Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: storch on March 13, 2007, 11:19:34 AM
-
The Gen. who is chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has stated that homosexual acts are immoral. how soon before the tolerant left demands his head on a platter?
-
apparently about two hours ago
Rep. Martin Meehan, who has introduced legislation to repeal the current policy, criticized Pace's comments
"General Pace's statements aren't in line with either the majority of the public or the military," said the Massachusetts Democrat. "He needs to recognize that support for overturning (the policy) is strong and growing" and that the military is "turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination."
but this is the best part...
Pace's senior staff members said Tuesday that the general was expressing his personal opinion and had no intention of apologizing.
-
I'm betting the General won't have to go to rehab... what good is it being Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff if you can't say what you think....
... and Rep Martin Meehan is dreaming of rainbows and lollipops if he feels that most Americans think openly practicing homosexuals in our armed forces is a good thing.
-
a personal opinion is a fine thing, so long as it meets the liberal communist limpwristed left's criteria otherwise they are best kept one's self. if you don't pass the litmus test you are done in national positions be they political or in the military. someone on ths BBS once stated that arguing with liberals is like arguing with women in that even if you win the argument logically they trump you with emotion. it will be interesting to see this play out.
-
Originally posted by storch
someone on ths BBS once stated that arguing with liberals is like arguing with women in that even if you win the argument logically they trump you with emotion.
It goes both ways with some[/b] "conservatives."
All the Best,
hap
-
In regards to the issue itself; from a purely practical standpoint, allowing homosexuals to serve openly (open being key, because there are many of them serving in our armed forces as it is) hasn't seem to have had any deleterious effect on any military in which it has been allowed, most recently being the armed forces of the United Kingdom.
In regards to Gen. Pace, I certainly feel he has the right to express and hold any opinion he wishes. Of course given the nature of his position, it is very difficult to say this is purely a personal opinion and should be taken as such, as his position gives him significant say in military policy.
I give him credit for not wavering in the face of the political correctness nazis, even if I disagree with his position.
Edit: Reading his comments in full makes me curious as to the adultery business, how common are discharges in the armed forces for such marital indiscretions?
-
I don't see anyone "calling for his head" in that response posted, it sounded like Rep Meehan chose to respectfully disagree.
It's ironic, the villification y'all are predicting from the libruls is a pretty good description of what you're doing yourselves.
-
I think the vast majority of the military and a good portion of the public probably agrees with him.
I know I do.
-
Mmm the delicious irony of someone who kills for money saying homosexuality is immoral...
-
I would venture that a considerably greater number of our citizens find the practice of homosexuality reprehensible than those who consider such practice acceptable. there is a small but vocal minority who would have you think otherwise and sadly those are the ones the mainstream liberal press allow air time.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Mmm the delicious irony of someone who kills for money saying homosexuality is immoral...
mmmm the delicious irony of someone so profoundly arrogant and ignorant accusing someone else of the same.
-
Originally posted by storch
I would venture that a considerably greater number of our citizens find the practice of homosexuality reprehensible than those who consider such practice acceptable. there is a small but vocal minority who would have you think otherwise and sadly those are the ones the mainstream liberal press allow air time.
(http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/trendsTopics/homosexual_3.gif)
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1651
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Nov. 4-5, 2006. N=900 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
LV = likely voters. Except where noted, results below are among registered voters.
.
"Do you believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships?"
11/4-5/06
Legally Married 30%
Legal Partnership 30%
No Legal Recognition 32%
Unsure 7%
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
The first poll was the closest I could find to something asking whether people thought homosexuality was immoral or not doing a quick search. I'll keep a little more to see if I can find a single poll by any well reputed polling agency supporting the notion that most Americans think homosexuality is immoral. In the second poll I'm assuming the supporters of Legal Gay marriage or Legal Gay Partnerships being are in the "not immoral" camp. It seems overall to be closer to a 50/50 issue than it does a majority vs minority issue (on other side of the argument).
-
but this is the best part...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pace's senior staff members said Tuesday that the general was expressing his personal opinion and had no intention of apologizing.
You're right. That is the best part
-
someone who kills for money
====
stop being a dork.
-
Give them seperate showers together with the lesbians !
problem solved!
-
Suppose he said that he thought Jews were immoral? What if he stated that in his opinion that blacks weren’t smart? If you were black or Jewish would you want someone who stated such as your leader?
-
You're missing the point, Eskimo. Under current military law, it's ok to admit you're black or even Jewish. No problem.
-
Quintv,
I'd be curious who was polled.
Given that approximately 80% of Americans identify as Christian, it's hard to fathom 54% being okay with homosexuality.
-
I've never thought about that. Someone in the military, a person who kills or supports killing, calling a harmless act immoral!
Now I don't like killing, unless the world is better off without that person. But the fact of the matter is that more innocent civilians die in wars than combatants.
I still find open homosexuality slightly unacceptable, but what other people want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, has no bearing on my action. But for old Ticket-Puncher Pace to call an act like that immoral, while he knew what war was like (he served in Vietnam), thats just hypocrisy.
Pace, don't forget, you serve us, the civilian government, not the other way around.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Quintv,
I'd be curious who was polled.
Given that approximately 80% of Americans identify as Christian, it's hard to fathom 54% being okay with homosexuality.
There are plenty of Christians who don’t have a problem with homosexuality.
-
There seems to be a disparity between the polls and the voters. Oregon (typically a Dem state by about 53% to 47%) voted in a ban on gay marriage with a 65% "yes" vote. Given our voting history, I thought this bill would get shot down for sure.
-
polls are for fools, they asked 900 people out of 300,000,000.
-
I always wonder about people who get all worked up about gays. Maybe they protest a little too much. Perhaps they have something to hide? I think a lot of homophobes are secretly gay and desperate to keep their secret.
Ironic doncha think?:rofl
-
problem is now that they are way out of the closet, they feel they have to flaunt their weirdness - shoving it down our throats - if you excuse the pun
homos need love too ...
by the time our kids kids have kids being queer will be all the rage and straight ppl will be the odd balls ..
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I always wonder about people who get all worked up about gays. Maybe they protest a little too much. Perhaps they have something to hide? I think a lot of homophobes are secretly gay and desperate to keep their secret.
Ironic doncha think?:rofl
This country is about freedom buddy. People get worked up when others try to take it away.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
This country is about freedom buddy. People get worked up when others try to take it away.
Are you "liberul" ?
Freedom is only for conservatives.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I always wonder about people who get all worked up about gays. Maybe they protest a little too much. Perhaps they have something to hide? I think a lot of homophobes are secretly gay and desperate to keep their secret.
Ironic doncha think?:rofl
You want ironic? I’ve always thought that I was 100% straight. Recently, however, I’ve begun to realize that homophobic men really turn me on!
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
There are plenty of Christians who don’t have a problem with homosexuality.
I wouldn't go as far as "plenty". In fact, any Christian religion that actually uses the Old Testament would most definitely be against homosexuality. Homosexuality is referred to as an "abomination".
What that means is a Christian that uses the Old Testament cannot support any law that forwards the cause of homosexuality, as it would be going against God.
I know the Episcopalien church has recently allowed openly homosexual priests, but that has caused a huge rift within the church itself. Aside from that, I don't know of any mainstream Christian religion that is okey-dokey with homosexuality.
-
Originally posted by quintv
(http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/trendsTopics/homosexual_3.gif)
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1651
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
The first poll was the closest I could find to something asking whether people thought homosexuality was immoral or not doing a quick search. I'll keep a little more to see if I can find a single poll by any well reputed polling agency supporting the notion that most Americans think homosexuality is immoral. In the second poll I'm assuming the supporters of Legal Gay marriage or Legal Gay Partnerships being are in the "not immoral" camp. It seems overall to be closer to a 50/50 issue than it does a majority vs minority issue (on other side of the argument).
interesting poll. do you know if it was nationwide or just san francisco, new york and fort lauderdale areas that were polled?
-
I have a problem with open homosexuality. I think war is immoral but necessary at times. I can't fathom homosexuality as ever being necessary. It's a choice people make that I don't agree with. I work with some homosexuals and a gender changer. I don't agree with them but don't have much of a problem working with them except the gender changer. That one I find almost impossible to work around.
Mark
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I've never thought about that. Someone in the military, a person who kills or supports killing, calling a harmless act immoral!
Now I don't like killing, unless the world is better off without that person. But the fact of the matter is that more innocent civilians die in wars than combatants.
I still find open homosexuality slightly unacceptable, but what other people want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, has no bearing on my action. But for old Ticket-Puncher Pace to call an act like that immoral, while he knew what war was like (he served in Vietnam), thats just hypocrisy.
Pace, don't forget, you serve us, the civilian government, not the other way around.
It's not harmless when it takes place under tight living conditions between two people of the same unit.
I had that happen in one of my flights (I am a USAF instructor a flight is eequiv to a platoon) and it nearly tore the flight apart as far as moral goes.
I could tell both were gay from the begining and I had no problem with it. The fact that they were caught in the same bed while in basic military training is a problem.
again you can be gay but not open about it. The policy works, no one is being turned away unless they want to be.
The mantra "good potential recruits that could help fill the ranks of needed jobs are being turned away because of their homosexuality" is rubbish propaganda. NOT ONCE ARE YOU ASKED DURING THE RECRUITING PROCESS IF YOU ARE GAY OR EVER COMMITTED ANY HOMOSEXUAL ACTS.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I wouldn't go as far as "plenty". In fact, any Christian religion that actually uses the Old Testament would most definitely be against homosexuality. Homosexuality is referred to as an "abomination".
What that means is a Christian that uses the Old Testament cannot support any law that forwards the cause of homosexuality, as it would be going against God.
I know the Episcopalien church has recently allowed openly homosexual priests, but that has caused a huge rift within the church itself. Aside from that, I don't know of any mainstream Christian religion that is okey-dokey with homosexuality.
Within every church there are many folks who believe exactly what their church tells them to believe. There are also many who disagree with some things that their church stands by. Just because a church has a stance against homosexuality does not mean that every member believes and supports the position. I know many folks who are involved in their churches, yet have their own beliefs that contradict their church. Likewise, there are many nonreligious folks with no church affiliation who are anti-gay for their own reasons. Many people are just not so simple.
-
Cripes, if we legalize pot the country will fall apart, if we allow gay marriage the country will fall part, if we allow gays to openly serve in the military it will fall apart.
What a bunch of total and complete fear mongering bull****. You people do realize that other countries have already done all this, and it made not a sweet ****ing lick of difference. There was no Armageddon, people woke up the next day and realized it was really no big freaking deal.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Cripes, if we legalize pot the country will fall apart, if we allow gay marriage the country will fall part, if we allow gays to openly serve in the military it will fall apart.
What a bunch of total and complete fear mongering bull****. You people do realize that other countries have already done all this, and it made not a sweet ****ing lick of difference. There was no Armageddon, people woke up the next day and realized it was really no big freaking deal.
Do realize you are the only one in the thread that is fear mongering? No one else in here has stated such things.
PS
For others it's not Irony, it's hipocracy.
-
Rep. Martin Meehan, who has introduced legislation to repeal the current policy, criticized Pace's comments "General Pace's statements aren't in line with either the majority of the public or the military,"
Heh
I'd be wiling to bet that if the public were asked about it he would be proven wrong as to a majority.
It isnt that most people dont think its immoral.
Its just that most people dont care or think its worth arguing about
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
But for old Ticket-Puncher Pace to call an act like that immoral, while he knew what war was like (he served in Vietnam), thats just hypocrisy.
General Pace's personal decorations include: Defense Distinguished Service Medal, with two oak leaf clusters; Defense Superior Service Medal; the Legion of Merit; Bronze Star Medal with Combat V; the Defense Meritorious Service Medal; Meritorious Service Medal with gold star; Navy Commendation Medal with Combat "V"; Navy Achievement Medal with gold star; and the Combat Action Ribbon.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Suppose he said that he thought Jews were immoral? What if he stated that in his opinion that blacks weren’t smart? If you were black or Jewish would you want someone who stated such as your leader?
but Homos arent black or Jewish...well ok Some of them are
but not as a whole.
Being black is a race. Being jewish is a Religeon.
Homosexuals are only birth defects.
the stats back me up
Percentage of the population that is gay, around 5%
Chances of having a child with a birth defect...Around 5%
now take into account that while most gays may very well be born gay (defect) there is a certain segment that chooses to be gay.
remove that segment and the Gay population probably falls well into the birth defect percentage.
Not saying anything is wrong with it.
For those born that way it is as normal for them to be that way as it is for someone with 6 toes, to have 6 toes. Or for someone who is not that way to not be that way.
they always were the way they are. so to them its normal.
In any event, he has the right to hold any opinion on anyone. black, white,Jewish, christian. Gay. As he wants. so long as by action he doesnt nothing to harm any of them because of that opinion
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Cripes, if we legalize pot the country will fall apart, if we allow gay marriage the country will fall part, if we allow gays to openly serve in the military it will fall apart.
There is a certain arrogance in the U.S. Many nations in the West allow homosexuals to openly serve in their military's, without any real issue (at least none that I am aware off), and yet we keep arguing about how it will effect our military as though the issue is completely unknown.
The fact is there are many homosexuals in the military. Why do people oppose them allowing to actually use the correct pronoun when talking about their personal lives? How would this be so crippling? God forbid a Marine not have to throw an 'S' to the 'HE' whenever talking about his partner. I can see how this would hand our nuclear weapons over to Al Qaeda. :rolleyes:
But lets stop talking reasonably, thats no fun:
OOOOOMMMMMMMGGGGG ITS GONNA DESTRAH R MILITARY! DE QUEERS WANT TO MOLEST TEH SOLDIERS! PINK UNIFORMS< OH NOES!!
DEY TUK OUR JOBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I was listening to the comedy channel on XM. I forgot which puerto rican comic did this joke but the topic was gays in the military. he said that if he was involved in a shooting war he would want some guy to be in love with him, saying to him "don't worry baby ain't nobody gonna touch you, they gotta come through me" I was :rofl so there we have another angle which most of us don't think about. :D
-
Originally posted by quintv
There is a certain arrogance in the U.S. Many nations in the West allow homosexuals to openly serve in their military's, without any real issue (at least none that I am aware off), and yet we keep arguing about how it will effect our military as though the issue is completely unknown.
The fact is there are many homosexuals in the military. Why do people oppose them allowing to actually use the correct pronoun when talking about their personal lives? How would this be so crippling? God forbid a Marine not have to throw an 'S' to the 'HE' whenever talking about his partner. I can see how this would hand our nuclear weapons over to Al Qaeda. :rolleyes:
But lets stop talking reasonably, thats no fun:
OOOOOMMMMMMMGGGGG ITS GONNA DESTRAH R MILITARY! DE QUEERS WANT TO MOLEST TEH SOLDIERS! PINK UNIFORMS< OH NOES!!
DEY TUK OUR JOBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because we are not other countries.
At the moment Its probably safer for gays to adhere to the dont ask dont tell policy for their own safety.
Maybe in 20-30 years it wont be such an issue and thus wont be a problem.
while its certainly less of an issue now then it would have been say 20 years ago
We aint there yet
Personally I'd rather have gays in the military then women
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
Within every church there are many folks who believe exactly what their church tells them to believe. There are also many who disagree with some things that their church stands by. Just because a church has a stance against homosexuality does not mean that every member believes and supports the position. I know many folks who are involved in their churches, yet have their own beliefs that contradict their church. Likewise, there are many nonreligious folks with no church affiliation who are anti-gay for their own reasons. Many people are just not so simple.
While I don't necessarily disagree with your ideas, it does not constitute "many" in the context necessary to reflect the positive numbers represented in the poll.
I mean, I understand some Catholics aren't all that big on the Pope being the main conduit to God, but if you are Catholic, it's that black-and-white. So, either you're Catholic or you're not. Pope says homosexuality is wrong, as far as you're concerned, it's wrong. Unless you don't mind being excommunicated.
Protestant religions tend to leave the interpretation of God's word more up to the individual, but only to a point. Some churches disagree on many points of the Bible, but again, only to a point. You see, the Bible is very, very clear on some issues. Homosexuality is one of those issues. It is not described allegorically, metaphorically, as a euphamism, nothing. It is plainly and simply referred to as an abomination, one of very few things so clearly defined.
I have often challenged folks to find me anywhere in the Bible where homosexuality is deemed okay by God, and I've yet to see anyone accept that challenge. Know why? Because they know they can't. Show me a verse that kind of talks about tolerance (in some vague, roundabout way) and I'll show you one that directly specifies God's feelings on it.
Anyway... Bible lesson aside... Christians don't oppose homosexuality based on latent homosexual feelings (as another poster suggested), rather it is a direct message from God himself that homosexuality is wrong. A Christian cannot support any law that supports homosexuality on that basis.
-
Because we are not other countries.
At the moment Its probably safer for gays to adhere to the dont ask dont tell policy for their own safety.
Maybe in 20-30 years it wont be such an issue and thus wont be a problem.
while its certainly less of an issue now then it would have been say 20 years ago
We aint there yet
Personally I'd rather have gays in the military then women
It seems an awful lot like you are saying that on average American soldiers are, from a maturity standpoint, a generation behind the rest of the west. I disagree. A lot of parts of this nation are admittedly, hmmm, shall we say quaint in their views. But I give our soldiers more credit than that, I think they are more than capable of rising to a level of maturity demonstrated by soldiers elsewhere in the west.
For those who are just simply intolerant, you don't tackle that sort of attitude with trickle-down morality, you face it head on on deal with it where it presents itself.
Just one mans opinion. And I'm not touching the part about women in the military :D (though if by that you mean in combat positions, then we agree,)
-
Thrawn, Quintv,
Seriously, why go all hyperbolic like that? Crazy. It's as if you think that if you reframe your losing arguments like those opposed to you are crazy, then you win? If so, declare yourselves winners and be done with it.
I can only state my basis for not supporting homosexuality. Accept it or don't, but spare me the "OMIGOSH, THE WORLD IS GONNA END" crap. I said nothing like it, nor did any other poster opposed to you in viewpoint.
-
Kieran, if I recall, the main part of the bible that condemns homosexuality is the same part that forbids shaving, gives advice pertaining to sex with slaves, talks about stoning blasphemers to death, and so on. Is all of that still in effect too?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Mmm the delicious irony of someone who kills for money saying homosexuality is immoral...
Irony is a communist thinking he has a soap box on which to tell others about morality.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Thrawn, Quintv,
Seriously, why go all hyperbolic like that? Crazy. It's as if you think that if you reframe your losing arguments like those opposed to you are crazy, then you win? If so, declare yourselves winners and be done with it.
I can only state my basis for not supporting homosexuality. Accept it or don't, but spare me the "OMIGOSH, THE WORLD IS GONNA END" crap. I said nothing like it, nor did any other poster opposed to you in viewpoint.
Don't worry Kieran, I expect only so much from the unwashed masses. :)
-
Jesus said, "I am not here to change a single word that was written about the father. No, I am here to fulfill it."
What does that mean?
It means there is a plan, a movement from the Garden of Eden, through the Law, onto Jesus, and ultimately to God's reign in heaven. Every part is valid and serves its purpose.
Those laws to which your referred are usually used as an excuse to say the words about homosexuality are now devoid. Nuh uh.
If you will, understand the Bible (the Protestant Bible) is divided into New and Old Testaments. The Old Testament God is often referred to as the "God of Anger", while the New Testament God is the "God of Love". Both are valid, because God has both qualities. So? Well, what God says He hates in the Old Testament, He still hates in the New Testament. No, we don't drag adulterers, homosexuals, or anyone else to the edge of our cities and stone them. That part of the Old Testament passed with the coming of Jesus. However, those activities are still considered sinful even as they were then, only the accountability for participating in those sins will be made in the hereafter.
What does that mean to the modern Christian? It means you leave judgement to God WRT the salvation of someone in sin. It does not mean you ignore or condone behaviors described by God as sin. I may not level my finger in a homosexual's face and tell him he's going to hell; I certainly don't know, and it isn't for me to say. I won't tell him how to live his life, either, any more than I would any other person on the street. Sin is sin. That said, I clearly cannot support an activity that is specifically and clearly defined by God as sinful.
Christianity has fringes like any other groups who take things too far. We all get tarred by the same brush regardless.
-
The homo-basher bashers are pointing fingers at the homo-bashers and the homo-bashers are pointing fingers at the homo-basher bashers and the homos. It reminds me of Bumfights and Resevoir Dogs, but I didn't have to buy a ticket. :D
-
Originally posted by Kieran
While I don't necessarily disagree with your ideas, it does not constitute "many" in the context necessary to reflect the positive numbers represented in the poll.
I mean, I understand some Catholics aren't all that big on the Pope being the main conduit to God, but if you are Catholic, it's that black-and-white. So, either you're Catholic or you're not. Pope says homosexuality is wrong, as far as you're concerned, it's wrong. Unless you don't mind being excommunicated.
Protestant religions tend to leave the interpretation of God's word more up to the individual, but only to a point. Some churches disagree on many points of the Bible, but again, only to a point. You see, the Bible is very, very clear on some issues. Homosexuality is one of those issues. It is not described allegorically, metaphorically, as a euphamism, nothing. It is plainly and simply referred to as an abomination, one of very few things so clearly defined.
I have often challenged folks to find me anywhere in the Bible where homosexuality is deemed okay by God, and I've yet to see anyone accept that challenge. Know why? Because they know they can't. Show me a verse that kind of talks about tolerance (in some vague, roundabout way) and I'll show you one that directly specifies God's feelings on it.
Anyway... Bible lesson aside... Christians don't oppose homosexuality based on latent homosexual feelings (as another poster suggested), rather it is a direct message from God himself that homosexuality is wrong. A Christian cannot support any law that supports homosexuality on that basis.
My wife is Catholic. She went to Catholic schools for 12 years and is involved in her church. She has an old good friend from high school who is gay; she considers him (and his partner) good friends and so do I. They are good people, fun, funny and interesting. They have harmed no one. I’m a catholic school teacher; I know a zillion Catholic families. Many Catholics take the Bible and the Catholic Church’s positions very literally. Many folks, however, have confided in me that they take the Catholic Church’s positions with a grain of salt. They consider biblical stories as interpretations that are subject to interpretation.
Another religious person I know whose opinion matters to me is my father. When I was born he was a Baptist minister; he’s a Presbyterian minister now. I’ve discussed homosexuality with him; he also does not understand what all the fuss is about.
I’m far from an expert on the bible. However, I kind of recall something Jesus said about not being too judgmental and eager to cast stones. I guess we all remember and focus on the parts that fit how we think and believe.
-
I'm here to tell you. Adding the "openess" about it destroys the "environment"
It's not about Jesus
It's about human nature. I've seen it with my own eyes. It doesn't work, it is incompatible.
Once again the whole mantra of how wrong and discriminatory it might be is just propaganda.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm here to tell you. Adding the "openess" about it destroys the "environment"
It's not about Jesus
It's about human nature. I've seen it with my own eyes. It doesn't work, it is incompatible.
Once again the whole mantra of how wrong and discriminatory it might be is just propaganda.
Didn’t they say that about blacks and women?
-
In case yall have never noticed, the typical African American gets hacked off when their struggle over the centuries to attain equality is compared to gays wanting to flout their lifestyle in the military, or be allowed to marry and have kids:huh
-
Originally posted by bj229r
In case yall have never noticed, the typical African American gets hacked off when their struggle over the centuries to attain equality is compared to gays wanting to flout their lifestyle in the military, or be allowed to marry and have kids:huh
I’m sure that there are also many Jews who do not like their plight to be compared to the plight of African Americans. I also bet that many get the connection.
-
what about gay african americans?
-
no way it can work. when I was completing my term of enlistment aboard the USS Bigelow three new sailors were mustered aboard that were very effeminate, not to say they were gay but they seemed to be. they were billeted to berth in the aft berthing compartment and would shower in the largest head. within the first week of them being aboard they were accused of staring at guys in the shower. a destroyer is a community of about 400 men and in the few weeks that remained of my enlistment I never saw morale as low as during that time. I don't know how the situation was handled but those guys pretty much had the shower to themselves by the second week. everyone that utilized that head allowed them to finish before entering. thankfully I was berthed forward and in a two shower stall head to handle the sixty or so men that were berthed under the foc'sle.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
someone who kills for money
====
stop being a dork.
You think he'd do it for free? If so why waste your tax dollars on paying him?
-
Originally posted by quintv
Just one mans opinion. And I'm not touching the part about women in the military :D (though if by that you mean in combat positions, then we agree,)
We do agree.
Women. in the military should be done very much like the WACs and Wavs in WWII.
Nurses,secretaries,clerks and other supporting roles
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Kieran, if I recall, the main part of the bible that condemns homosexuality is the same part that forbids shaving, gives advice pertaining to sex with slaves, talks about stoning blasphemers to death, and so on. Is all of that still in effect too?
No, Cept in the middle east.
Stoning blasphemers went out of style long ago
:D
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I have often challenged folks to find me anywhere in the Bible where homosexuality is deemed okay by God, and I've yet to see anyone accept that challenge. Know why? Because they know they can't. Show me a verse that kind of talks about tolerance (in some vague, roundabout way) and I'll show you one that directly specifies God's feelings on it.
Ok
"Love thy neighbor as you love thyself" :lol
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
You want ironic? I’ve always thought that I was 100% straight. Recently, however, I’ve begun to realize that homophobic men really turn me on!
so what if someone is homophobe
Nothing wrong with that either.
To most straight men, a man being gay is downright weird and outright disgutingly repulsive
And not normal.
And yanno what.
Its not.
I have nothing against gays.
Whatever you do behind your closed doors is none of my business.
Just dont do it in front of me because I find it repulsive.
Cept for lipstick lesbians :D
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
but Homos arent black or Jewish...well ok Some of them are
but not as a whole.
Being black is a race. Being jewish is a Religeon.
Homosexuals are only birth defects.
Does it imply that no people are black or jewish at birth ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Does it imply that no people are black or jewish at birth ?
Your talking apples and oranges
Or cornbread and bagles and apples and oranges
whichever you prefer.
:D
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Ok
"Love thy neighbor as you love thyself" :lol
Do you wash you body? Keep it fit? Care for your wounds? Do you feed it, nurture it, and protect it from harm?
Do you examine your activities and judge whether they are right or not according to the word of God? Do you live by his law?
You misunderstand (or misrepresent) this passage. It means to hold others to the same standards as you hold yourself. No higher, no lower, the same.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2 I’m far from an expert on the bible. However, I kind of recall something Jesus said about not being too judgmental and eager to cast stones. I guess we all remember and focus on the parts that fit how we think and believe. [/B]
Once again, while I don't discount you know these people, can they really make an impact of the magnitude seen on the poll? I doubt it.
Not being judgemental or casting stones means to leave ultimate judgement to God. Practice forgiveness where possible, but it certainly does not mean, as you seem to be suggesting, condoning or supporting sin. We are all still responsible for what we do.
As far as the final statement, maybe. But if you are as steeped in the Bible as I think you must be given your background I don't know how you get the sense the Bible allows us all to pick and choose what we want to hear.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Kieran, if I recall, the main part of the bible that condemns homosexuality is the same part that forbids shaving, gives advice pertaining to sex with slaves, talks about stoning blasphemers to death, and so on. Is all of that still in effect too?
YES! :D
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Do you wash you body? Keep it fit? Care for your wounds? Do you feed it, nurture it, and protect it from harm?
Do you examine your activities and judge whether they are right or not according to the word of God? Do you live by his law?
You misunderstand (or misrepresent) this passage. It means to hold others to the same standards as you hold yourself. No higher, no lower, the same.
It was a joke
-
Yea! Another thread to give the homophobes a chance to bash gays.
Fun!
I think that gays in the military should all be forced to have "hands laid on them" to cure them of the immoral behaviour they engage in. Then they could be good Christians who always have the moral high ground. Don't hate the sinner...HATE the sin.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
"Those who know what's best for us..Must rise and save us from ourselves"
Witchunt:RUSH(Moving Pictures)
-
do any proponants of open service for gays in the military have a problem with transexuals serving openly? I'm interested in whether there is a common philosophical thread that would explain the rationale....
-
I thought this was a thread about whether the left would attempt to end the career of a decorated veteran for speaking his mind, on a personal level about a problem within the US military. how does this involve others who are neither in, have never been nor will ever be in the US military? it doesn't concern you foreigners. continue to mess up your societies and remember that when America wants your opinion, America will tell you what it is.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
do any proponants of open service for gays in the military have a problem with transexuals serving openly? I'm interested in whether there is a common philosophical thread that would explain the rationale....
Is there a hypocritical "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in place regarding transexuals?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Is there a hypocritical "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in place regarding transexuals?
If you're asking if boys can come to works dressed like girls, the answer is no. As for off duty, I don't think it's specifically prohibited but I don't care enough about it to get you a certain answer.
-
I don't think the general is correct that homos are immoral. It is not immoral.
I think he has every right to say what he believes tho.
I also think that it is a bad idea to have homos in the military.
I have no problem with consenting adults and their sexual preferences.. I don't want to be involved in some of those practices tho. I didn't consent to being part of it... be that just watching public displays of affection or having to room with em in a barracks.
lazs
-
Originally posted by VOR
If you're asking if boys can come to works dressed like girls, the answer is no. As for off duty, I don't think it's specifically prohibited but I don't care enough about it to get you a certain answer.
That's okay...I was asking Gunthr.
-
Males and females serve together in the military, and while there are occasional problems, all in all the military has somehow avoided turning into a great big orgy.
If the existing rules about appropriate behavior were enforced, and I can't think of why they wouldn't be, I guess I just don't see the problem. If two guys had a relationship, seems like that'd be exactly as inappropriate as if a male and female did. What's the difference?
-
That's okay...I was asking Gunthr. - Curval-
yeahbut, its not quite cricket to answer my question with a question, Curval. take a stab at it...
-
Okay...Beforehand, just to be clear, I'm not a proponent of anything other than not labelling gays as immoral and getting all right wing Christian on the subject.
Do I have a problem with transexuals serving openly? Not really. If, for example, an openly transexual person saved my son after his legs were blown off while under heavy fire I'd probably want to thank him/her. Sam would apply if they were openly gay.
-
ok Curval. I understand that you disagree with the General and I understand why.
regarding transexuals serving openly, you are sort of looking at the subject through a drinking straw, but i understand your view, limited in scope as it is (a scenario in which a tranny saves your son's life) but do you think there could be any downside for the military or personnel in allowing transexuals to openly serve in everyday military life as well as in combat?
what is the common philisophical thread that might lead from gays, to transexuals, and maybe to crossdressers serving openly in the military?
im just asking because im curious. no axe to grind.
-
Rehab, rehab rehab!:rofl
-
"what is the common philisophical thread that might lead from gays, to transexuals, and maybe to crossdressers serving openly in the military?"
You are trying to skirt around the issue my friend. Just spit it out...you are trying to say that allowing one immoral group to enlist opens the door for others.
Why stop there though?
Should someone who openly practices witchcraft be allowed to serve? How about swingers or wife swappers? How about young guys who like to sleep with old wrinkly women and who openly admit it? What about people who freely admit to engaging in scat sex? Orgies?
The list is endless.
-
Most of your endless list is permissible behavior when conducted off duty, and what is prohibited gets a blind eye. (Oral sex for example, believe it or not.)
The General stated his opinion about morality, but regulations regarding homosexual behavior within the ranks has less to do with morality than morale.
I wouldn't get discouraged with the idea of turning America into a forward-thinking, progressive country just yet, though. I have spent more time in Equal Opportunity and Consideration of Others training (which includes ideas like don't be mean to gay people) this quarter than I have in the field or on the range.
-
You are trying to skirt around the issue my friend. Just spit it out...you are trying to say that allowing one immoral group to enlist opens the door for others.
no. im trying to understand the basic underlying rationale for allowing gays to serve openly in the military. if there is a rationale, such as "civil rights" or "equality", it should be applicable to transexuals and crossdressers shouldn't it?
(btw i do not believe that homosexuality, in and of itself, is immoral because i'm convinced most homos have no control over it, nor do i consider having feelings of gender confusion to be necessarily immoral for the same reason.)
-
I guess the rationale is the same as allowing folks who are jewish or black to openly serve in the military. To head off the usual 'CHOICE!!!!!!' folks, I'll add that it's the same as allowing Mormons to serve openly.
Your conduct should be the important thing, not your self identity. If your conduct is inappropriate, it doesn't matter if you're straight or gay or even democrat.
-
glad you brought that up Chairboy. I have some doubts that the kind of loudly shrill and annoying LGBT people on the left of the political spectrum in this country, who are so obsessed with thier sexuality, would be able to be soldiers first. and i don't even think they want to. i think their real goal is to "normalize" what they now term "sexual minorities" - just more pc madness.
and im not sure we can extrapolate the experiences of other countries since the issue seems to have a dependancy on the cultural background of the individual country.
anyway, i see significant differences between racial characteristics, religious characteristics and sexual orientation.
all that said, i think our military will eventually allow gays to serve openly under the confines of the code of military justice - it will become a supervisory issue.
im just wondering about those trannies and crossdressers.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I have some doubts that the kind of loudly shrill and annoying LGBT people on the left of the political spectrum in this country, who are so obsessed with thier sexuality, would be able to be soldiers first. and i don't even think they want to. i think their real goal is to "normalize" what they now term "sexual minorities" - just more pc madness.
Considering the thousands of gays currently serving in the military in secret, I'm not sure your statement is supportable.
Something of note, characterizing all of the people who think the military should update its institutionalized discrimination as 'shrill and annoying LGBT people' is a pretty poor argument, and whether you mean to or not, it dehumanizes the folks you disagree with to make their arguments easier to disregard.
Arguing the issue on facts and its own merits isn't as easy, but the end results are inevitably of higher quality and better representative of the facts.
-
Considering the thousands of gays currently serving in the military in secret, I'm not sure your statement is supportable.
im not referring to the thousands of gays who serve in the military honorably without sharing their sexuality with everyone. :) im talking about the shrill and annoying LGBT crowd in the "progressive" left of this country.
Something of note, characterizing all of the people who think the military should update its institutionalized discrimination as 'shrill and annoying LGBT people' is a pretty poor argument, and whether you mean to or not, it dehumanizes the folks you disagree with to make their arguments easier to disregard.
lol, i did not characterize all of the people who think the military should update its institutionalized discrimination as 'shrill and annoying LGBT people' . its true that i don't like the shrill and annoying LGBT progressive, liberal, in-your-face group of people, but they are not the only ones who want the military to allow gays to serve openly.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Okay...Beforehand, just to be clear, I'm not a proponent of anything other than not labelling gays as immoral and getting all right wing Christian on the subject.
As opposed to, say, labeling "right wing Christians"?
Interesting...
As long as you don't bash gays or anything.
-
Chair, are you one who believes that transexuals and crossdressers should be allowed to serve openly in the military? If so, why?
I'm thinking you are one who believes that anybody who can perform the job should be allowed to, but i don't want to assume....
-
I guess the challenge is figuring out how to enforce the regulations regarding uniforms. If the uniforms are essentially unisex, then I don't see the problem. If it's a matter of an occasional woman wearing pants as part of her formal attire or a guy wearing a skirt, it seems to work in Scotland without huge problems.
If I'm missing something, lemme know.
-
(http://kickass-media.com/blogpics/January_2005/gaysimmons.jpg)
-
LOL Eagler
Chair, i cant think of too many things that would be more blood curdling than facing a military phalanx of screaming homos, jews, blacks, mormons, transexuals, bisexuals and crossdressers. I'd run.
seriously, i don't think it is a civil right or constitutional right to serve in the us military...
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Chair, i cant think of too many things that would be more blood curdling than facing a military phalanx of screaming homos, jews, blacks, mormons, transexuals, bisexuals and crossdressers. I'd run.
seriously, i don't think it is a civil right or constitutional right to serve in the us military...
That's certainly an unexpected level of frankness, but I think I'll have to disagree. I believe that blacks, females, jews, homosexuals, and mormons are absolutely entitled to serve if they wish to. The service they offer their country is no less welcome than that of the all white, male army of yesteryear your post seems to advocate.
It's unusual to see someone so forthright about their disapproval of these changes that have been made over the past half century, I admire your candor even if I vehemently disagree with your assertions regarding race, sex, and sexual preference and the military.
-
Chair, i cant think of too many things that would be more blood curdling than facing a military phalanx of screaming homos, jews, blacks, mormons, transexuals, bisexuals and crossdressers. I'd run.
:huh
wow
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://kickass-media.com/blogpics/January_2005/gaysimmons.jpg)
I lol'ed. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
That's certainly an unexpected level of frankness, but I think I'll have to disagree. I believe that blacks, females, jews, homosexuals, and mormons are absolutely entitled to serve if they wish to. The service they offer their country is no less welcome than that of the all white, male army of yesteryear your post seems to advocate.
It's unusual to see someone so forthright about their disapproval of these changes that have been made over the past half century, I admire your candor even if I vehemently disagree with your assertions regarding race, sex, and sexual preference and the military.
It rears its head from time to time. In general people have become more sophisticated in their ability to obfuscate their private fears and prejudices with layers of feigned concern for the general good or baseless hypotheticals of ill fortune. Not because they want too mind you, I'm sure they'd rather be more blunt, but because the public generally doesn't tolerate naked prejudice.
There is a significant portion of people who simply don't like Gays, don't want to be near them, and don't want to serve with them in the military or deal with them outside of it. They are made uncomfortable by them, period. This just happens to be a front in their reactionary war.
Time isn't on their side though. :D
-
It's unusual to see someone so forthright about their disapproval of these changes that have been made over the past half century, I admire your candor even if I vehemently disagree with your assertions regarding race, sex, and sexual preference and the military.
My assertion was about what i would consider bloodcurdling on the battlefield if we combined all of your examples into one military formation. if you don't agree, well... :)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
As opposed to, say, labeling "right wing Christians"?
Interesting...
As long as you don't bash gays or anything.
Oh absolutely.
Not only do I label all right wing Christians I actually start thread after thread about them, how bad they are, how hypocritical they are and how disgusting I find their behaviour. I never react...only attack.
I don't hate right wing Christians though...just their behaviour.
-
When someone is named Peter Pace, it's really hard for me to take anything he's says about homosexuality seriously.
-
curval.. you have every right to use labels like right wing christian or neocon or whatever... just as the general has a right to label gays as immoral gays...
You guys just look kinda stupid doing it to some folks and like heroes to others.
I don't think gays should serve with the rank and file. As medical or office personnel where they would not have to bunk or shower with others that would be fine. I don't see how we have a shortage of medical or office personnel tho in any case.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think gays should serve with the rank and file. As medical or office personnel where they would not have to bunk or shower with others that would be fine. I don't see how we have a shortage of medical or office personnel tho in any case.
lazs
They already are serving in the rank and file. Their ranks include men who have been decorated for service in combat and not a few purple heart recipients. But I suppose they're blood isn't good enough, after all making sure a few people aren't uncomfortable is really what our Military is about.
The Washington post says it better:
ARMY SGT. ROBERT Stout received a Purple Heart after an exploding grenade in Iraq last May left shrapnel in his face, arm and legs. He would like to remain in the military, and he said in an interview that he would reenlist were it not for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But Sgt. Stout is through denying that he is gay, so he recently declared his sexual orientation to the Associated Press. Now he'll be lucky if he's allowed to serve out his tour, which ends in May, without being kicked out of the service. For under U.S. policy, even the most decorated and patriotic gay soldier is just a homosexual to be rooted out at the military's earliest convenience.
The military wastes a lot of money making sure that gay soldiers are either deeply closeted or ex-soldiers. According to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, the services have spent $190 million recruiting and training replacements for gay service members kicked out during the past 10 years. More than 750 of the 9,488 men and women discharged from the military during that time, moreover, "held critical occupations"; many had training in languages important to the war on terrorism. The gay ban, in other words, is as self-defeating as it is demeaning to people who want to serve their country at a time of great need. It is long past time for it to go.
Last month, Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) introduced a bill that would repeal "don't ask, don't tell." It now has 72 co-sponsors, including three Republicans. The House leadership's commitment to the current policy makes quick passage improbable. Supporters are fighting at this stage for a hearing, which would help their cause, because there are no good arguments for keeping patriotic men and women out of honorable service because of their sexual orientation. There's no evidence that gay soldiers undermine military discipline or perform badly. American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan fight alongside allied forces that don't discriminate.
Yet as Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) put it to the Miami Herald in explaining her decision to back the bill: "We investigate people. Bring them up on charges. Basically wreck their lives." These are "people who've signed up to serve our country. We ought to be thanking them." She's right. Who dares tell Sgt. Stout that he is unfit for service?
-
he is not much of a thinker tho, by extention then cheney is immoral, or he supports such immoral behaviour.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Oh absolutely.
Not only do I label all right wing Christians I actually start thread after thread about them, how bad they are, how hypocritical they are and how disgusting I find their behaviour. I never react...only attack.
I don't hate right wing Christians though...just their behaviour.
See, right there it is bro... the venom you accuse the right of. That's okay, because you are "progressive". ;)
Now on the off chance this was all some kind of sarcastic message, which I doubt, I'd retract some of my thoughts on this. However knowing you as I do I'll assume you meant it for the most part.
Really, my feelings aren't hurt over being called a right-winger. I gotta be called something, might as well be that. What is irritating how many of your side of the argument feel it's perfectly fine for YOU to label someone, but it's awful for the other side to do the same, even a grievous harm- dangerous!
I also find it interesting when I go to great lengths to explain the Biblical approach to homosexuality, and that it isn't a "hate" issue, none of that ever gets through. Know why? People like you don't want to hear that. No, it's better to scream "homophobe", "hypocrit", or "right-winger", thus ending all meaningful discussion.
You (and many like you) don't want a discussion; you want an unconditional surrender to your value system. Fine. But I'll tell ya this... when I'm in a discussion with someone and they throw out the words bigot, right-winger, or homophobe, I know I've won. Those are fallback phrases for someone who's already lost the argument. That's the way it is because of the Left's penchant for using those labels straight out of the gate during a discussion.
Anyone who allows such labels to cow them into submission doesn't really believe in anything as far as I'm concerned.
-
so, is there no such thing as a bigot? a homophobe? a rightwinger?
...sometimes ya say them 'cause they are true. sometimes.
anyway, i am late to this game, but if a homosexual wants to fight and die for this country, then i say more power to 'em.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
That's the way it is because of the Left's penchant for using those labels straight out of the gate during a discussion.
LOL
Pot meet keetle.
"I also find it interesting when I go to great lengths to explain the Biblical approach to homosexuality, and that it isn't a "hate" issue, none of that ever gets through. Know why? People like you don't want to hear that. No, it's better to scream "homophobe", "hypocrit", or "right-winger", thus ending all meaningful discussion."
You say the Bible is the definative word of God. I say the Bible is a collection of writings by men that has been cherry picked for centuries. THAT is why no matter how much you try and "educate me" on the bible I'm never going to buy into it hook line and sinker the way you do.
"You (and many like you) don't want a discussion; you want an unconditional surrender to your value system. Fine. But I'll tell ya this... when I'm in a discussion with someone and they throw out the words bigot, right-winger, or homophobe, I know I've won. Those are fallback phrases for someone who's already lost the argument."
You have won squat. I don't want unconditional surrender of anything. All I ever do in these types of threads is push back against the thought that you and many others here are on a higher moral ground than someone because they are gay. I don't see you disagreeing with anyone who attacks gays with the venom I see on these boards. In that regard I think of you as particularly unchristian despite how you seem to feel yourself having superior knowledge on the subject.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Thrawn, Quintv,
Seriously, why go all hyperbolic like that? Crazy. It's as if you think that if you reframe your losing arguments like those opposed to you are crazy, then you win? If so, declare yourselves winners and be done with it.
There is no honest debate or reasonableness when discussing the freaking oppression of people based on them being homosexuals. I reject the premise totally, and it deserves no more than derision and contempt. To do otherwise is give any sort of standing.
You have your religious beliefs, and that's fine...until the time you either directly or indirectly through your political representative try to force others to live by it's tenets. You have indicated in past that you have no problem doing this. At really, kind of discourse can one have with a theocrat anyway?...at least in the realm political.
-
Originally posted by VOR
If you're asking if boys can come to works dressed like girls, the answer is no. As for off duty, I don't think it's specifically prohibited but I don't care enough about it to get you a certain answer.
thats a transvestite
A transexual gets his genitals lopped off and literally changes from a he to a she