup:
-
Wrong again, Sweetheart... It's pissing when you spin the discussion way off-topic in an attempt to prove some silly semi-related position.
Way to go with the "quote" function! Some people still haven't figured it out in here. The only problem is that you forgot what initiated my little jab...
Followed by...So, piss and whine all you want... Rather than refuting my jab, you went down some silly criminal argument that's completely unrelated to this. Wacko, if you ask me...
Along the way, through our little exchange, I've said that I'm no expert several times. Rather than accept that, you challenged my positions with your own rants, points and specs of research. I said that I was leaving the final say with the General, and you're still making this about me. Perhaps, if you didn't rant like a know-it-all expert on everything under the sun, you'd have a little more credibility on the board.
You've lost me. You were the one who said... Oh nevermind... I'm done fooling with your silly-assed pissing matches. Grow up. Experience some life... successes and failures. Establish some perspective. And, let me know when you're ready to discuss something without Googling for the latest lamestream opinion.
Quit kicking the poor guy. He's endured enough of your ass rapings in this thread. He reminds me of Apollo Creed in Rocky IV right before the Russian killed him.
GarMan gets it.
-
Quit kicking the poor guy. He's endured enough of your ass rapings in this thread. He reminds me of Apollo Creed in Rocky IV right before the Russian killed him.
GarMan gets it.
(http://static.open.salon.com/files/apollo_creed1255317580.jpg)
-
Quit kicking the poor guy. He's endured enough of your ass rapings in this thread. He reminds me of Apollo Creed in Rocky IV right before the Russian killed him.
GarMan gets it.
How anyone can interpret the events that have taken place between VV & Garman in any of these threads is both amazing and frightening at the same time.
-
How anyone can interpret the events that have taken place between VV & Garman in any of these threads is both amazing and frightening at the same time.
It's pretty obvious that VV is drowning in all these threads. He's been dropkicked from hell to breakfast.
Doesn't take a genius to see it.
-
It's pretty obvious that VV is drowning in all these threads. He's been dropkicked from hell to breakfast.
Doesn't take a genius to see it.
It sure doesn't. It takes a moron.
-
It sure doesn't. It takes a moron.
Then it ought to be crystal clear to you.
-
How anyone can interpret the events that have taken place between VV & Garman in any of these threads is both amazing and frightening at the same time.
Interpreting the events that took place between the Ivan Drago and Apollo is definitely amazing and frightening! So there ya go Chad. Now - are you jumping in here due to feeling sorry for VV? I am just curious - no , seriously.
-
Because responding to cold hard facts with such compelling arguments as:
Right... Do you think before you type this stuff? Explicit? Really???
Wow... Are you kidding me? That's incredible. You're a master of the American English language in your own mind. I'm going to let you sit in your own scat for a while.
Right... Yeah... OK...
This is unbelievable. Wake me up when you're done espousing this schit
Seriously, do you hear yourself? Was it really necessary to walk down that street?
is really throwing haymakers.
The few attempts at any substance were him trying to argue constitutional law with a lawyer, and clearly having a poor comprehension on what he thinks he knows. Why is it that this general he keeps bringing up is the be-all-end-all authority on military service, yet the lawyers participating in this thread have no idea about the law?
In all of the threads I have kept up with here, VV has done nothing but introduce facts and logic and is met with "Gah, ur so dumb!!!!1" or "Pffft. One day u'll lurn boy!"
-
Because responding to cold hard facts with such compelling arguments as:is really throwing haymakers.
The few attempts at any substance were him trying to argue constitutional law with a lawyer, and clearly having a poor comprehension on what he thinks he knows. Why is it that this general he keeps bringing up is the be-all-end-all authority on military service, yet the lawyers participating in this thread have no idea about the law?
In all of the threads I have kept up with here, VV has done nothing but introduce facts and logic and is met with "Gah, ur so dumb!!!!1" or "Pffft. One day u'll lurn boy!"
Absolutely unbelievable.
Facts? Logic? My fucking ass.
"Studies" (which appear to be the sum total of his alleged knowledge) are neither "fact" nor "logic."
As for the law degree claim, I agree that theoretically this should give him a leg up. But he's demonstrated that it really doesn't in some instances. For the record, some of the biggest most clueless idiots I've ever met in my life are lawyers.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, VV has been slapped around like Ali on Liston or Tyson on Spinks in most of these threads. His "studies" are paper-thin. Sure he uses a lot of words and that has apparently fooled you. But behind all those words there is nothing but eggshell. His "points" have been blasted out of the water time and time again. He's twisted himself into a pretzel with his constantly shifting claims.
-
Because responding to cold hard facts with such compelling arguments as:is really throwing haymakers.
The few attempts at any substance were him trying to argue constitutional law with a lawyer, and clearly having a poor comprehension on what he thinks he knows. Why is it that this general he keeps bringing up is the be-all-end-all authority on military service, yet the lawyers participating in this thread have no idea about the law?
In all of the threads I have kept up with here, VV has done nothing but introduce facts and logic and is met with "Gah, ur so dumb!!!!1" or "Pffft. One day u'll lurn boy!"
You do know most of our Congressman who just pissed on the Constitution are lawyers right? Doesn't mean a damn thing. All VV has done is take others' opinions (via a "study"), introduce it as "fact", and use it to back his own personal "opinion". I looked at this thread very objectively on the back and forth between him and everyone else and he has come across as looking like a smartassed know it all who likes to Google "studies" to support his own position with no give in his argument. Many of those arguments may fly in his SDS club, but they don't hold water against real world common sense. His attitude and superiority complex I think are what many had an issue with. And to think the left likes to say the right are the dogmatic ones.. HA
-
Sure he uses a lot of words and that has apparently fooled you. But behind all those words there is nothing but eggshell. His "points" have been blasted out of the water time and time again. He's twisted himself into a pretzel with his constantly shifting claims.
It appears you're either too dense to follow his well laid out arguments, or too stubborn to even try.
-
Because responding to cold hard facts with such compelling arguments as:is really throwing haymakers.
Yet you're conveniently silent on the condescending, know-it-all language of his posts...
The few attempts at any substance were him trying to argue constitutional law with a lawyer, and clearly having a poor comprehension on what he thinks he knows. Why is it that this general he keeps bringing up is the be-all-end-all authority on military service, yet the lawyers participating in this thread have no idea about the law?
A lawyer... :rofl:
You see; I didn't really play fair here. I know the truth. I let him bury himself on this one. I baited him, and he took it. He’s so intent on arguing anything and everything that he takes belligerence to a new level.
The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.
Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose.
A close reading of the decision in that case, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, reveals a clear consensus for what will strike many Americans as an outrageous proposition: there is no constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election. The fact that the state in which you reside even permits you to vote for electors is purely a matter of legislative grace.
I guess this guy, Dorf, a nationally recognized law professor from Cornell, is wrong-wrong-wrong, if I understand the genius of VV correctly. VV knows more cuz he says so... The final word... The enlightened one...
In all of the threads I have kept up with here, VV has done nothing but introduce facts and logic and is met with "Gah, ur so dumb!!!!1" or "Pffft. One day u'll lurn boy!"
FACTS: I know... He's mastered The Google Search function. He researches and posts a lot of stuff.
LOGIC: It just seems that he has a problem applying what he Googles appropriately.
It must be lonely looking down on the rest of us from that crystal pedestal...
-
It appears you're either too dense to follow his well laid out arguments, or too stubborn to even try.
His arguments are well crafted but hold nothing.
Even the most beautiful basket can be empty.
-
His arguments are well crafted but hold nothing.
Even the most beautiful basket can be empty.
Would you say its more like a chandelier in a haunted house or a house with no furniture?
-
Would you say its more like a chandelier in a haunted house or a house with no furniture?
Empty trailer.
Maybe it's got brick underpinnings and a ramshackle wooden room tacked on the back, but at the end it's still a trailer. And an empty one at that. Doesn't matter how many times he calls it "the homestead" or "tha mansion"
-
Empty trailer.
Maybe it's got brick underpinnings and a ramshackle wooden room tacked on the back, but at the end it's still a trailer. And an empty one at that. Doesn't matter how many times he calls it "the homestead" or "tha mansion"
Wiff da Googles at his fingatips and an above-ground pewl...
-
Way to go with the "quote" function! Some people still haven't figured it out in here. The only problem is that you forgot what initiated my little jab...
Are you fucking kidding me? You accuse me of making some sort of argument supporting pedophiles. In an attempt to show that you didn't, you quote a portion of your conversation that doesn't even mention the word pedophile? Neither of us even mentioned "pedophile" in any of those quotes you cited. How exactly does this pertain to your statement that I would support pedophiles in their journey to become teachers?
Along the way, through our little exchange, I've said that I'm no expert several times. Rather than accept that, you challenged my positions with your own rants, points and specs of research. I said that I was leaving the final say with the General, and you're still making this about me. Perhaps, if you didn't rant like a know-it-all expert on everything under the sun, you'd have a little more credibility on the board.
And I'm leaving the final say with the multiple studies, opinions of military members on this board, and the military members who have advocated the repeal of DADT. It's odd that you label me as a know-it-all when I've been citing to sources this entire thread; you're the one who refused to utilize sources for the longest time and merely spouted your vast knowledge.
-
I guess this guy, Dorf, a nationally recognized law professor from Cornell, is wrong-wrong-wrong, if I understand the genius of VV correctly.
Dorf is not on the Supreme Court, and thus his interpretation of the Constitution is not authoritative. You've heard of the Supreme Court, right? It might help if you actually read the case as well, instead of taking Dorf's comments out of context. The Court had this to say about the right to vote:
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
[T]he right to vote in federal elections is conferred by Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution (United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 314-315)
It is argued that the right to vote in state elections is implicit, particularly by reason of the First Amendment, and that it may not constitutionally be conditioned upon the payment of a tax or fee. Cf. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113. We do not stop to canvass the relation between voting and political expression. For it is enough to say that, once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Bush v. Gore
When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.
The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another.
As I've said over and over, the right to vote is referenced in the Constitution; the Supreme Court even declares that the right to vote in federal elections is conferred by the Constitution explicitly. Regardless of the fact that the right to vote in state elections is granted by states (and can be removed by states), this does not mean it is not a right.
Your statement that the right to vote doesn't exist was false, plain and simple. Federal voting rights are conferred explicitly in the Constitution. Furthermore, states have granted the right, and thus it exists. Your statement that a state can remove the right to vote for a group of citizens as it sees fit was false, plain and simple. Not only did the case law that I submitted state that, but the case to which you cite states it as well: "Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another."
You'll note that while the right emerges from the state's authority, once granted it becomes constitutionally protected by means of equal protection. This is why there is federal oversight of the state's alterations to voting laws. Maybe you don't agree with the judicial system's stance on the existence of a right to vote and the constitutional protections afforded to those with the right to vote, but it's been plainly stated by the Supreme Court.
-
Are you phuking kidding me? You accuse me of making some sort of argument supporting pedophiles. In an attempt to show that you didn't, you quote a portion of your conversation that doesn't even mention the word pedophile? Neither of us even mentioned "pedophile" in any of those quotes you cited. How exactly does this pertain to your statement that I would support pedophiles in their journey to become teachers?
You're just whining at this point. You babbled about group protections and "legitimate purpose", so I threw it at you. You didn't refute it. Now, you're just whining...
And I'm leaving the final say with the multiple studies, opinions of military members on this board, and the military members who have advocated the repeal of DADT. It's odd that you label me as a know-it-all when I've been citing to sources this entire thread; you're the one who refused to utilize sources for the longest time and merely spouted your vast knowledge.
I never refused to use sources, and... Why waste my time? You already know everything, anyway. You have all the answers.
Dorf is not on the Supreme Court, and thus his interpretation of the Constitution is not authoritative. You've heard of the Supreme Court, right? It might help if you actually read the case as well, instead of taking Dorf's comments out of context.
There you go! You have all the answers. There's nothing I can say about anything. It's "his interpretation is not authoritative", AND I'm "taking Dorf's comments out of context." I'm not even going to push you on the obvious contradiction there. (Which is it? Both? Really???)
The Court had this to say about the right to vote:
blah, blah, blah...
And, I suppose that your interpretation is FINAL.
:rofl:
You don't even realize how wrong you are... as you continue this.