Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on March 13, 2007, 04:56:10 PM
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service)
* Argentina[1]
* Australia
* Austria
* The Bahamas
* Belgium
* Bulgaria[2]
* Canada
* Colombia
* Croatia[2]
* Czech Republic
* Denmark
* Estonia [3]
* Finland
* France
* Germany
* Hungary
* Ireland
* Israel
* Italy[2]
* Lithuania
* Luxembourg
* The Netherlands
* New Zealand
* Norway
* Peru
* Poland
* Portugal[2]
* Romania[4]
* Slovenia
* South Africa
* Spain
* Sweden
* Switzerland
* Taiwan
* Thailand
* United Kingdom
So umm, are these armies completely trenched in "low moral"? Or are some people still just too pig headed and homophobic?
-
Bigotry is not just irrational, it is also self serving. >:(
U.S. Military Discharged Fewer Gay Personnel in 2006
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; 5:26 PM
The number of homosexuals discharged from the U.S. military under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy dropped significantly in 2006, according to Pentagon figures released today, continuing a sharp decline since the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts began and leading critics to charge that the military is retaining gay and lesbian personnel because it needs them in a time of war.
According to preliminary Pentagon data, 612 homosexuals were discharged in fiscal 2006, fewer than half the 1,227 who were discharged in 2001. On average, more than 1,000 service members were discharged each year from 1997 to 2001, but in the past five years that average has fallen below 730.
"It is hypocritical that the Pentagon seems to retain gay and lesbian service members when they need them most, and fires them when it believes they are expendable," said Steve E. Ralls, a spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group that opposes the policy.
Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sparked an outcry among gay and lesbian advocacy groups on Monday when he said he considered homosexual acts "immoral" and therefore opposed lifting the "don't ask, don't tell" rule and allowing homosexuals to serve openly. "We should not condone immoral acts," Pace told the Chicago Tribune in an interview.
Pace said today it would have been better to refrain from offering personal opinions. "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views," he said in a statement, noting that the policy itself "does not make a judgment about the morality of individual acts."
Pace drew fire today from congressional Democrats, who have recently renewed a push to repeal the policy, as well as from some Republicans and gay advocacy groups.
"General Pace's statements aren't in line with either the majority of the public or the military," said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), who last month reintroduced legislation to repeal the policy on grounds that it is unfair, expensive and harmful to military readiness.
"We are turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination," said a statement by Meehan, whose legislation has more than 100 co-sponsors and is supported by several prominent retired generals, including a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili.
Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) told ABC news today that he disagreed "strongly" with Pace's view that homosexuality is immoral.
More than 10,870 military personnel have been discharged under the policy since it was signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. The law requires that gay service members keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts, while barring commanders from asking about sexual orientation.
The dismissed personnel have included Arabic speakers and other linguists, intelligence experts and medical personnel -- all of whom are in short supply. In 2005, for example, 49 medical personnel were discharged.
"The military can't afford to lose these people, dozens and dozens of well-trained men and women who would ordinarily be doing their job," said Ralls. He said the reduction in discharges since 2001 indicates that the military is applying its policy selectively now because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have lowered support for joining the military among youths and their parents.
There are an estimated 65,000 lesbians and gays serving in the military today, according to census-based research by the Williams Project at the University of California, Los Angeles, cited by Ralls. He said the group also estimated there are 1 million gay veterans in the United States.
-
At least you didn't forget Poland.
(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/2/-/bush_debate_poland.jpg)
-
I just want to hear the "out of date" argument that gays in the military would ruin moral.....
anyone?
you fags. ;)
-
I think MM69 has stated that openly gay soldiers would get killed and I tend to believe him.
Coming out while serving I don't think is a good idea. Considering the mindset of many in the military I think the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy is the best compromise right now.
-
I just want to hear the "out of date" argument that gays in the military would ruin moral.....
militarymuscle has addressed this extensively...
If I understand his arguments, the troops would be too busy stigmatizing and hiding their genitals from the queers to properly focus on securing our energy future. I mean... spreading democracy.
Hope this helps.
-
I think MM69 has stated that openly gay soldiers would get killed and I tend to believe him.
Openly black people used to get killed in the South too. Prejudice sucks.
Have the first asshole who kills a fellow service member because they're gay executed by firing squad. And the second.
I think that problem will then go away very quickly.
-
I just want to hear the "out of date" argument that gays in the military would ruin moral.....
anyone?
you fags. ;)
Why are you asking for an argument you will never agree with? :)
Headhunter has said the same thing. I have the same opinion, though I'm not sure it would "ruin morale." Adverse affect, yes. Funny how the active duty and former soldiers have the same opinion. Go figure. :)
One of the questions I've had about this since Clinton first brought it up was what you do with the living and shower arrangements. Men and women who stay in "the barracks" basically live on top of each other. I don't know a lot about the intricacies of male homosexuals, but wouldn't there be privacy issues with some male homosexuals and heterosexuals?
-
Openly black people used to get killed in the South too. Prejudice sucks.
Have the first asshole who kills a fellow service member because they're gay executed by firing squad. And the second.
I think that problem will then go away very quickly.
Off the top of my head I can think of two servicemen that were killed by fellow servicemen because they were gay. It happens now with the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy what would happen if homosexuals were allowed to come out?
The death penalty idea is a good one but would it be enforced considering that Military brass doesn't want homosexuals to serve?
-
The death penalty idea is a good one but would it be enforced considering that Military brass doesn't want homosexuals to serve?
The military fought tooth and nail against letting the "coloreds" in too, using all the same excuses they're trotting out now - morale, violence, etc. And for a long time, it wasn't pretty. [see James Gould Cozzen's Guard of Honor]
But Truman and his successors forced the pill down their throats. And as officers were increasingly made to understand that their careers were dependent on making sure that nothing embarrassing became public, they found ways to keep tensions at manageable levels.
And once the crackers were forced to deal with black people as human beings rather than as stereotyped bogyemen, and watched them bleed red in combat like everyone else, things got better.
-
Why are you asking for an argument you will never agree with? :)
i just want to hear the argument, to see if it carries any weight, agreeing with it is another matter.
Headhunter has said the same thing. I have the same opinion, though I'm not sure it would "ruin morale." Adverse affect, yes. Funny how the active duty and former soldiers have the same opinion. Go figure. :)
actually it's not funny at all. I wouldn;t expect people in a "don't ask don't tell" military to openly support gays in the military s well as someone who thinks of it as you do.
Will it have an adverse affect? Initially yes. Remember who is leading our military? people who are 40 to 70 years old who grew up in a generation and a society that had little understanding and or tolerance of gays. But as time goes on, it will integrate, soldiers will adjust.
One of the questions I've had about this since Clinton first brought it up was what you do with the living and shower arrangements. Men and women who stay in "the barracks" basically live on top of each other. I don't know a lot about the intricacies of male homosexuals, but wouldn't there be privacy issues with some male homosexuals and heterosexuals?
how do you think all these other countries do it? We aren't breaking new ground here. Britain been doing it..... Germany, Australia, etc....
-
how do you think all these other countries do it? We aren't breaking new ground here. Britain been doing it..... Germany, Australia, etc....
I don't know.
-
WTF is "ruining moral"? Ruining morale? Or ruining morals (as in morality)?
I have no problem w people of any orientation serving in the military, as long as every one knows that the job comes first . . .
The bottom line for most dudes is that they would not want to share tents/bathroom facilities w gay dudes. But that would change once they were sure that no funny business was going to happen. unfortunately, a lot of funny business happens in the army (b/w men and women for starters . . . what else can you expect w a bunch of young people?), so that would just be tempting the devil.
-
I don't know.
well obviously they are doing something that is working just fine. American arm forces can't transition and do the same thing?
-
well obviously they are doing something that is working just fine.
you have any experience w foreign armed forces? cultures?
-
you have any experience w foreign armed forces? cultures?
no, not really. the Brits, Germany, France and Israel have problems?
but i do have experience with Filipino culture. I lived their for 9 years.
Gays aren't big deal there, no one cares.
-
Gays aren't big deal there, no one cares.
What? You mean boys kissing is actually... unimportant?!
Someone sure got their facts wrong on this one!
-
no, not really. the Brits, Germany, France and Israel have problems?
but i do have experience with Filipino culture. I lived their for 9 years.
Gays aren't big deal there, no one cares.
In our culture being gay is a big deal, so it's going to be a big deal in the military . . . it might be less of a big deal in the future, but who knows.
The brits have a more relaxed attitude towards homosexuality too . . .
Perhaps the express policy of the Israeli army is pro gay, but I would never want to be openly gay in that army. The officers I've met have a serious case of "macho" going on . . . :-\
-
In our culture being gay is a big deal, so it's going to be a big deal in the military . . . it might be less of a big deal in the future, but who knows.
The brits have a more relaxed attitude towards homosexuality too . . .
Perhaps the express policy of the Israeli army is pro gay, but I would never want to be openly gay in that army. The officers I've met have a serious case of "macho" going on . . . :-\
i was born in America, my dad was in the military that's hwy i spent time int he P.I.,
I realize our culture is a bit behind the times, perhaps too many thumpers? ;D
Anyways, it will be at least 2 more generations before we progress to the point people realize that it is something gays need to take up with GOD when they die and it's not our business what they do, but at the same time they shouldn't be discriminated against.
-
What? You mean boys kissing is actually... unimportant?!
Someone sure got their facts wrong on this one!
I'm glad the topic is giving you the opportunity to be witty . . .
But your average GI isn't going to react w much wit when he finds out that he's in a platoon w some dude who feels empowered to kiss another dude b/c of legislation.
I'm not saying that the GI will have the "right" reaction, but this is a matter that can't be solved just by changing the army's policy. Fixing this problem needs a far more comprehensive solution.
-
Why are you asking for an argument you will never agree with? :)
Headhunter has said the same thing. I have the same opinion, though I'm not sure it would "ruin morale." Adverse affect, yes. Funny how the active duty and former soldiers have the same opinion. Go figure. :)
One of the questions I've had about this since Clinton first brought it up was what you do with the living and shower arrangements. Men and women who stay in "the barracks" basically live on top of each other. I don't know a lot about the intricacies of male homosexuals, but wouldn't there be privacy issues with some male homosexuals and heterosexuals?
Well, if you don't ask or tell, then there's already a gay person staring at your junk in the shower... so what's the difference... the fact that you know it?
I mean, if they wanna stare at my stuff... I understand... It looks good to both hot chicks and gay guys... They (They being the gay men you retards) just can't have any of it.
-
I'm glad the topic is giving you the opportunity to be witty . . .
But your average GI isn't going to react w much wit when he finds out that he's in a platoon w some dude who feels empowered to kiss another dude b/c of legislation.
I'm not saying that the GI will have the "right" reaction, but this is a matter that can't be solved just by changing the army's policy. Fixing this problem needs a far more comprehensive solution.
"don't ask don't tell" is the first in a progression towards this end.
-
An argument I have heard goes something like this:
Person A and person B get it on and fall in love. However, they are both in the same platoon/sqaud/whatever and they are in combat. Instead of following orders and doing their duty they go out of their way to look out after each other, or to keep each other out of harm.
This would be particularly troublesome if a squad leader or whatever was banging some private.
-
An argument I have heard goes something like this:
Person A and person B get it on and fall in love. However, they are both in the same platoon/sqaud/whatever and they are in combat. Instead of following orders and doing their duty they go out of their way to look out after each other, or to keep each other out of harm.
This would be particularly troublesome if a squad leader or whatever was banging some private.
well ok, good point, how does it work in those other countries?
The UK is a pretty competent fighting force, how do they deal with it?
Personally i think training and discipline take over in times like that combined with fear of your first sergeant, but that's just speculation on my part.
-
So if a GI wants to stop risking his ass in Baghdad for the 9/11 lie or the Bush oil machine, all he has to do is start playing grabass and Peetie Pacey will send them home?
-
An argument I have heard goes something like this:
Person A and person B get it on and fall in love. However, they are both in the same platoon/sqaud/whatever and they are in combat. Instead of following orders and doing their duty they go out of their way to look out after each other, or to keep each other out of harm.
This would be particularly troublesome if a squad leader or whatever was banging some private.
actually it's no different than your good friend whom you've been through many battels with. what's the difference?
-
So if a GI wants to stop risking his ass in Baghdad for the 9/11 lie or the Bush oil machine, all he has to do is start playing grabass and Peetie Pacey will send them home?
Well, yeah, but if he does, by the time he's discharge, he may be dead from "friendly fire".
-
So if a GI wants to stop risking his ass in Baghdad for the 9/11 lie or the Bush oil machine, all he has to do is start playing grabass and Peetie Pacey will send them home?
It certainly looks that way. The firing of the Arab translators shows that, like Hitler, we're willing to pursue ideological purity even to the detriment of our war effort.
-
I think MM69 has stated that openly gay soldiers would get killed and I tend to believe him.
Coming out while serving I don't think is a good idea. Considering the mindset of many in the military I think the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy is the best compromise right now.
never said that, and don't believe that. Gays would harm mission effectiveness though, and I have done several "projects" that have proved so.
-
well obviously they are doing something that is working just fine. American arm forces can't transition and do the same thing?
Your argument that other countries are doing it carries no weight. Those militaries aren't on the same level as us. We are the most effective military for a reason.
I'll play devil's advocate for a minute. We let gay men/women serve. They will have to be abstinent during their enlistment because article 125 of the UCMJ makes sodomy illegal. The military has a long history of not accepting immoral bahavior (based on the bible's definition of immoral) and why should it change now? We don't condone adultery, stealing, murder (killing in war is not murder) or lying. Why condone homosexuality? If you want to be gay, sorry but you have to accept that you won't be able to be in the Army openly.
-
actually it's no different than your good friend whom you've been through many battels with. what's the difference?
Your life partner and mate vs a comrade? I dont know, I've never been in combat or had a gay lover. Just telling you what I heard from a vietnam vet on the radio awhile back.
-
never said that, and don't believe that. Gays would harm mission effectiveness though, and I have done several "projects" that have proved so.
You're right, I'm sorry. It was HeadHunter not you that said it.
-
Your argument that other countries are doing it carries no weight. Those militaries aren't on the same level as us. We are the most effective military for a reason.
I'll play devil's advocate for a minute. We let gay men/women serve. They will have to be abstinent during their enlistment because article 125 of the UCMJ makes sodomy illegal. The military has a long history of not accepting immoral bahavior (based on the bible's definition of immoral) and why should it change now? We don't condone adultery, stealing, murder (killing in war is not murder) or lying. Why condone homosexuality? If you want to be gay, sorry but you have to accept that you won't be able to be in the Army openly.
So we are an effective military because we don;t allow gays? That's an argument that carries no weight. The idea that gay in "a" military would make it less effective is proven wroing by the British military who's competence has been well demonstrated.
-
Your life partner and mate vs a comrade? I dont know, I've never been in combat or had a gay lover. Just telling you what I heard from a vietnam vet on the radio awhile back.
haven't we read this a hundreds times in true life books about war? Close friendships in war and how they manifest themselves in combat? THe soldier ignores orders to save his friend?
You gotta remember the generation your friend is from.
-
never said that, and don't believe that. Gays would harm mission effectiveness though, and I have done several "projects" that have proved so.
my question is then, why isn't it happening with these other countries? Israel and England have very competent millitaries.
I do agree, it would harm mission effectiveness initially because of several factors:
1. The amount of 40 to 70 year old officers and NCO's who are from a generation of homosexual intolerance, fear and lack of understanding.
2. There are always problems in any large transition
3. The "moral majority" or the religious right would try an hamper any progress through a vicious PR campaign.
-
my question is then, why isn't it happening with these other countries? Israel and England have very competent millitaries.
I do agree, it would harm mission effectiveness initially because of several factors:
1. The amount of 40 to 70 year old officers and NCO's who are from a generation of homosexual intolerance, fear and lack of understanding.
2. There are always problems in any large transition
3. The "moral majority" or the religious right would try an hamper any progress through a vicious PR campaign.
You realize the percentage of 40-70 year olds in the military is in the single digits? That is the frustrating part of trying to argue with you. YOU BRING ZERO FACTS!!!!!!!! There are 120 members in my shop today from E-5 through 0-5. You know how many 40+? 1, so try again fool. The majority of america thinks being gay is immoral. not just 40+
-
well obviously they are doing something that is working just fine. American arm forces can't transition and do the same thing?
How do you know it is working just fine?
-
You realize the percentage of 40-70 year olds in the military is in the single digits? That is the frustrating part of trying to argue with you. YOU BRING ZERO FACTS!!!!!!!! There are 120 members in my shop today from E-5 through 0-5. You know how many 40+? 1, so try again fool. The majority of america thinks being gay is immoral. not just 40+
Your true character showing it's self again huh?
Sorry, i needed to clarify and i wasn't clear, the leadership in the military is 40 to 70 years olds.
So basically is that all you have?
You can't form anymore of an argument?
-
How do you know it is working just fine?
Because they would have changed their policy if it was that much of a problem.
And the opponents to "open policy" would have used issues in these mililtaries as an example and reason not to have an open policy. They haven't.
-
Because they would have changed their policy if it was that much of a problem.
And the opponents to "open policy" would have used issues in these mililtaries as an example and reason not to have an open policy. They haven't.
Because Europe isn't America. Europe is majority liberal and accept gayness. As a result the average woman bears only 1.4 children in eurpoe as opposed to 2.2 in America. If you knew any facts you would know that because of this the death rate is exceeding the birth rate which it doesn't take a mathmatician ot realize the end of a civilization is on the horizon. Americans are conservative, and hence the gays in the military isn't comparable to england because of the vast difference in mindset and beliefs. FOOL
-
Your true character showing it's self again huh?
Sorry, i needed to clarify and i wasn't clear, the leadership in the military is 40 to 70 years olds.
So basically is that all you have?
You can't form anymore of an argument?
And you are still wrong in the age of the leadership, It isn't the 1% of 40-70 year olds that don't want the gays here, it is the 99% 18-39 year olds that don't want them here!!
-
Because Europe isn't America. Europe is majority liberal and accept gayness. As a result the average woman bears only 1.4 children in eurpoe as opposed to 2.2 in America. If you knew any facts you would know that because of this the death rate is exceeding the birth rate which it doesn't take a mathmatician ot realize the end of a civilization is on the horizon. Americans are conservative, and hence the gays in the military isn't comparable to england because of the vast difference in mindset and beliefs. FOOL
her we go again.
Are you always like this?
So you are saying more people are dying in Europe than are being born? Can you show proof of this? And is this because of the "liberal" attitude towards gays?
-
And you are still wrong in the age of the leadership, It isn't the 1% of 40-70 year olds that don't want the gays here, it is the 99% 18-39 year olds that don't want them here!!
OK, let me get even more specific Senior NCO's and Lt. Colonels and above.
-
OK, let me get even more specific Senior NCO's and Lt. Colonels and above.
Yes I am always like this. And still your point isn't proven because that is only 1% of the total active force. What about the other 99%?
-
her we go again.
Are you always like this?
So you are saying more people are dying in Europe than are being born? Can you show proof of this? And is this because of the "liberal" attitude towards gays?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4768644.stm
"Europe's working-age population is shrinking as fertility rates decline. In a fit of gloom, one German minister recently warned of the country "turning the light out" if its birth rate did not pick up.
-
Because they would have changed their policy if it was that much of a problem.
And the opponents to "open policy" would have used issues in these mililtaries as an example and reason not to have an open policy. They haven't.
Awfully big assumption Ozmo.
-
Yes I am always like this. And still your point isn't proven because that is only 1% of the total active force. What about the other 99%?
back to my point, then, the leadership, has to change before the rest of them do. Because out leadership is somewhat older and from a different generation, it would harder to integrate gays openly into the military.
Remember, i don;t think it's a good idea or possble we do it right away, all i;m saying is that in a couple of generation those stereotypes will disappear
-
back to my point, then, the leadership, has to change before the rest of them do. Because out leadership is somewhat older and from a different generation, it would harder to integrate gays openly into the military.
Remember, i don;t think it's a good idea or possble we do it right away, all i;m saying is that in a couple of generation those stereotypes will disappear
You are wrong, they won't dissapear. PC Liberals will force it on the majority of the public. Conservatives tend to keep to themselves while Libs want to force shit on everyone.
-
The bottom line for most dudes is that they would not want to share tents/bathroom facilities w gay dudes. But that would change once they were sure that no funny business was going to happen. unfortunately, a lot of funny business happens in the army (b/w men and women for starters . . . what else can you expect w a bunch of young people?), so that would just be tempting the devil.
Right on the money. I have a gay friend but I wouldn't want to shower with him. If we allow gays to openly serve these days then we'd have to segregate them from the straight soliders.
-
You are wrong, they won't dissapear. PC Liberals will force it on the majority of the public. Conservatives tend to keep to themselves while Libs want to force shit on everyone.
Sure they will, look how far we've come in regards to homosexuality in just 20 years. Look how far we've come regarding racism in just 50 years.
Do you realize that White American Doctors actually believed Black people lacked the brain capacity to fly air planes prior to WW2 and it look some whacked out liberals to push this idea on these people?
It's about the progression of a society, not the proliferation of a political ideology.
Conservatives and liberal balance each other......... going too far one way or the other isn't good.
-
Sure they will, look how far we've come in regards to homosexuality in just 20 years. Look how far we've come regarding racism in just 50 years.
Do you realize that White American Doctors actually believed Black people lacked the brain capacity to fly air planes prior to WW2 and it look some whacked out liberals to push this idea on these people?
It's about the progression of a society, not the proliferation of a political ideology.
Conservatives and liberal balance each other......... going too far one way or the other isn't good.
You are wrong yet again. WE haven't come anywhere on gays. Just because Liberals run the TV networks and put a gay character in every TV show doesn't mean the nation has gone anywhere. It is being forced on the 90% of the population that doesn't have control of these things.
-
You are wrong yet again. WE haven't come anywhere on gays. Just because Liberals run the TV networks and put a gay character in every TV show doesn't mean the nation has gone anywhere. It is being forced on the 90% of the population that doesn't have control of these things.
Whatever the cause is, the general public's attitude towards gays in general has changed over the last 20 years. That's a fact.
-
Whatever the cause is, the general public's attitude towards gays in general has changed over the last 20 years. That's a fact.
True, but the general public is still largely uncomfortable with this lifestyle. This is why you have a place like a Hawaii, as liberal as any state in the country, voting against homosexual marriage by a 70 percent margin.
-
Whatever the cause is, the general public's attitude towards gays in general has changed over the last 20 years. That's a fact.
That is not a fact, and you have nothing to back your claim that it is fact.
-
militarymuscle has addressed this extensively...
If I understand his arguments, the troops would be too busy stigmatizing and hiding their genitals from the queers to properly focus on securing our energy future. I mean... spreading democracy.
Hope this helps.
Good one
-
Good one
Another case of Ribo putting false words in ones mouth. I have posted my opinion on this subject
-
That is not a fact, and you have nothing to back your claim that it is fact.
Do you think the fact that some states have adopted a Civil Union Law is proof that the way homosexuals are viewed has changed in the last 20 years?
-
That is not a fact, and you have nothing to back your claim that it is fact.
Well right now i don;t have time to research on it. But one easy indication is that people in schools in California 20 years ago, when i went to high school wouldn't dare openly admit they were homosexual, now, it's very common place in schools. I have teens that go to school currently.
so with out doing any research just personal experience shows progression.
-
Do you think the fact that some states have adopted a Civil Union Law is proof that the way homosexuals are viewed has changed in the last 20 years?
there's another indication MM69
fact.
-
Column in our weekly paper:
Gay Marriage And Majority Opinion
By Jerry Coffee
Wednesday - March 14, 2007
A misleading headline in one of last Wednesday’s (March 7) local dailies had me doing a double take: “House reconsiders same-sex benefits.” I had thought for sure the same sex union bill giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples was dead for this year. As it turns out, apparently it is. The headline should have said: “House reconsiders Reciprocal Benefits (RB) bill.” But at the beginning of the article by Treena Shapiro, she says, “Passage could further Hawaii’s recognition of same-sex relationships,” further muddying the waters.
Apparently I wasn’t alone, because the Hawaii Family Forum (HFF) was quick to clarify the issue on its Web site. The RB bill is designed to provide state workers the same benefits enjoyed by private sector workers, i.e. reciprocal health benefits for two people living together, elderly siblings as one example. The bill has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the couple. State Rep. Sylvia Luke said the RB issue should not have been mixed in with the proposed civil union legislation, hence, the confusion.
But could the RB issue still be morphed into another civil union bill when it reaches the Senate? According to HFF, Clayton Hee, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says “no.” The House bill is too narrowly defined, and the Senate will not consider a civil union bill unless it comes from the House.
HFF actually supports the RB legislation, but says, perhaps ironically, gay activists are against the bill and call it “low class” and a “slap in the face to gay people.” HFF goes on: “For these activists, nothing will satisfy them short of state recognition that their relationships are just like marriage.”
This does indeed seem to be the case, and given the fact that the people of Hawaii voted overwhelmingly (more than 70 percent) to amend the state Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, who among our state representatives consistently introduces legislation contrary to the obvious will of the people they’re supposed to represent?
When I ran for the House myself in 2004 to represent the values and priorities of the people of House District 33, Halawa, Aiea and Waimalu, the overwhelmingly conservative values of his constituents weren’t being represented by my opponent, Blake Oshiro, their young, ultra-liberal (by his own admission) incumbent House “representative.” And he continues to be one of the strongest advocates for the equal recognition of same-sex partnerships.
As voters, we need to constantly ask ourselves, “Is my representative truly representing my values and priorities as I elected her/him to do, or the opposite values of a tiny minority which may or may not even emanate from my district? Or even more pointedly, is she/he putting their personal agenda over their promise to represent mine and my neighbors’?
The annual proposal of legislation to equalize same-sex unions with marriage is a good case in point. This is the context in which we must make our electoral choices. I know, the next election is many months away, but now is the time to be paying attention.
What legislation is my representative initiating, and how is she/he voting? Does it represent my values and priorities?
Don’t be misled by the daily papers’election-season, boiler-plate endorsements. Don’t let the smoke screen of your representative’s quarterly newsletter - superficial photo ops, weekend cleanups and money that would come to your schools anyway - cloud your discernment.
Ask, on the truly important issues, is my representative representing me?
http://www.midweek.com/content/columns/coffeebreak_article/gay_marriage_and_majority_opinion/
-
That is not a fact, and you have nothing to back your claim that it is fact.
Yes it is, and I've already posted the statistics. People under thirty care much less than people over 60 and as the elderly get older and die off, eventually the majority rule will be "don't care."
-
Well right now i don;t have time to research on it. But one easy indication is that people in schools in California 20 years ago, when i went to high school wouldn't dare openly admit they were homosexual, now, it's very common place in schools. I have teens that go to school currently.
so with out doing any research just personal experience shows progression.
See yet again you fail to bring any fact to support your original argument that SOCIETY as a whole as more acceptance. What % of the population does the highschool crowd make up? and California is about the poorest example you can use. I still bet in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,Arkansas etc... highschoolers still don't feel comfortable being open. You make it way to easy to tear apart your "arguments"
-
Yes it is, and I've already posted the statistics. People under thirty care much less than people over 60 and as the elderly get older and die off, eventually the majority rule will be "don't care."
More facts, perhaps you can post them for MM69
-
Yes it is, and I've already posted the statistics. People under thirty care much less than people over 60 and as the elderly get older and die off, eventually the majority rule will be "don't care."
Sorry sweetheart but as I have said before, Polls are not "fact"
-
Do you think the fact that some states have adopted a Civil Union Law is proof that the way homosexuals are viewed has changed in the last 20 years?
It shows that in a very minute minority of the states the view has changed. OzmO's argument is that SOCIETY's view has changed, not true.
-
See yet again you fail to bring any fact to support your original argument that SOCIETY as a whole as more acceptance. What % of the population does the highschool crowd make up? and California is about the poorest example you can use. I still bet in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,Arkansas etc... highschoolers still don't feel comfortable being open. You make it way to easy to tear apart your "arguments"
I told you i didn;t have time to research it, but DeeDee has.
what i related to you however was real and is a fact. Did say it was in those states too? What i said was it shows progress in just that little area, but it is progress.
Also, many states have adopted laws protecting gays from discrimination, that is also progress. Are you going to refute those also?
Additionally, some TV shows involving Gays get good ratings..... what was it now? Debra Messing, didn;t she have a show that was rated high with gays that ran for number of years?
That kind of thing wouldn't be possible 20 years ago i don;t think. Because the general public wouldn't allow these shows to become popular. Advertising revenue wouldn't come in if people weren't watching it. Isn't capitalism just great? I love it. It's the true equalizer IMO.
Now i wonder which part of this response you are going focus to refute while ignoring everything else.
-
Sorry sweetheart but as I have said before, Polls are not "fact"
'
So what is fact MM69? your opinion?, because you haven't shown any facts, just your opinion
-
It shows that in a very minute minority of the states the view has changed. OzmO's argument is that SOCIETY's view has changed, not true.
well back it up with some facts. I already have. You haven't
- state laws
- polls
- TV advertising revenue
-
It shows that in a very minute minority of the states the view has changed. OzmO's argument is that SOCIETY's view has changed, not true.
Minority of the sates? there are 40 million + in California.......alone
-
It shows that in a very minute minority of the states the view has changed. OzmO's argument is that SOCIETY's view has changed, not true.
I don't know if anyone can honestly speak with any certainty on whether or not Society has changed it's views on homosexuality in the last 20 years. If they can I'd be interested to see how they prove it.
Civil Unions are not necessarily a reflection of the views of Society as a whole but it is a reflection that times have changed and that perhaps we're not as closed minded as we used to be. In my opinion being open minded doesn't necessarily mean you accept homosexuality it suggests that people aren't as concerned with what two consenting people do in their private lives.
-
Minority of the sates? there are 40 million + in California.......alone
We have a greater GDP than all but 10 countries in the world... If we remove us from the US, can you imagine the economic pain the US would be in?
Hah.
-
Minority of the sates? there are 40 million + in California.......alone
As of last year, 43 states had laws banning recognition of homosexual marriage.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm
-
I don't know if anyone can honestly speak with any certainty on whether or not Society has changed it's views on homosexuality in the last 20 years. If they can I'd be interested to see how they prove it.
Civil Unions are not necessarily a reflection of the views of Society as a whole but it is a reflection that times have changed and that perhaps we're not as closed minded as we used to be. In my opinion being open minded doesn't necessarily mean you accept homosexuality it suggests that people aren't as concerned with what two consenting people do in their private lives.
that alone is progress
-
As of last year, 43 states had laws banning recognition of homosexual marriage.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm
this is more a tax issue that's being fought with religion.
I undecided myself about it.
What about the 7 states?
-
As of last year, 43 states had laws banning recognition of homosexual marriage.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm
This is true...That's why it should remain a state issue.
-
this is more a tax issue that's being fought with religion.
I undecided myself about it.
What about the 7 states?
I don't believe it's a tax issue. I think it's a refusal to endorse homosexual marriage and an attempt to preserve traditional marriage. And it is not a religious issue. It's not a partisan issue either. Republicans and Democrats have passed these measures by overwhelming margins. The country doesn't want this.
I don't know what the deal is with the 7 states who don't have these measures, but the fact that 43 out of 50 states recently rejected homosexual marriage speaks volumes. And by "recently" I mean since the Clinton Administration, which if memory serves is when the federal Defense of Marriage Act was signed and state legislatures around the country followed suit.
-
This is true...That's why it should remain a state issue.
It's also a federal issue: the Defense of Marriage Act.
-
It's also a federal issue: the Defense of Marriage Act.
I think that's bunk tho... The government should have NO call in marriage what so ever... period.
Straight, gay, or otherwise... That is bull.
-
Minority of the sates? there are 40 million + in California.......alone
1 state dummy
-
1 state dummy
It is a minority of states, but it's a pretty good chunk of the US population.
-
I think that's bunk tho... The government should have NO call in marriage what so ever... period.
Straight, gay, or otherwise... That is bull.
i suppose we should also dump the criminal law system while we're at it?
::) think before you post, holmes.
-
1 state dummy
heheheheh
You know i'm willing to bet it's that way in some larger metropolitan areas around the US.
Perhaps BB, could tell us what it is like in Honolulu schools.
-
It is a minority of states, but it's a pretty good chunk of the US population.
yeah, and our founding fathers didn't intend for a "good chunk" to have too much clout.
Ever hear of a body called the Senate? Why do you think it's organized the way it is?
-
I think that's bunk tho... The government should have NO call in marriage what so ever... period.
Straight, gay, or otherwise... That is bull.
Not necessarily Tu. I haven't read about this in a while, but I think the reason we have the Defense of Marriage Act is the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution requires, among other things, states to recognize marriages performed in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act gives states the right to refuse to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states.
I think this is right . . .
-
I told you i didn;t have time to research it, but DeeDee has.
what i related to you however was real and is a fact. Did say it was in those states too? What i said was it shows progress in just that little area, but it is progress.
Also, many states have adopted laws protecting gays from discrimination, that is also progress. Are you going to refute those also?
Additionally, some TV shows involving Gays get good ratings..... what was it now? Debra Messing, didn;t she have a show that was rated high with gays that ran for number of years?
That kind of thing wouldn't be possible 20 years ago i don;t think. Because the general public wouldn't allow these shows to become popular. Advertising revenue wouldn't come in if people weren't watching it. Isn't capitalism just great? I love it. It's the true equalizer IMO.
Now i wonder which part of this response you are going focus to refute while ignoring everything else.
again.. to easy. Wow so there was a popular show with a gay on it. It is near impossible to watch a show without a gay on it, like I said it is forced upon us. What are we supposed to do not watch any TV? And it is one thing to watch a show that makes fun of the gay stereotype such as will and grace. You don't see men kissing on the major networks do you. That wound't make it in our society. Point me
And 7 states? oh wow!!! the other 43 obviously aren't accepting of gays. The only 7 that are is where Libs have come to power and forced it on the others! Point me.
Give up OzmO..You have nothing.
-
Not necessarily Tu. I haven't read about this in a while, but I think the reason we have the Defense of Marriage Act is the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution requires, among other things, states to recognize marriages performed in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act gives states the right to refuse to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states.
I think this is right . . .
I don't think that's required... I mean, if I have a permit to carry a gun in one state it doesn't pass over to the other...
If you make marriage a state only issue, then that's it... states can do what they want, and never have to support other state laws... I don't see why marriage is so special.
I don't know about the Faith and Credit clause in the constitution, I will look into it and get back on that.
-
Not necessarily Tu. I haven't read about this in a while, but I think the reason we have the Defense of Marriage Act is the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution requires, among other things, states to recognize marriages performed in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act gives states the right to refuse to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states.
I think this is right . . .
Yup, the SC will not allow one state to dictate to others (John Marshall in his great McCulloch opinion).
Marriage law, like many of our criminal statutes, is closely related to the morality of our society . . . Even if I don't approve wholeheartedly, I recognize the necessity of the link. As the society changes, so will the law. See miscegenation statutes.
-
again.. to easy. Wow so there was a popular show with a gay on it. It is near impossible to watch a show without a gay on it, like I said it is forced upon us. What are we supposed to do not watch any TV? And it is one thing to watch a show that makes fun of the gay stereotype such as will and grace. You don't see men kissing on the major networks do you. That wound't make it in our society. Point me
And 7 states? oh wow!!! the other 43 obviously aren't accepting of gays. The only 7 that are is where Libs have come to power and forced it on the others! Point me.
Give up OzmO..You have nothing.
you aren't forced to watch it, first of all, second, if the public didn't like it advertisers wouldn't give their money tot he show
So that's says very clearly the PUBLICS ACCEPTANCE OF GAYS HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS.
You lost a point there and i gain and additional point for you trying to keep track.... that's very gay of you. ;D
Also the gay marriage thing, if it passed would be a big one, but it hasn;t and it will be maybe 50 years till that happens, but the gay marrirage thing is certainly not the ONLY barometer of gay accpetance
So let's review:
There are other Armies who run just fine and have an open gay policy.
We've determine that an effective army is based on high moral character regarding rape, killing and theft, also training and equipment, in other words to say we have a great or best military because we don;t have a open gay policy is just plain stupid.
Acceptance of the gay lifestyle has change in the last 20 years: State laws, polls, TV, Movies, personal experiences in schools.
You haven't provided any facts what so ever, just all opinion, which i respect. but it's opinion none the less.
Try again Sam. ;D
-
you aren't forced to watch it, first of all, second, if the public didn't like it advertisers wouldn't give their money tot he show
So that's says very clearly the PUBLICS ACCEPTANCE OF GAYS HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS.
You lost a point there and i gain and additional point for you trying to keep track.... that's very gay of you. ;D
Also the gay marriage thing, if it passed would be a big one, but it hasn;t and it will be maybe 50 years till that happens, but the gay marrirage thing is certainly not the barometer of gay accpetance
So let's review:
There are other Armies who run just fine and have an open gay policy.
We've determine that an effective army is based on high moral character regarding rape, killing and theft, also training and equipment, in other words to say we have a great or best military because we don;t have a open gay policy is just plain stupid.
Acceptance of the gay lifestyle has change in the last 20 years: State laws, polls, TV, Movies, personal experiences in schools.
You haven't provided any facts what so ever, just all opinion, which i respect. but it's opinion none the less.
Try again Sam. ;D
Wait wait wait. As dumb as I have always thought you were you just lost more credibility. You are trying to say that a TV show being popular is a "barometer" of gay acceptance but the failure to be able to pass a gay marriage bill isn't? WTF chuck! what an idiot.
See you were skim reading again, I said that if they showed 2 men kissing on TV, then they would lose money. They don't show that on the networks because...wait for it....... HOMOSEXUAL ACTS AREN"T ACCEPTED IN SOCIETY!!!!!! And clearly the libs at the networks know this. point point point baby!!!!! Shows like Will and Grace make fun of fags and we love it!!! If gayness is so accepted now what happened to Queer eye? and why wasn't that on a network station? Exactly bitch, wouldn't have made it!! You are making this no fun anymore.
You also haven't shown any fact........ I have actually, it is a fact that network tv doesn't show 2 men kissing because they would lose sponsors!!!! BIG FAT FACT!!!
And once again, America isn't a liberal country. That is why gays aren't accepted in our military. See I produced fact on that also but you never responded. Just like the population of europe declining due to liberalism....I print fact and you ran like a girl
-
Yup, the SC will not allow one state to dictate to others (John Marshall in his great McCulloch opinion).
Marriage law, like many of our criminal statutes, is closely related to the morality of our society . . . Even if I don't approve wholeheartedly, I recognize the necessity of the link. As the society changes, so will the law. See miscegenation statutes.
I pretty much agree. It's just a matter of time. It will be harder and harder to prohibit homosexual marriage when we are gradually including homosexuals in the class of protected groups (race, gender, religion, etc.). I do believe that even though the country is currently overwhelmingly opposed, it is coming. I'll be voting against it till then, but will accept it when it happens.
-
Wait wait wait. As dumb as I have always thought you were you just lost more credibility. You are trying to say that a TV show being popular is a "barometer" of gay acceptance but the failure to be able to pass a gay marriage bill isn't? WTF chuck! what an idiot.
See you were skim reading again, I said that if they showed 2 men kissing on TV, then they would lose money. They don't show that on the networks because...wait for it....... HOMOSEXUAL ACTS AREN"T ACCEPTED IN SOCIETY!!!!!! And clearly the libs at the networks know this. point point point baby!!!!! Shows like Will and Grace make fun of fags and we love it!!! If gayness is so accepted now what happened to Queer eye? and why wasn't that on a network station? Exactly bitch, wouldn't have made it!! You are making this no fun anymore.
You also haven't shown any fact........ I have actually, it is a fact that network tv doesn't show 2 men kissing because they would lose sponsors!!!! BIG FAT FACT!!!
And once again, America isn't a liberal country. That is why gays aren't accepted in our military. See I produced fact on that also but you never responded. Just like the population of europe declining due to liberalism....I print fact and you ran like a girl
Ok i'll try and explain it again. I know it's hard for you to get it, maybe cause you're too busy thinking you actually made a real point. You must an E-2 or something, especially when you say something like "Exactly bitch" the way you used it.
OK, YOU said the gay lifestyle is being rammed down people's throats. Fact is people will not watch shows if there is something about them they don;t like. If it's about a gay lifestyle or involves one, advertisers will not keep paying for shows that people don;t watch.
They didn't have shows like this 20 years ago or at least not many, now there are more.
Do you get it now?
probably not, because you're still hung up on 2 guys kissing on another. ::)
Your Europe thing? Show me where it's directly a result of homosexuality. I asked you to show me where the pop is decreasing. You did that. good boy. Now show me why it is happening, show me the causes for the child rate to decrease.
-
Wait wait wait. As dumb as I have always thought you were you just lost more credibility. You are trying to say that a TV show being popular is a "barometer" of gay acceptance but the failure to be able to pass a gay marriage bill isn't? WTF chuck! what an idiot.
See you were skim reading again, I said that if they showed 2 men kissing on TV, then they would lose money. They don't show that on the networks because...wait for it....... HOMOSEXUAL ACTS AREN"T ACCEPTED IN SOCIETY!!!!!! And clearly the libs at the networks know this. point point point baby!!!!! Shows like Will and Grace make fun of fags and we love it!!! If gayness is so accepted now what happened to Queer eye? and why wasn't that on a network station? Exactly bitch, wouldn't have made it!! You are making this no fun anymore.
You also haven't shown any fact........ I have actually, it is a fact that network tv doesn't show 2 men kissing because they would lose sponsors!!!! BIG FAT FACT!!!
And once again, America isn't a liberal country. That is why gays aren't accepted in our military. See I produced fact on that also but you never responded. Just like the population of europe declining due to liberalism....I print fact and you ran like a girl
While I agree with your premise... Will and Grace had one of the most watched episodes in it's history with their gay male kiss.
Gay women never seem to have much opposition though...
-
While I agree with your premise... Will and Grace had one of the most watched episodes in it's history with their gay male kiss.
Gay women never seem to have much opposition though...
Well MM69
Any Hoo rah's from you on this one?
::)
-
Ok i'll try and explain it again. I know it's hard for you to get it, maybe cause you're too busy thinking you actually made a real point. You must an E-2 or something, especially when you say something like "Exactly bitch" the way you used it.
OK, YOU said the gay lifestyle is being rammed down people's throats. Fact is people will not watch shows if there is something about them they don;t like. If it's about a gay lifestyle or involves one, advertisers will not keep paying for shows that people don;t watch.
They didn't have shows like this 20 years ago or at least not many, now there are more.
Do you get it now?
probably not, because you're still hung up on 2 guys kissing on another. ::)
Your Europe thing? Show me where it's directly a result of homosexuality. I asked you to show me where the pop is decreasing. You did that. good boy. Now show me why it is happening, show me the causes for the child rate to decrease.
You keep proving my point. People watch will and grace because...phew I am getting tired....IT MAKES FUN OF GAYS!!!!! That doesn't translate to acceptance. It translates to a way for us to laugh at flamers!!! Shows that have a "serious" gay character don't do as well.
Homosexuality is more prevelant in Europe...they can't procreate...brings down birth rates. Also it has been proven that liberals have fewer babies. I didn't say gayness was the sole reason. I was proving that europe is more liberal than the US, that is why the birth rate is declining, and a more liberal country's military would do better with gays in it.
Way to combat my FACTS on the declining birth rate by asking for more facts. And way to combat my facts on why gay men aren't shown on network television with...guess you didn't combat that did you. Great moderator we have
-
While I agree with your premise... Will and Grace had one of the most watched episodes in it's history with their gay male kiss.
Gay women never seem to have much opposition though...
I'm sure that is true. Doesn't it seem weird that if it were that popular they didn't show it again?
-
I'm sure that is true. Doesn't it seem weird that if it were that popular they didn't show it again?
They did actually, once more I recall but the series had run its course...
-
You keep proving my point. People watch will and grace because...phew I am getting tired....IT MAKES FUN OF GAYS!!!!! That doesn't translate to acceptance. It translates to a way for us to laugh at flamers!!! Shows that have a "serious" gay character don't do as well.
Homosexuality is more prevelant in Europe...they can't procreate...brings down birth rates. Also it has been proven that liberals have fewer babies. I didn't say gayness was the sole reason. I was proving that europe is more liberal than the US, that is why the birth rate is declining, and a more liberal country's military would do better with gays in it.
Way to combat my FACTS on the declining birth rate by asking for more facts. And way to combat my facts on why gay men aren't shown on network television with...guess you didn't combat that did you. Great moderator we have
I ask you for causes of the fact you provided. Can you do that? or not?
As far as whether or not they make fun of gays? If they were showing gays in a derogatory manner you might have a point. But that's not the case.
Try again Sam. ;D
BTW the only 2 things I've had to do or been asked to as a moderator is delete 2 posts. One was yours when you called someone a SLUT. It only showcased just how classless you are.
-
I ask you for causes of the fact you provided. Can you do that? or not?
As far as whether or not they make fun of gays? If they were showing gays in a derogatory manner you might have a point. But that's not the case.
Try again Sam. ;D
BTW the only 2 things I've had to do or been asked to as a moderator is delete 2 posts. One was yours when you called someone a SLUT. It only showcased just how classless you are.
Well she sounded slutty, and yes these shows do portray gays negatively. The yshow them to be flaming whining bitches. Would Will and Grace have "run it's course" if they hadn't showed 2 men kissing? And I provided causes for the decline. liberalism/homosexuality
-
Well she sounded slutty, and yes these shows do portray gays negatively. The yshow them to be flaming whining bitches. Would Will and Grace have "run it's course" if they hadn't showed 2 men kissing? And I provided causes for the decline. liberalism/homosexuality
Yes, Will and Grace had already made plans to cancel the show long before those episodes... So yes.
I didn't find them to be offensive to gays at all.. While 1 character was over the top (Jack), the main Gay character (Will) was always shown to be professional and good, even though he was just gay.
I do not see how anyone could say that gays were being mocked... Certainly one character was out there, but in the real world, some people (including some gays) are out there.
-
Well she sounded slutty, and yes these shows do portray gays negatively. The yshow them to be flaming whining bitches. Would Will and Grace have "run it's course" if they hadn't showed 2 men kissing? And I provided causes for the decline. liberalism/homosexuality
well she sounded slutty?
I guess the word gentlemen isn't taught where you come from.
Obviously "class" isn't.
-
Well she sounded slutty, and yes these shows do portray gays negatively. The yshow them to be flaming whining bitches. Would Will and Grace have "run it's course" if they hadn't showed 2 men kissing? And I provided causes for the decline. liberalism/homosexuality
no what you did was provide your opinion of the cause of the decline.
Give us the facts.
or do you not have any?
-
well she sounded slutty?
I guess the word gentlemen isn't taught where you come from.
Obviously "class" isn't.
Way to realize you have lost the argument and change the subject towards calling me classless
-
mm69, if you were going into a gun battle-
would you rather have 10 straight men at your side, or
10 straight men and 10 gay men?
No offense, but 1000 illiterate pricks with AKs have been whipping your 130,000 hi-tech asses for 4 years now, lets be honest here. You should be thanking any help you can get, and put aside your own homophobia.
-
mm69, if you were going into a gun battle-
would you rather have 10 straight men at your side, or
10 straight men and 10 gay men?
No offense, but 1000 illiterate pricks with AKs have been whipping your 130,000 hi-tech asses for 4 years now, lets be honest here. You should be thanking any help you can get, and put aside your own homophobia.
Obviously you didn't read the post "for all you skim readers"
-
Obviously you didn't read the post "for all you skim readers"
Bruce did this. When asked a direct question, he didn't answer. He told us to go read something on another thread.
Avoiding a direct question is a horrible thing to do - it shows you don't WANT to answer, it makes you look like you're running. i respect your arguments more than that. Bruce is irrelevant here because of it.
part of being a good message board debater is that you TAKE POSITIONS - something that pussy politicians don't do in real life. So take one:
would you rather have 10 straight men at your side, or
10 straight men and 10 gay men?
-
Bruce did this. When asked a direct question, he didn't answer. He told us to go read something on another thread.
Avoiding a direct question is a horrible thing to do - it shows you don't WANT to answer, it makes you look like you're running. i respect your arguments more than that. Bruce is irrelevant here because of it.
part of being a good message board debater is that you TAKE POSITIONS - something that pussy politicians don't do in real life. So take one:
would you rather have 10 straight men at your side, or
10 straight men and 10 gay men?
I'm not avoiding the question. You know I don't do that. I have posted my stance several times on several different posts. It takes alot of time to re type the same shit. But I have gotten smarter and started a word document so I can copy and paste the same answers to the same questions. So here you go, for the umteenth time is a detailed answer to your question.
I personally have no problem serving with gay men. I have several gay friends and could care less. I know that in the morning after PT when I am in the locker room, there is probably a gay man in there. I don't worry about him running buy and grabbing my ass or anything, and if the soap dropped I wouldn't worry about picking it up. That is how most of us feel, we know there are gays amongst us and we don't feel threatened by it. But it only takes 1 or 2 guys in a unit to not feel this way and the unit effectiveness will suffer. The first time 2 gay guys are sitting in the break room and start talking about taking it in the ass, or how they met this well hung dude over the weekend it will cause most of us to be uncomfortable. All of my gay friends know not to talk about their man love in front of me. It isn't the showering together, rooming together, sitting in a fox hole next to each other that is the issue in the military. It is having to listen to their gay experiences that is the problem. I know you all like to bash the military and think we are all cavemen but it isn't like that at all. This is not England, France, Canada or any other liberal country. Americans aren't as open about sexuality as they are, plain and simple. Just like you don't see nudity in commercials here in the US. That isn't going to change in our lifetime. Gays are welcome to serve next to me, (I actually I work with one right now.) but you are expected to keep your gayness to yourself. If you want to join the service as a gay man/woman and hang out at the gay bars on the weekend and take it in the ass you are welcome to. Just don'g get caught. Why can't that be good enough?
-
boy it got quiet in here
-
Way to realize you have lost the argument and change the subject towards calling me classless
you are the one who took a shot at my modding and i told you about 1 of only 2 incidents when i had to use my modding power....
that was when you called a woman a "slut"
which only shows how classless you are not to mention how much of a gentlemen you are not.
IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH, GO BACK TO THE BARRACKS AND CRY ABOUT.
otherwise build a bridge and get over it.
pathetic.
as for your bbc link, at least back up your assertion the decline in birth rates is tie to liberalism or as i've suggested before....go back to your barracks and cry about it, but on your own time.
As for your stupid little easy trying to exonerate you from looking like a complete homophobe, YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANY ONE.
-
i agree there mm69.
there should be an unwritten law that if you talk about another dude's schlong, you get slapped in the head. problem solved. If these two gentlemen want slapped daily, keep it up :)
Times like these, we need every man we can.
-
you are the one who took a shot at my modding and i told you about 1 of only 2 incidents when i had to use my modding power....
that was when you called a woman a "slut"
which only shows how classless you are not to mention how much of a gentlemen you are not.
IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH, GO BACK TO THE BARRACKS AND CRY ABOUT.
otherwise build a bridge and get over it.
pathetic.
as for your bbc link, at least back up your assertion the decline in birth rates is tie to liberalism or as i've suggested before....go back to your barracks and cry about it, but on your own time.
As for your stupid little easy trying to exonerate you from looking like a complete homophobe, YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANY ONE.
Once again, I take your insults as a compliment because I shows me I have beaten you yet again. You have no further grounds to debate so you insult.
-
Pathetic again, can't back up your mistake or atone for anything can you?
So instead of handling the truth you:
Once again, I take your insults as a compliment because I shows me I have beaten you yet again. You have no further grounds to debate so you insult.
you go back to this crap?
YOU BROUGHT IT UP, little one........ if you can't deal with it don't post.
Also did you skim rad this?
as for your bbc link, at least back up your assertion the decline in birth rates is tie to liberalism or as i've suggested before....go back to your barracks and cry about it, but on your own time.
Or are you just avoiding it because you are a little bitch?
yeah thought so, only a little bitch would arbitrarily call some one a slut.
go ahead keep running from it.
-
Pathetic again, can't back up your mistake or atone for anything can you?
So instead of handling the truth you:
you go back to this crap?
YOU BROUGHT IT UP, little one........ if you can't deal with it don't post.
Also did you skim rad this?
as for your bbc link, at least back up your assertion the decline in birth rates is tie to liberalism or as i've suggested before....go back to your barracks and cry about it, but on your own time.
Or are you just avoiding it because you are a little bitch?
yeah thought so, only a little bitch would arbitrarily call some one a slut.
go ahead keep running from it.
OzmO I know you are young and mentally challenged but even you can see the link between couples not having babies and liberalism right?
-
OzmO I know you are young and mentally challenged but even you can see the link between couples not having babies and liberalism right?
is that all you have?
pathetic.
SHOW IT or shut up and go home.
-
is that all you have?
pathetic.
SHOW IT or shut up and go home.
there is no direct facts to why the population is declining. It is not something that can be proven factual. But even the scientists assume it is liberalism.
-
there is no direct facts to why the population is declining. It is not something that can be proven factual. But even the scientists assume it is liberalism.
However polls (and I know how you love those) have proven that liberals have fewer kids. So if you take the FACT that the birth rate is declining and the FACT that liberals bear less children....well even you can add 2 + 2
-
there is no direct facts to why the population is declining. It is not something that can be proven factual. But even the scientists assume it is liberalism.
Oh so now we are NOT BRINGING FACTS? sound familiar dip shi"p"?
lame, so your reasoning/point is even more insignificant
-
Oh so now we are NOT BRINGING FACTS? sound familiar dip shi"p"?
lame, so your reasoning/point is even more insignificant
keep reading, I wrote a second set of FACTS while you were feverishly typing
-
However polls (and I know how you love those) have proven that liberals have fewer kids. So if you take the FACT that the birth rate is declining and the FACT that liberals bear less children....well even you can add 2 + 2
oh so now you are taking stock in polls when it suits you?
A wuss and a hypocrite. how rich.
-
oh so now you are taking stock in polls when it suits you?
A wuss and a hypocrite. how rich.
no I never like polls. But this poll isn't based on opinions. It is a scientific study. Again way to name call when once again proven wrong.
-
no I never like polls. But this poll isn't based on opinions. It is a scientific study. Again way to name call when once again proven wrong.
So now polls are ok?
Hypocrite.
At least show these polls.
::)
-
no I never like polls. But this poll isn't based on opinions. It is a scientific study. Again way to name call when once again proven wrong.
'
what's a matter little boy?
Can't handle name calling when it comes to you?
-
This is amazing, you two are fighting on three separate threads. Three threads dedicated to essentially the same subject and all of them multiple pages long. ;D
This place is rarely boring.
-
'
what's a matter little boy?
Can't handle name calling when it comes to you?
I love it when you call me names cause it shows weakness in your argument
-
So now polls are ok?
Hypocrite.
At least show these polls.
::)
You are going to hate me for this OzmO but here are more FACTS
But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
That way you'll maintain a fertility gap that already is invisibly working to guarantee the political right will outnumber the left by an ever-growing margin.
Over the past three decades, conservatives have been procreating more than liberals -- continuing to seed the future with their genes by filling bassinets coast to coast with tiny Future Republicans of America.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/17/INGEJL45D11.DTL
Are liberals in danger of becoming extinct? Demographer Phillip Longman says fertility trends are pointing us toward a more conservative future. He fills Linda Wertheimer in on his findings.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5288004
The last one from NPR has to hurt
-
I love it when you call me names cause it shows weakness in your argument
Well you start calling people names right off the bat. So you are weak to start or is it different for you?
You even started a threads calling people "Fools"
Pathetic.
Geez you are getting real old now.
-
Well you start calling people names right off the bat. So you are weak to start or is it different for you?
You even started a threads calling people "Fools"
Pathetic.
Geez you are getting real old now.
fools, if the shoe fits. And I called you a fool not others
-
You are going to hate me for this OzmO but here are more FACTS
But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
That way you'll maintain a fertility gap that already is invisibly working to guarantee the political right will outnumber the left by an ever-growing margin.
Over the past three decades, conservatives have been procreating more than liberals -- continuing to seed the future with their genes by filling bassinets coast to coast with tiny Future Republicans of America.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/17/INGEJL45D11.DTL
Are liberals in danger of becoming extinct? Demographer Phillip Longman says fertility trends are pointing us toward a more conservative future. He fills Linda Wertheimer in on his findings.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5288004
The last one from NPR has to hurt
Ok finally, and how does that relate to the topic thread exactly?
-
Ok finally, and how does that relate to the topic thread exactly?
It shows that the other countries accept gays in their military because they are more liberal than the US. You wouldn't take my word on them being more liberal so I had to prove that and that in turns shows that in the US gays wouldn't work.
-
It shows that the other countries accept gays in their military because they are more liberal than the US. You wouldn't take my word on them being more liberal so I had to prove that and that in turns shows that in the US gays wouldn't work.
and how does it prove gays in our military wouldn't work?
-
and how does it prove gays in our military wouldn't work?
wow you are dense. Because we aren't a liberal country
-
wow you are dense. Because we aren't a liberal country
We have to be a liberal country to have gays in the military?
-
We have to be a liberal country to have gays in the military?
You are more dense than I thought. You aren't seriously asking that question.
-
You are more dense than I thought. You aren't seriously asking that question.
If you can't answer the question just say so.
-
Here are the questions in case you forgot already:
and how does it prove gays in our military wouldn't work?
We have to be a liberal country to have gays in the military?
-
If you can't answer the question just say so.
Common sense tells you that a conservative military in a conservative country will not accept gays.
-
Common sense tells you that a conservative military in a conservative country will not accept gays.
Aren't they already accepting gays?
-
Aren't they already accepting gays?
whoa, OzmO just lost it. Where have you been. Our whole debate is over the fact that they don't accept gays. everyone that enlists is presumed straight. You are floundering
-
whoa, OzmO just lost it. Where have you been. Our whole debate is over the fact that they don't accept gays. everyone that enlists is presumed straight. You are floundering
are we having problems answer the question again?
Are you going to answer or not?
-
are we having problems answer the question again?
Are you going to answer or not?
"everyone that enlists is presumed straight" you must have skim read over my answer. So no the military doesn't accept gays....for the second time in three posts.
-
"everyone that enlists is presumed straight" you must have skim read over my answer. So no the military doesn't accept gays....for the second time in three posts.
So there are no gays in the military as far it's leadership is concerned?
Or are there just no gays in the military?
-
So there are no gays in the military?
I have admitted the fact I work along side one. But if he was discovered he would be discharged. So for the 3rd time. The military doesn't accept gays
-
I have admitted the fact I work along side one. But if he was discovered he would be discharged. So for the 3rd time. The military doesn't accept gays
So there are gays in the military, and people know about it?
So you are almost like an accomplice huh?
-
So there are gays in the military, and people know about it?
So you are almost like an accomplice huh?
guess you could say that. I might be accepting of him, but the military isn't. Don't try to spin things. Your original argument still falls flat
-
guess you could say that. I might be accepting of him, but the military isn't. Don't try to spin things. Your original argument still falls flat
Ok so we've establish the fact there are gays in military.
Can we agree that more people like yourself know who they are?
-
Ok so we've establish the fact there are gays in military.
Can we agree that more people like yourself know who they are?
Stop the spin, the military doesn't accept gays. And even this dude. If I ever saw him kiss some dude, or listen to him talk about it. I would have to out him and he knows that.
-
Stop the spin, the military doesn't accept gays. And even this dude. If I ever saw him kiss some dude, or listen to him talk about it. I would have to out him and he knows that.
Again, if you can't answer the question just day so.
plus, are talking about being gay in the military NOT sexual displays of homosexuality.
So back to the questions:
Ok so we've establish the fact there are gays in military.
Can we agree that more people like yourself know who they are?
-
Again, if you can't answer the question just day so.
plus, are talking about being gay in the military NOT sexual displays of homosexuality.
So back to the questions:
Ok so we've establish the fact there are gays in military.
Can we agree that more people like yourself know who they are?
sure people know. people know that people cheat on their wives also. The military doesn't condone it.
-
sure people know. people know that people cheat on their wives also. The military doesn't condone it.
Ok so we have do have gays in military and people know about it?
And if, yes, does the leadership refuse to acknowledge this?
-
Ok so we have do have gays in military and people know about it?
And if, yes, does the leadership refuse to acknowledge this?
My Commander doesn't know. If he did he would have no choice but to do something about it. This man I work with isn't "openly" gay. he has told me in private conversations
-
My Commander doesn't know. If he did he would have no choice but to do something about it. This man I work with isn't "openly" gay. he has told me in private conversations
Do you think your commanders and other commanders believe there are "no" gays in their military?
-
Do you think your commanders and other commanders believe there are "no" gays in their military?
what a dumb question. I'm sure they assume there are, but can't do anything about it without proof. Just like they assume people are doing drugs but unless they fail a test they can't do anything. None of this proves your contention that the military accepts gays
-
what a dumb question. I'm sure they assume there are, but can't do anything about it without proof. Just like they assume people are doing drugs but unless they fail a test they can't do anything. None of this proves your contention that the military accepts gays
but you have proved some very important things:
there are gays in our military and both the soldiers and the leadership know about it.
Sounds like it's about as close as you can get to open policy as possible without coming out and saying it.
Makes me wonder what all the hub bub is about.
And this is in...what did you say? A conservative military and conservative country that's the best in the world.
Thanks for your participation MM69.
;D
-
but you have proved some very important things:
there are gays in our military and both the soldiers and the leadership know about it.
Sounds like it's about as close as you can get to open policy as possible without coming out and saying it.
Makes me wonder what all the hub bub is about.
And this is in...what did you say? A conservative military and conservative country that's the best in the world.
Thanks for your participation MM69.
;D
Wrong as usual. Assuming that there are gays in the military isn't even close to "knowing". Like I have said and it has been proven by the fact that 11,000 military members have been booted since the enactment of don't ask don't tell that if a commander KNOWS that a person is gay they will be discharged. Aren't you tired of getting your ass kicked?
-
Wrong as usual. Assuming that there are gays in the military isn't even close to "knowing". Like I have said and it has been proven by the fact that 11,000 military members have been booted since the enactment of don't ask don't tell that if a commander KNOWS that a person is gay they will be discharged. Aren't you tired of getting your ass kicked?
So there aren't gays currently serving in the military that commanders know about and you know about?
Or where you lying?
-
So there aren't gays currently serving in the military that commanders know about and you know about?
Or where you lying?
I know, the commander doesn't.
-
I know, the commander doesn't.
but other commanders do?
what a dumb question. I'm sure they assume there are, but can't do anything about it without proof. Just like they assume people are doing drugs but unless they fail a test they can't do anything. None of this proves your contention that the military accepts gays
So you are saying they know some are gay but can;t prove it?
-
but other commanders do?
what a dumb question. I'm sure they assume there are, but can't do anything about it without proof. Just like they assume people are doing drugs but unless they fail a test they can't do anything. None of this proves your contention that the military accepts gays
So you are saying they know some are gay but can;t prove it?
what don't you understand? They assume that isn't the same as knowing
-
what don't you understand? They assume that isn't the same as knowing
So you don't know if your co-worker is gay or not?
Are you just assuming he is?
-
So you don't know if your co-worker is gay or not?
Are you just assuming he is?
Holy cow...I KNOW, the commander doesn't. That is the 4th or 5th time I have answered that. Do you have a point or not?
-
Holy cow...I KNOW, the commander doesn't. That is the 4th or 5th time I have answered that. Do you have a point or not?
yeah, you made it for me.
there's gays in our military.
In what did you say?
"A conservative country and conservative military where it wouldn't work"
I'm sure i'm miss quoting you because you said i can't provide facts... so i used yours :o
Thanks for participating ;)
-
yeah, you made it for me.
there's gays in our military.
In what did you say?
"A conservative country and conservative military where it wouldn't work"
I'm sure i'm miss quoting you because you said i can't provide facts... so i used yours :o
Thanks for participating ;)
Once again you are so wrong. You can't even use facts given to you correctly. In other countries, gays serve openly. Gays wouldn't be able to serve in our country openly because it is a conservative military in a conservative country. So try to spin it again.
-
Once again you are so wrong. You can't even use facts given to you correctly. In other countries, gays serve openly. Gays wouldn't be able to serve in our country openly because it is a conservative military in a conservative country. So try to spin it again.
Are they serving with the knowledge of people like you and the knowledge of commanders?
this is what you said.
Are you lying?
-
Are they serving with the knowledge of people like you and the knowledge of commanders?
this is what you said.
Are you lying?
They are not serving with the knowledge of the commanders. Again assumption and knowing are different. And zero are serving openly
-
They are not serving with the knowledge of the commanders. Again assumption and knowing are different. And zero are serving openly
you are confusing knowing with proving.
I';ll ask again:
Are you lying?
-
you are confusing knowing with proving.
I';ll ask again:
Are you lying?
Look you fucking idiot!!!! I KNOW that a gay man works here. The commander does not KNOW. Gays can't serve OPENLY in the military because it is a conservative military. What don't you get?
-
Look you fucking idiot!!!! I KNOW that a gay man works here. The commander does not KNOW. Gays can't serve OPENLY in the military because it is a conservative military. What don't you get?
don;t get mad MM69 I'm only going from the from you said.
geez you rattle easy.
You said there are gays in the military.
And did you not say we are the best military in the world?
and did you not say some commanders assume some soldiers are gay?
And did you not say you use the UCMJ as your moral compass but you are letting a Gay person work right next to you and you're doing nothing about it?
Where you lying about all this?
-
don;t get mad MM69 I'm only going from the from you said.
geez you rattle easy.
You said there are gays in the military.
And did you not say we are the best military in the world?
and did you not say some commanders assume some soldiers are gay?
And did you not say you use the UCMJ as your moral compass but you are letting a Gay person work right next to you and you're doing nothing about it?
Where you lying about all this?
lying?? you are really reaching. Show me how those things support your theory that OPEN gays could serve in our military like other countries.
-
lying?? you are really reaching. Show me how those things support your theory that OPEN gays could serve in our military like other countries.
If you know which means many other straight service men know like your self, and commanders know. (Unless you were lying, which you haven't answered again.)
Then they already are, just without the title.
anything else?
-
If you know which means many other straight service men know like your self, and commanders know. (Unless you were lying, which you haven't answered again.)
Then they already are, just without the title.
anything else?
I never said commanders KNEW so how can I be lying. and as proven by 11,000 discharges you can't openly serve.
-
I never said commanders KNEW so how can I be lying. and as proven by 11,000 discharges you can't openly serve.
I was asking you if you were lying so you can clarify for me, not accusing you of lying.
So then all the gays are out of the military?
Or are there gays in the military?
yes or no
which is it?
-
I was asking you if you were lying so you can clarify for me, not accusing you of lying.
So then all the gays are out of the military?
Or are there gays in the military?
yes or no
which is it?
look prove a point or shut up.
-
look prove a point or shut up.
Can't answer a question?
Just admit it then.
Are there gays in the military with the knowledge of others who are straight in the military?
yes or no?
Or were you lying?
-
Can't answer a question?
Just admit it then.
Are there gays in the military with the knowledge of others who are straight in the military?
yes or no?
Or were you lying?
OzmO...You idiot. This is the 7th time I have answered the question. there are no gays serving openly in the military to the commander's knowledge.
-
OzmO...You idiot. This is the 7th time I have answered the question. there are no gays serving openly in the military to the commander's knowledge.
But there are gays yes or no?
And some commanders know but can't prove it?
yes or no?
-
But there are gays yes or no?
And some commanders know but can't prove it?
yes or no?
you asshole, for the 8th time. There are gays yes. No commanders don't know
-
you asshole, for the 8th time. There are gays yes. No commanders don't know
You don't deal with anger well do you?
They don't know or they can't prove it?
For example: we all know OJ did it, but we couldn't prove it.
Yes or no?
-
You don't deal with anger well do you?
They don't know or they can't prove it?
For example: we all know OJ did it, but we couldn't prove it.
Yes or no?
I don't KNOW OJ did it, neither do you. You Assume. The CCs don't KNOW there are gays
get to your fucking point..oh that's right you can't make a point so you will keep asking the same BS
-
I don't KNOW OJ did it, neither do you. You Assume. The CCs don't KNOW there are gays
get to your fucking point..oh that's right you can't make a point so you will keep asking the same BS
So they have no clue?
So they HAVE no idea if a person is gay or not?
Do they think there are no gays at all?
How do you know if some is?
May point is this, they know, you know, it's common knowledge.
that's what don;t ask don't tell does.....it allows gays to be in the military and you and other poeple/commanders know they are there.
So back to to YOUR assertion: We are a conservative country with a conservative military best int he world........ and you have pointed out that there are gays in our military and we know about it!
Whether it's open or not, is a matter of title only.
Very little difference from the countries i listed.
BTW calm down.
take some deep breaths.
Thanks for participating. ;D
-
Is this like a contest to see who can insult each other the most? It's a draw! :)
-
You don't KNOW that OJ did it?
If you had to bet the rent check either way, which would you say?
-
You don't KNOW that OJ did it?
If you had to bet the rent check either way, which would you say?
I would bet yes, but I don't KNOW
-
Is this like a contest to see who can insult each other the most? It's a draw! :)
actually we kind of stopped insulting each other a while ago, but he's getting upset because of facts he's provided andi keep asking about them.
-
So they have no clue?
So they HAVE no idea if a person is gay or not?
Do they think there are no gays at all?
How do you know if some is?
May point is this, they know, you know, it's common knowledge.
that's what don;t ask don't tell does.....it allows gays to be in the military and you and other poeple/commanders know they are there.
So back to to YOUR assertion: We are a conservative country with a conservative military best int he world........ and you have pointed out that there are gays in our military and we know about it!
Whether it's open or not, is a matter of title only.
Very little difference from the countries i listed.
BTW calm down.
take some deep breaths.
Thanks for participating. ;D
This is my last post and then I am done debating with someone as ignorant as you.
Your argument was that if other countries can have openly gay members why can't we. So don't try and call it just a title now. Your point is wrong. Don't try to change the argument to become right. You have never been right in anything you post. You are ignorant, and a child. I am done with this.
-
This is my last post and then I am done debating with someone as ignorant as you.
Your argument was that if other countries can have openly gay members why can't we. So don't try and call it just a title now. Your point is wrong. Don't try to change the argument to become right. You have never been right in anything you post. You are ignorant, and a child. I am done with this.
hahahahahahha
thanks once more for your participation. ;D
GAME-SET-MATCH
Have fun running around arbitrarily calling women Sluts. Maybe you should call your mom and ask her about what it means to be a gentlemen.
Re-read the military code and ask yourself if you are morally correct in not reporting a gay co-corker and then ask your self how much of hypocrite you are as you find out why people on this board call you a bigot.
go on telling your self your commanders don't know their are gay people in the military and deny we'd be any different if it was an open policy. If it makes you sleep better at night good for you.
then look at other gay people in the military and deny their existence while cradling the "no open gays" policy and the UCMJ you cherish so much.
you are a pathetic piece of waste.
-
I would bet yes, but I don't KNOW
ya can't KNOW much in this world.
We attribute credibility to some people who tell us things, and it's sometimes true, sometimes not. 500 years ago, most people on earth KNEW the earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the earth. Today, millions of people KNOW a lot of things that are gonna be shown as lies by history.
-
ya can't KNOW much in this world.
We attribute credibility to some people who tell us things, and it's sometimes true, sometimes not. 500 years ago, most people on earth KNEW the earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the earth. Today, millions of people KNOW a lot of things that are gonna be shown as lies by history.
ain't that the truth. :(
-
Stop the spin, the military doesn't accept gays. And even this dude. If I ever saw him kiss some dude, or listen to him talk about it. I would have to out him and he knows that.
According to the current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" you're obligated to report him now. afterall, ...he told you didn't he?
Common sense tells you that a conservative military in a conservative country will not accept gays.
We are the best military in the world because we hold our service members to the highest moral standards.
You consider the prisoner abuses at Abu Graib as having the highest moral standards? Resorting to torture is having the highest moral standards? Ignoring the rape of female personnel in Iraq is having the highest moral standards.
What then does common sense tell us about a conservative military that would condone & gloss over the rape of it's own personnel, while condemning sex between 2 consenting adults?
Highest moral standards my ass! You'll fill your ranks taking convicted felons, drug dealers and other criminals gladly, but balk at an honest upstanding law abiding gay person who wants to serve his/her country honourably?
The fact is, you've been the most powerful military because of the amount of money your country spends on it, and because of your technology. But as you're learning very quickly, more money & superior technology does not a victory make.
-
According to the current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" you're obligated to report him now. afterall, ...he told you didn't he?
You consider the prisoner abuses at Abu Graib as having the highest moral standards? Resorting to torture is having the highest moral standards? Ignoring the rape of female personnel in Iraq is having the highest moral standards.
What then does common sense tell us about a conservative military that would condone & gloss over the rape of it's own personnel, while condemning sex between 2 consenting adults?
Highest moral standards my ass! You'll fill your ranks taking convicted felons, drug dealers and other criminals gladly, but balk at an honest upstanding law abiding gay person who wants to serve his/her country honourably?
The fact is, you've been the most powerful military because of the amount of money your country spends on it, and because of your technology. But as you're learning very quickly, more money & superior technology does not a victory make.
Look you dumb fucking canadian. All your arguments here support my claims. The Military does have the highest moral standards. That is why all of the people you just mentioned are no longer in the military. Show me where they "glossed" pver a rape. And the military doesn't take felons or drug dealers we kick out people that use drugs in the service. You know nothing about what you are talking about. We are winning tha war. You just have no clue.
-
We are winning tha war. You just have no clue.
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAA
monster neotainted delusion.
-
Look you dumb fucking canadian. All your arguments here support my claims. The Military does have the highest moral standards. That is why all of the people you just mentioned are no longer in the military. Show me where they "glossed" pver a rape.
http://www.suzanneswift.org (http://www.suzanneswift.org)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/print.html (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/print.html)
And the military doesn't take felons or drug dealers we kick out people that use drugs in the service.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/print.html (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/print.html)
You know nothing about what you are talking about. We are winning tha war. You just have no clue.
Keep telling yourself that.
-
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
monster neotainted delusion.
You tell me how we are losing oh great one
-
http://www.suzanneswift.org (http://www.suzanneswift.org)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/print.html (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/print.html)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/print.html (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/02/waivers/print.html)
Keep telling yourself that.
Looks like she didn't win her case huh? Maybe more to the story then, oh no wait it has to be a male conspiracy. And oh wow, one former drug dealer joins the Army. We must kick out people on a daily basis for failing drug tests to cover it up. You don't know shit about the US military.
-
You tell me how we are losing oh great one
Sounds like some people want us to lose. They're even willing to rewrite history to say we we "lost." The primary objective when the war began was removing Saddam. That has been done.
-
Sounds like some people want us to lose. They're even willing to rewrite history to say we we "lost." The primary objective when the war began was removing Saddam. That has been done.
They are pussies, they aren't patriots, they aren't willing to wait until a war is won. They are the desert storm generation that wants a war over in 30 days.
-
Sounds like some people want us to lose. They're even willing to rewrite history to say we we "lost." The primary objective when the war began was removing Saddam. That has been done.
I don't think anyone wants the US military to lose... I know I don't.
I am however, realistic in the fact that this is a fight which we can not win... You see, I am very honest that there is no way WE can outlast THEM... This is THEIR home, not ours, and realistically, we can not possibly care as much about that area as they do... That's why they will ultimately be left alone.
Notice I do not say they will win... We will destroy them... we already have, but the reality is much like the British decided that the "Colonies" weren't worth the trouble.
We too will come to the realization that Iraq is not worth the trouble and we will leave.
-
I don't think anyone wants the US military to lose... I know I don't.
I am however, realistic in the fact that this is a fight which we can not win... You see, I am very honest that there is no way WE can outlast THEM... This is THEIR home, not ours, and realistically, we can not possibly care as much about that area as they do... That's why they will ultimately be left alone.
Notice I do not say they will win... We will destroy them... we already have, but the reality is much like the British decided that the "Colonies" weren't worth the trouble.
We too will come to the realization that Iraq is not worth the trouble and we will leave.
I think there are plenty of people who want us to lose. So far, Ribo is the only person honest enough to say this.
Unless you rewrite history, we are not losing this war. What we're failing to do is help stabilize certain parts of the country, which we didn't effectively plan for.
-
I think there are plenty of people who want us to lose. So far, Ribo is the only person honest enough to say this.
Unless you rewrite history, we are not losing this war. What we're failing to do is help stabilize certain parts of the country, which we didn't effectively plan for.
Perhaps your verbage is more closely accurate to what is happening... I simply considered the stabilization an extension of our "War"... I'm guessing you do not.
That's fair enough... I do not think we (The US Military) will ever be able to stablize the region as it's not up to us... it us entirely up to the Iraqi people. Plus, the longer we are there, the more excuse it gives the insurgency in the first place. As I said, they will always out last US.
Their people will ultimately decide whether or not things continue to blow up... That's really why I want our guys home... They are fighting a mission that they ultimately can not truly win. You can not beat them "at home".
-
Perhaps your verbage is more closely accurate to what is happening... I simply considered the stabilization an extension of our "War"... I'm guessing you do not.
That's fair enough... I do not think we (The US Military) will ever be able to stablize the region as it's not up to us... it us entirely up to the Iraqi people. Plus, the longer we are there, the more excuse it gives the insurgency in the first place. As I said, they will always out last US.
Their people will ultimately decide whether or not things continue to blow up... That's really why I want our guys home... They are fighting a mission that they ultimately can not truly win. You can not beat them "at home".
I think we had several objectives going into the war, with the primary objective being the removal of Saddam. I don't think we will ever completely stabilize the region and I don't think victory or defeat should be judged this way. A new government is in place, which is a success. I doubt this new government will ever have a time when pockets of resistance do not commit acts of terrorism. I don't think either the U.S. or the new Iraqi government will ever be able to completely wipe all those guys out.
I want our men and women to come home too.
-
I think we had several objectives going into the war, with the primary objective being the removal of Saddam. I don't think we will ever completely stabilize the region and I don't think victory or defeat should be judged this way. A new government is in place, which is a success. I doubt this new government will ever have a time when pockets of resistance do not commit acts of terrorism. I don't think either the U.S. or the new Iraqi government will ever be able to completely wipe all those guys out.
I want our men and women to come home too.
I don't usually like tu_holmes but I am enjoying the educated debating goign on between you to. Nice change
-
I don't usually like tu_holmes but I am enjoying the educated debating goign on between you to. Nice change
What? No Love? I can't imagine why... I'm quite even keeled... I just tend to not like Bush and his "Cronies".
It was not always this way... I voted for the guy in 2K... I just thought he was the best for the job at the time. I feel that my thoughts were incorrect though. Hindsight being 20/20 and all that.
-
What? No Love? I can't imagine why... I'm quite even keeled... I just tend to not like Bush and his "Cronies".
It was not always this way... I voted for the guy in 2K... I just thought he was the best for the job at the time. I feel that my thoughts were incorrect though. Hindsight being 20/20 and all that.
I really think in the long run he will go down as a good president that stood up for our freedom. I watched parts of a thing on Churchill last night and it was crazy the things he went through when he called Hitler a psycho.
-
I really think in the long run he will go down as a good president that stood up for our freedom. I watched parts of a thing on Churchill last night and it was crazy the things he went through when he called Hitler a psycho.
The difference is that Hitler had the opportunity to prove him right I suppose.
I don't think anyone will ever "defend" Saddam, but it's also very difficult to defend our fight in Iraq.
I myself would have been perfectly ok if Bush stood up, looked me in the eye, and said "We need oil... Iraq has a ton and we can take it, and we are!"
While I know the international community wouldn't have liked it... I certainly would have been ok with hearing... as long as he said "And we'll get gasoline down to a buck a gallon when we do".
I'd have supported gassing damn near anyone then.
-
The difference is that Hitler had the opportunity to prove him right I suppose.
I don't think anyone will ever "defend" Saddam, but it's also very difficult to defend our fight in Iraq.
I myself would have been perfectly ok if Bush stood up, looked me in the eye, and said "We need oil... Iraq has a ton and we can take it, and we are!"
While I know the international community wouldn't have liked it... I certainly would have been ok with hearing... as long as he said "And we'll get gasoline down to a buck a gallon when we do".
I'd have supported gassing damn near anyone then.
You really feel that the war has nothing to do with the larger war on terror?
-
You really feel that the war has nothing to do with the larger war on terror?
In Iraq... truly... no.
Perhaps I'm being silly, or naive or whatever... but I do not believe our fighting in Iraq is having an impact on terror.
That's not to say that the idea behind it was not to help stop terror... I just don't believe it's really had an impact to do so.
-
In Iraq... truly... no.
Perhaps I'm being silly, or naive or whatever... but I do not believe our fighting in Iraq is having an impact on terror.
That's not to say that the idea behind it was not to help stop terror... I just don't believe it's really had an impact to do so.
Our involvement in Iraq has only inceased terror there.
-
Our involvement in Iraq has only inceased terror there and else where.
-
Our involvement in Iraq has only inceased terror there.
It hasn't increased Terror, it has allowed a civil war to happen that has been brewing for centuries. Once they get their aggression out and settle down they will join Japan and Germany as countries we turned around.
-
It hasn't increased Terror, it has allowed a civil war to happen that has been brewing for centuries. Once they get their aggression out and settle down they will join Japan and Germany as countries we turned around.
umm no,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1880275,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1880275,00.html)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3451239.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3451239.stm)
you can call it what you want. IED's all that stuff, make Iraq a much more dangerous place and as a result of our invasion terror has increased.