General Wants Gay Ban Lifted

[Gunny]

You're going to have to explain exactly why it's wrong, especially in the context of a married couple.

What does being married have to do with it? S&M is sexually deviant behavior, period. Sexually deviant behavior is just a polite label for abnormal.


Free diving is seeing how far you can go down on a single breath. Firewalking is self-explanatory.

I don't see where or why you would consider free diving abnormal. Even if you do, again, that is opinion, not fact-based.

I don't see a point to firewalking, and hardly everybody does it, and yes I would consider that too abnormal behavior simply because it's just dumb.

And you aren't making your point, IMO.

Your first example seems to rely heavily on the fact the couple are married; which, is irrelevant to the behavior itself. Marriage does not justify sexual deviance.

I'd hardly call getting your kicks inflicting or receiving pain normal behavior.

Your second isn't evne a question mark to me. Anyone who swims a on a regular or daily basis tests how far they can go under water.

Your last is a carnival act.

[Gunny]

You tell me what's wrong with a married couple enjoying each other sexually if it's so obvious. That you don't find it appealing is hardly proof or for that matter even an argument that it's wrong.

What's wrong with people who enjoy inflicting pain, or having it inflicted on them? You can't justify THAT in any way as "normal" behavior. And again, marriage is irrelevant to the act and does not justify it.

[Missileman]

What's wrong with people who enjoy inflicting pain, or having it inflicted on them? You can't justify THAT in any way as "normal" behavior. And again, marriage is irrelevant to the act and does not justify it.

I already agreed that it was abnormal behavior, it's why I listed it as an example of such. What you have yet to do is show that a married couple, engaging in the voluntary abnormal behavior of dabbling in S&M is doing something WRONG and therefore exercising BAD judgement. Is S&M illegal? Is it condemned as an abomination in the Bible? If you are going to assert it's wrong, you need to provide something other than your OPINION.

[Missileman]

I don't see where or why you would consider free diving abnormal. Even if you do, again, that is opinion, not fact-based.

I don't see a point to firewalking, and hardly everybody does it, and yes I would consider that too abnormal behavior simply because it's just dumb.

And you aren't making your point, IMO.

Your first example seems to rely heavily on the fact the couple are married; which, is irrelevant to the behavior itself. Marriage does not justify sexual deviance.

I'd hardly call getting your kicks inflicting or receiving pain normal behavior.

Your second isn't evne a question mark to me. Anyone who swims a on a regular or daily basis tests how far they can go under water.

Your last is a carnival act.

Free diving isn't swimming, it's holding onto a weight and letting it drag you hundreds of feet below the surface without benefit of a breathing device. I would most definitely call this abnormal behavior.

Firewalking, going into a self-induced trance and walking across hot coals to demonstrate mind over matter is also something I'd consider abnormal.

[Gunny]

I already agreed that it was abnormal behavior, it's why I listed it as an example of such. What you have yet to do is show that a married couple, engaging in the voluntary abnormal behavior of dabbling in S&M is doing something WRONG and therefore exercising BAD judgement. Is S&M illegal? Is it condemned as an abomination in the Bible? If you are going to assert it's wrong, you need to provide something other than your OPINION.

Actually, no, I really don't. I have ALREADY pointed out that "abnormal behavior" can be defined as fact, by law, or as societal/personal opinion.

If you do not consider it a fact, nor bad judgement, nor wrong for two people to engage in inflicting/receiving pain on one another, I'm not sure what I can tell you.

Why you keep interjecting "married" into the fray when it's irrelevant to the act beats me. I can only assume you believe it somehow justifies the act.

[Gunny]

Free diving isn't swimming, it's holding onto a weight and letting it drag you hundreds of feet below the surface without benefit of a breathing device. I would most definitely call this abnormal behavior.

Firewalking, going into a self-induced trance and walking across hot coals to demonstrate mind over matter is also something I'd consider abnormal.

And all three would be considered abnormal behavior by societal/personal opinion, not scientific fact and/or the law. And all require bad judgement to engage in.

You cannot tell me that you honestly believe out of your three examples, that you consider engaging in any one of them good judgement.

[Missileman]

And all three would be considered abnormal behavior by societal/personal opinion, not scientific fact and/or the law. And all require bad judgement to engage in.

By your own definition, bad judgement is doing something WRONG. It hasn't got a damn thing to do with abnormal, because abnormal doesn't equal WRONG. By your own standard, if it isn't WRONG, then there's no BAD judgement involved which only leaves TWO possibilities...GOOD judgement or NO judgement at all.

Again, post valid moral codes being violated by any of the three or admit that it's YOUR OPINION that there's bad judgement involved.

Now you can see why I was such a stickler about defining the terms being used. If I'm having this much trouble getting you to stay within the bounds of your own definitions, it would be impossible to get you to stay within the bounds of mine.

[Gunny]

By your own definition, bad judgement is doing something WRONG. It hasn't got a damn thing to do with abnormal, because abnormal doesn't equal WRONG. By your own standard, if it isn't WRONG, then there's no BAD judgement involved which only leaves TWO possibilities...GOOD judgement or NO judgement at all.

Again, post valid moral codes being violated by any of the three or admit that it's YOUR OPINION that there's bad judgement involved.

I've been waiting for the admission of intellectual dishonesty. Again, and as stated in the very post you replied to, abnormal is defined by fact, the law or society. The latter two would be based on opinion, as previously stated ... more than once.

Our discussion went rapidly from homosexuality, which is a factual abnormality, to you using societal abnomalities which, again, as previosly stated, ARE matters of opinion. Which has nothing to do with a factual abnormality.

You can try your relativist argument all you want, but as I stated, to engage in any of the three is abnormal behavior as defined by society, and require bad judgement to engage in since all have possible negative consequences; whether or not YOU think they are wrong; which, is merely YOUR opinion.

[Missileman]

bad judgement to engage in since all have possible negative consequences;

Who's being dishonest? That was my definition that you discarded in favor of


Within the context of bad judgement being required to voluntarily engage in factual, abnormal behavior it is intentionally doing what is known to be wrong..

Now, because your definition doesn't really work, you want to change it up.

Using YOUR definition, let's hear how the three examples are people doing what they know is wrong. The first step is to provide legal, moral, or cultural grounds that shows each activity is immoral. And no need to repeat yourself again that these activities are abnormal...we both agree on that point.

[Gunny]

Who's being dishonest? That was my definition that you discarded in favor of


Originally Posted by Gunny
Within the context of bad judgement being required to voluntarily engage in factual, abnormal behavior it is intentionally doing what is known to be wrong.

I guess you overlooked the bolded word?

Now, because your definition doesn't really work, you want to change it up.

I'm not changing it up. I've kept to the same definition. It appears you overlooked a key, defining word.:poke:

Using YOUR definition, let's hear how the three examples are people doing what they know is wrong. The first step is to provide legal, moral, or cultural grounds that shows each activity is immoral. And no need to repeat yourself again that these activities are abnormal...we both agree on that point.

Bearing in mind that key, defining word, your examples don't fit within the parameters of the definition.

[Rahul]

As usual, you have nothing but intellectual dishonesty to respond with. OBVIOUSLY, to anyone that isn't YOU, I am not the judge of anything. Science and society are.


I am not wrong on the issue of homosexuality being "abnormal", any more so than other forms of sexual expression.

How does science prove that two adults engaging in S&M activites involving a foot fetish, for instance, is "abnormal"? Or, to put it another way, how is it any less "normal" than sex in a position other than missionary style?

[Gunny]

I am not wrong on the issue of homosexuality being "abnormal", any more so than other forms of sexual expression.

How does science prove that two adults engaging in S&M activites involving a foot fetish, for instance, is "abnormal"? Or, to put it another way, how is it any less "normal" than sex in a position other than missionary style?

Still trying to push that BS argument, are you?

You ARE wrong, period. Homosexuality is abnormal sexual behavior, period. I've already explained how; which, you ignored as you do anything else anyone presents that shoots your unsubstantiated opinions full of holes.

If you want to go around in circles with your dishonest game, feel free to find someone who isn't smart enough to figure your game out; which, should be QUITE a challenge in and of itself, and fill them full of shit and stop pestering the adults having a conversation.

[Rahul]

Still trying to push that BS argument, are you?

You ARE wrong, period. Homosexuality is abnormal sexual behavior, period. I've already explained how; which, you ignored as you do anything else anyone presents that shoots your unsubstantiated opinions full of holes.

If you want to go around in circles with your dishonest game, feel free to find someone who isn't smart enough to figure your game out; which, should be QUITE a challenge in and of itself, and fill them full of shit and stop pestering the adults having a conversation.

You keep posting a bunch of gibberish, but refuse to answer the question.

Here it is again for your convenience:



How does science prove that two adults engaging in S&M activites involving a foot fetish, for instance, is "abnormal"? Or, to put it another way, how is it any less "normal" than sex in a position other than missionary style?

[Gunny]

You keep posting a bunch of gibberish, but refuse to answer the question.

Here it is again for your convenience:

Why should I bother attempting to answer an intellectually dishonest question?

[manu1959]

You keep posting a bunch of gibberish, but refuse to answer the question.

Here it is again for your convenience:

How does science prove that two adults engaging in S&M activites involving a foot fetish, for instance, is "abnormal"? Or, to put it another way, how is it any less "normal" than sex in a position other than missionary style?

easy....the biological purpose of your foot is not to have it bound and have a load blown on it.....the biological purpose of a foot is to walk on it......the biological purpose of a vagina is to to be penitrated by a penis or provide for birth..

[Missileman]

Bearing in mind that key, defining word, your examples don't fit within the parameters of the definition.

Since "factual" was a designation added well into our discussion, and given that in all actuality, abnormal behavior is abnormal behavior, I think overlook is the wrong word to use in my treatment of "factual". "Total disregard" is a more accurate description.

[Gunny]

Since "factual" was a designation added well into our discussion, and given that in all actuality, abnormal behavior is abnormal behavior, I think overlook is the wrong word to use in my treatment of "factual". "Total disregard" is a more accurate description.

You can disregard it if you like. That would make your examples dishonest, and not within the context. It was only added after the tap dance and requirement with you for literalism, or just as in this case, you'll try to find loophole in it and squirm in some kind of argument.

We've only been doing this off and on for about 3 years. I can only imagine had I attempted to use Christian morality as a basis ... after you recovered from your stroke, I'd have gotten a 3 page dissertation.

The fact is, there IS a difference between factual abnormality, and opinion-based abnormality.

[Missileman]

You can disregard it if you like. That would make your examples dishonest, and not within the context. It was only added after the tap dance and requirement with you for literalism, or just as in this case, you'll try to find loophole in it and squirm in some kind of argument.

We've only been doing this off and on for about 3 years. I can only imagine had I attempted to use Christian morality as a basis ... after you recovered from your stroke, I'd have gotten a 3 page dissertation.

The fact is, there IS a difference between factual abnormality, and opinion-based abnormality.

Careful Gunny...the gyroscopic forces you are generating are placing the planet's axis at risk. Your use of flexible definitions for both abnormal behavior and bad judgement clearly demonstrate that both are subject to interpretation and opinion. Strange isn't it that I want to call a spade a spade and you're playing the "depends on what the definition of "is" is" game. You make blanket statements like "(voluntary) abnormal behavior requires bad judgement", but when push comes to shove, you can't muster anything more than Clintonesque arguments to support your case.

By the way, do you consider sexual deviancy to be factual, semi-factual, partially-factual, opinion-based, social, or imaginary abnormality? Enquiring minds wanna know!

[Gunny]

Careful Gunny...the gyroscopic forces you are generating are placing the planet's axis at risk. Your use of flexible definitions for both abnormal behavior and bad judgement clearly demonstrate that both are subject to interpretation and opinion. Strange isn't it that I want to call a spade a spade and you're playing the "depends on what the definition of "is" is" game. You make blanket statements like "(voluntary) abnormal behavior requires bad judgement", but when push comes to shove, you can't muster anything more than Clintonesque arguments to support your case.

By the way, do you consider sexual deviancy to be factual, semi-factual, partially-factual, opinion-based, social, or imaginary abnormality? Enquiring minds wanna know!

Actually, my statements are specific while you are trying to generalize to suit your argument. Rather than trying to call a spade a spade, you're trying to call a dog a duck.

My statements and criteria have been consistent throught, while yours refuses to acknoledge even a simple, logical defining factor.

And you need to take another look at your posts, Bill, before you presume to call ANYONE "Clintonesque." You've been trying to sell your dog is duck argument throughout.:laugh2:

[Rahul]

Why should I bother attempting to answer an intellectually dishonest question?

What was dishonest about it?


How does science prove that two adults engaging in S&M activites involving a foot fetish, for instance, is "abnormal"? Or, to put it another way, how is it any less "normal" than sex in a position other than missionary style?

easy....the biological purpose of your foot is not to have it bound and have a load blown on it.....the biological purpose of a foot is to walk on it......the biological purpose of a vagina is to to be penitrated by a penis or provide for birth..

Just as an aside, I am not referring to Chinese foot binding (which by the way is NOT practised any more, and hasnt been since a long time). . . I am referring to a "regular" foot fetish, with healthy, normal feet.

That being said, you seem to be saying that any form of sex which doesn't result in a childbirth is "abnormal". So, going by this statement, what about missionary sex between two people using contraceptives? How is that "normal", by your definition?

[Gunny]

What was dishonest about it?



Just as an aside, I am not referring to Chinese foot binding (which by the way is NOT practised any more, and hasnt been since a long time). . . I am referring to a "regular" foot fetish, with healthy, normal feet.

That being said, you seem to be saying that any form of sex which doesn't result in a childbirth is "abnormal". So, going by this statement, what about missionary sex between two people using contraceptives? How is that "normal", by your definition?

The entire premise of your argument is what's dishonest. Deflection, out-of-context literalism and/or relativism, not to mention just flat out ignoring fact are dishonest. That just about covers every facet of every argument you have made on this board.

[Missileman]

Actually, my statements are specific

Specific until they don't work as planned, and then you change them to something else. I had you define the terms for our argument and you still couldn't stick to them.

[Rahul]

The entire premise of your argument is what's dishonest.

I disagree.



Deflection,

Name one thing I deflected.



out-of-context literalism and/or relativism,

What did I take out of context?


not to mention just flat out ignoring fact are dishonest.

What facts have I ignored?



That just about covers every facet of every argument you have made on this board.

Why is sex in the missionary position between two people using contraceptives "normal" though it doesn't result in childbirth, but a person rubbing up against a foot, for instance, "abnormal"?

[Gunny]

Specific until they don't work as planned, and then you change them to something else. I had you define the terms for our argument and you still couldn't stick to them.

I stuck to them just fine. The definitions are the same, and do not contradict one another at all, throughout the thread.

You were desperately looking for a loophole. Finding none, you just chose to ignore whatever part of the definition you wished.

Bad form.

[Gunny]

I disagree.



Name one thing I deflected.



What did I take out of context?



What facts have I ignored?



Why is sex in the missionary position between two people using contraceptives "normal" though it doesn't result in childbirth, but a person rubbing up against a foot, for instance, "abnormal"?

I've already told, play your stupid little pretending you haven't had your ass handed to you by everyone in this thread that's cared to game with someone else.

[Missileman]

I stuck to them just fine. The definitions are the same, and do not contradict one another at all, throughout the thread.

You were desperately looking for a loophole. Finding none, you just chose to ignore whatever part of the definition you wished.

Bad form.

:bsflag:

You started with
That is consciously deciding to engage in abnormal behavior. Bad judgement.

Then wrote in reply to my saying that "I can list hundreds of abnormal behaviors that had nothing to do with bad judgement" that
No you can't. Any behavior requires the decision to carry it out.

At this point you tried to shift from abnormal behavior to bad behavior with
That decision to consciously engage is bad behavior is due to bad judgement.

After getting back to our original topic of abnormal behavior, you restated your original argument with
To consciously engage in abnormal behavior requires bad judgement.

So now, after 2 days of discussing ABNORMAL behavior and BAD judgement, you attempt to drop BAD from judgement to make the ridiculously obvious argument that choosing requires a decision.
And you cannot provide even one instance of voluntary behavior that does not require judgement in or to engage in it.

After three days of argument, you again cite your argument.
Voluntarily engaging in abnormal behavior REQUIRES bad judgement.

And after three days, when pressed to clarify your definition of bad judgement you add a new term to the argument...factual.
Within the context of bad judgement being required to voluntarily engage in factual, abnormal behavior it is intentionally doing what is known to be wrong.

And then after arguing that S&M is without a doubt (factual?) abnormal behavior, when you realized that there are no moral or legal taboos against a married couple engaging in it, you toss in another new term
considered abnormal behavior by societal/personal opinion so that you can claim that some abnormal voluntary behaviors aren't subject to YOUR definition of bad judgement.

Clintonesque is a perfect adjective for the manner in which you've argued in this thread.

[Gunny]

:bsflag:

You started with

Then wrote in reply to my saying that "I can list hundreds of abnormal behaviors that had nothing to do with bad judgement" that

At this point you tried to shift from abnormal behavior to bad behavior with

After getting back to our original topic of abnormal behavior, you restated your original argument with

So now, after 2 days of discussing ABNORMAL behavior and BAD judgement, you attempt to drop BAD from judgement to make the ridiculously obvious argument that choosing requires a decision.

After three days of argument, you again cite your argument.

And after three days, when pressed to clarify your definition of bad judgement you add a new term to the argument...factual.

And then after arguing that S&M is without a doubt (factual?) abnormal behavior, when you realized that there are no moral or legal taboos against a married couple engaging in it, you toss in another new term so that you can claim that some abnormal voluntary behaviors aren't subject to YOUR definition of bad judgement.

Clintonesque is a perfect adjective for the manner in which you've argued in this thread.

Why do people INSIST on attempting to attribute THEIR OWN behavior on others?

My definition has not changed from start to finish. You have however insisted on me further defining it; which, I have. Now you want to say that further defining it is somehow changing it, and that I did that for no reason.

Hogwash.

Your lack of comprehension and logic killed your argument. Simple as that.

[Missileman]

Why do people INSIST on attempting to attribute THEIR OWN behavior on others?

What are you talking about? I'm not the one who keeps tweaking the definitions of the terms in use.


My definition has not changed from start to finish.

I've very clearly shown that they have indeed.


You have however insisted on me further defining it; which, I have.

That's not accurate. I didn't ask you to further define anything. I only asked you to define the terms in use so there wouldn't be any confusion about what we were each saying.


Now you want to say that further defining it is somehow changing it, and that I did that for no reason.

Again, inaccurate. You added new terms and definitions to the argument of your own accord. You did so after I buried your arguments with your own previously-stated definitions.

[Rahul]

I've already told, play your stupid little pretending you haven't had your ass handed to you by everyone in this thread that's cared to game with someone else.

In other words, you have nothing further to add to the discussion. Gotcha. :clap:

[Pale Rider]

In other words, you have nothing further to add to the discussion. Gotcha. :clap:

You haven't "gotten" anyone here muttonhead. He's just come to the same realization as everyone else here, that arguing with you is pointless. We're better off just ignoring you.

[Rahul]

You haven't "gotten" anyone here muttonhead.

Name calling is offensive.



He's just come to the same realization as everyone else here, that arguing with you is pointless.

It's pointless to argue with those who refuse to acknowlege facts and instead engage in name calling. I agree.



We're better off just ignoring you.

Here is the question again, in case someone wishes to answer it.


Why is sex in the missionary position between two people using contraceptives "normal" though it doesn't result in childbirth, but a person rubbing up against a foot, for instance, "abnormal"?

[Pale Rider]

It's pointless to argue with those who refuse to acknowlege facts and instead engage in name calling. I agree.

Here is the question again, in case someone wishes to answer it.

You have won the award for the most dense person on the board. Your blind support for the perverted sickness homosexuality is absurd at best, unless of course you are a homo yourself, and then we understand. But at this point, we adivse you to seek help.

[Rahul]

You have won the award for the most dense person on the board.

Your constant insults are really not required.



Your blind support for the perverted sickness homosexuality is absurd at best, unless of course you are a homo yourself, and then we understand. But at this point, we adivse you to seek help.

Homosexuality is a sexual preference and there isn't any reason it is any more perverted than other forms of sex.

Why is sex in the missionary position between two people using contraceptives "normal" though it doesn't result in childbirth, but a person rubbing up against a foot, for instance, "abnormal"?

[OCA]

that arguing with you is pointless. We're better off just ignoring you.

This is exactly where I am with this dothead, you provide links to facts to back up your views and this fool just ignores them, its a complete waste of time to debate him.....but he knows the truth I suspect.

[Pale Rider]

This is exactly where I am with this dothead, you provide links to facts to back up your views and this fool just ignores them, its a complete waste of time to debate him.....but he knows the truth I suspect.

Yup... rajiv is a complete idiot, and not worth the effort to type out a response.

[Rahul]

This is exactly where I am with this dothead,

Please stop with the insults already.



you provide links to facts to back up your views

There wasn't a link provided that answered my question. Provide an answer, or a link, and I will view it.



and this fool just ignores them,

More insults. Do you always insult those you disagree with?


its a complete waste of time to debate him.....but he knows the truth I suspect.

Why is sex in the missionary position between two people using contraceptives "normal" though it doesn't result in childbirth, but a person rubbing up against a foot, for instance, "abnormal"?

[OCA]

Please stop with the insults already.



There wasn't a link provided that answered my question. Provide an answer, or a link, and I will view it.



More insults. Do you always insult those you disagree with?



Why is sex in the missionary position between two people using contraceptives "normal" though it doesn't result in childbirth, but a person rubbing up against a foot, for instance, "abnormal"?

Any sex between two people of the opposite sex is normal, some acts may be kinkier than others but they are normal because it is MAN AND WOMAN.

Any sex no matter the act between two people of the same sex is vile and abnormal by any stretch of the imagination.............so says logic and the overwhelming majority of the world.

Yes, I do insult complete idiots.....get used to it......there is not 1 thing you can do about it.

[Rahul]

Any sex between two people of the opposite sex is normal, some acts may be kinkier than others but they are normal because it is MAN AND WOMAN.

Any sex no matter the act between two people of the same sex is vile and abnormal by any stretch of the imagination.............so says logic and the overwhelming majority of the world.

So, you say rubbing one's private parts against a foot is normal, if it's a man and woman participating in this act. However, this same act would be abnormal if two women, or two men participated in this act.

This is illogical, and makes no sense. Why does it become abnormal simply because a man's foot is replaced with a woman's, or vice versa.

Perhaps you could explain your "logic".

[nevadamedic]

Any sex between two people of the opposite sex is normal, some acts may be kinkier than others but they are normal because it is MAN AND WOMAN.

Any sex no matter the act between two people of the same sex is vile and abnormal by any stretch of the imagination.............so says logic and the overwhelming majority of the world.

Yes, I do insult complete idiots.....get used to it......there is not 1 thing you can do about it.

:laugh2:

[Rahul]

:laugh2:

You seem to find humor in the strangest things.

Anyhow, why does the act become abnormal simply because a man's foot is replaced with a woman's, or vice versa?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/N12453669_33496778_661.jpg

[jimnyc]

Why is sex in the missionary position between two people using contraceptives "normal" though it doesn't result in childbirth, but a person rubbing up against a foot, for instance, "abnormal"?

Homosexuality IS abnormal, by definition and simple logic. It's vile and disgusting. It's not wanted around by the overwhelming majority of our nation.

Certain 'kinky' acts or outside simple missionary position (or just for pleasure) are accepted by society, as abnormal, but harmless, when between a man and a woman. Homosexuality has been found to be the opposite. Society doesn't want to accept, condone or look the other way about acts they think are harmful to a society as a whole.

There are personal beliefs to be against queers. There are facts to be against queers. And their is common sense as well. A smelly sphincter will never be "common sense" when it comes to 2 men.

[OCA]

So, you say rubbing one's private parts against a foot is normal, if it's a man and woman participating in this act. However, this same act would be abnormal if two women, or two men participated in this act.

This is illogical, and makes no sense. Why does it become abnormal simply because a man's foot is replaced with a woman's, or vice versa.

Perhaps you could explain your "logic".

Whats your main malfunction? Man and woman, man and woman, man and woman........all else is abnormal.

Your view is illogical and flies in the face of all common sense.

[Rahul]

Homosexuality IS abnormal, by definition and simple logic.

What logic? Could you explain further?


It's vile and disgusting.

How is it any more or less disgusting than licking a foot, for instance? Why is it less acceptable?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/RBS01.jpg


It's not wanted around by the overwhelming majority of our nation.

Maybe you could share that source.




Certain 'kinky' acts or outside simple missionary position (or just for pleasure) are accepted by society, as abnormal, but harmless, when between a man and a woman.

You seem to be saying all sexual acts except those performed in the missionary position are abnormal. Define "normal", and "abnormal".

Further, why is it harmless when performed between a man and a woman, but not two women, or two men?



Homosexuality has been found to be the opposite. Society doesn't want to accept, condone or look the other way about acts they think are harmful to a society as a whole.

Opposite of what? How is homosexuality harmful to society?



There are personal beliefs to be against queers. There are facts to be against queers.

What beliefts? What facts? Are you going to substantiate your argument or not?

Why is homosexuality more harmful than a foot fetish? Or normal sex?

[jimnyc]

What logic? Could you explain further?

How is it any more or less disgusting than licking a foot, for instance? Why is it less acceptable?

Maybe you could share that source.

You seem to be saying all sexual acts except those performed in the missionary position are abnormal. Define "normal", and "abnormal".

Further, why is it harmless when performed between a man and a woman, but not two women, or two men?

Opposite of what? How is homosexuality harmful to society?

What beliefts? What facts? Are you going to substantiate your argument or not?

Why is homosexuality more harmful than a foot fetish? Or normal sex?

Cut out the fifty questions in response. No matter what anyone presents to you, you only come back with more questions. I have no need to convince or otherwise prove shit to you. Great for you if you support them. I'll denounce the deviants just the same. 2 guys hiding the salami in one another is wrong. Period.

[shattered]

Wouldn't salami be a little egotistical, when pepperoni is probably more on the mark?

[jimnyc]

Wouldn't salami be a little egotistical, when pepperoni is probably more on the mark?

Depends on whom you speak of, with me it would be more like an oversized cucumber. :)

[shattered]

Depends on whom you speak of, with me it would be more like an oversized cucumber. :)

Ok, that was more than I wanted to know..

I think I'll make a graceful exit from this thread now. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Ok, that was more than I wanted to know..

I think I'll make a graceful exit from this thread now. :laugh2:

The gals at the bar generally move away when I start with the comparisons too! :)

[gabosaurus]

Wonder what they will do about the gay Pentagon brass. There are some.

[Rahul]

Cut out the fifty questions in response. No matter what anyone presents to you, you only come back with more questions.

You haven't answered a single one of them.


2 guys hiding the salami in one another is wrong. Period.

How? Why?

Why is homosexuality "wrong"? Why is fetishism "wrong"? Or do you only believe what you prefer to be "right"? :)

[Rahul]

Ok, that was more than I wanted to know..

I think I'll make a graceful exit from this thread now. :laugh2:

Long time, no see. . .

:2up: I like the avatar!!

[jimnyc]

You haven't answered a single one of them.

How? Why?

Why is homosexuality "wrong"? Why is fetishism "wrong"? Or do you only believe what you prefer to be "right"? :)

Believe what you want to believe, I'm not here to answer all of your questions. It's my opinion of these filth and it's not going to change. They don't need rights or acceptance, they need medical assistance.

[Rahul]

Believe what you want to believe, I'm not here to answer all of your questions.

In other words, you have no argument to make on this one.

[OCA]

Wow Gandhi has said he does not believe that Americans overwhelmingly reject queers, here you go Gandhi:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-02-ga-initiative-gay-marriage_x.htm

Thats just from 1 state out of many that voted on it in Nov.2004 general election.....a 3-1 margin and many of the others were 4 and 5 to 1.

Wonder what question you will come up with now to deflect from the fact that you are getting slaughtered on this issue?

[OCA]

In other words, you have no argument to make on this one.

Gandhi you say nobody has any argument no matter what they say, thats really a great debating tactic.:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

In other words, you have no argument to make on this one.

No, rather that I choose not to waste my time answering retarded questions. I don't "need" an argument to know how I feel about homosexuals. I also don't have an argument against those that engage in eating of feces, but I imagine I would oppose that too.

[OCA]

No, rather that I choose not to waste my time answering retarded questions. I don't "need" an argument to know how I feel about homosexuals. I also don't have an argument against those that engage in eating of feces, but I imagine I would oppose that too.

In India they eat curry feces cooked in a tandoori oven, its a staple of theirs.

[jimnyc]

In India they eat curry feces cooked in a tandoori oven, its a staple of theirs.

They should outlaw that then too!

[OCA]

They should outlaw that then too!


Kind of hard because its the perfect compliment to the rat on a stick they love.

[Rahul]

Wow Gandhi has said he does not believe that Americans overwhelmingly reject queers, here you go Gandhi:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-02-ga-initiative-gay-marriage_x.htm

The link was useless as it only refers to Georgia. Do you even bother to read the question before posting an article?


Gandhi you say nobody has any argument no matter what they say, thats really a great debating tactic.:laugh2:

Hey, I can't help it! He didn't have an argument, so I said he didn't. What would you have me do? Say he did? :-D


In India they eat curry feces cooked in a tandoori oven, its a staple of theirs.

These type of crude remarks are not required.


No, rather that I choose not to waste my time answering retarded questions.

What was retarded about it?



I don't "need" an argument to know how I feel about homosexuals. I also don't have an argument against those that engage in eating of feces, but I imagine I would oppose that too.

You may oppose homosexuality, but there is not any reason to do so.

[jimnyc]

You may oppose homosexuality, but there is not any reason to do so.

I gave you multiple reasons as to why I detest homosexuality. If you don't agree, fine, but don't claim I don't have reasons or that I didn't answer you. Again, I don't need to convince you of anything. Myself and others will do most of our talking with our votes.

[Rahul]

I gave you multiple reasons as to why I detest homosexuality. If you don't agree, fine, but don't claim I don't have reasons or that I didn't answer you. Again, I don't need to convince you of anything. Myself and others will do most of our talking with our votes.

You gave me reasons as to why you detest homosexuality. Fine.

You did NOT, however, give me reasons why homosexuality is not "normal", or why it should be considered abnormal, or why homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Basically, what I am saying is, just because YOU don't like something does not make it right or wrong.

[jimnyc]

You gave me reasons as to why you detest homosexuality. Fine.

You did NOT, however, give me reasons why homosexuality is not "normal", or why it should be considered abnormal, or why homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Basically, what I am saying is, just because YOU don't like something does not make it right or wrong.

Don't need to provide proof of abnormality, that's just common sense.

And as of this very second, homosexuals have the EXACT same rights as heterosexuals.

[Rahul]

Don't need to provide proof of abnormality, that's just common sense.


It isn't common sense. To you, a foot fetish scene or a dom/sub relationship may seem "abnormal", but it is normal to them. Who are we to decide what's normal for others?



And as of this very second, homosexuals have the EXACT same rights as heterosexuals.

Agreed. I thought you were arguing against that, though. . .

[jimnyc]

It isn't common sense. To you, a foot fetish scene or a dom/sub relationship may seem "abnormal", but it is normal to them. Who are we to decide what's normal for others?

Sure, and crack users think it's normal to smoke crack. Retards think it's normal to wipe shit on one another. Thugs think it's ok to shoot people at random. There are lots of people who lead abnormal lifestyles and I'm sure most of them think it's just fine. Society will dictate what it is willing to accept.


Agreed. I thought you were arguing against that, though. . .

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. No additional rights for the queers, they have identical rights right now.

[Rahul]

Sure, and crack users think it's normal to smoke crack. Retards think it's normal to wipe shit on one another. Thugs think it's ok to shoot people at random. There are lots of people who lead abnormal lifestyles and I'm sure most of them think it's just fine. Society will dictate what it is willing to accept.

Yes, but equating homosexual acts between two consenting adults with any of the above three is silly. All the above cases are generally ones where the perpetrators are causing harm to others, however, two men having sex with each other doesn't harm other people.



No additional rights for the queers, they have identical rights right now.

I wouldn't quite put it that way, but I agree - equal rights are what's needed, nothing else.

However, I am unsure if homosexual marriage is legal in ALL states? It is in some states, but not all as far as I know. . .

[jimnyc]

equal rights are what's needed, nothing else.

They're rights are IDENTICAL. THE SAME. NO DIFFERENCE. 100% EQUAL.

[Rahul]

They're rights are IDENTICAL. THE SAME. NO DIFFERENCE. 100% EQUAL.

What about homosexual marriages?




http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576


Following is a 50-state roundup of current law and proposals to change state marriage laws.

Based on information compiled from Stateline.org news reports, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

ALABAMA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation:Resolution urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage has been adopted. (HJR 129). State constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage introduced but failed.
ALASKA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: None
ARIZONA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment was introduced but failed (SCR 1015). A resolution urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed the state House but failed in the Senate (SCM 1004).
ARKANSAS
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: A state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage placed on the November ballot through the citizen initiative process was approved by voters.
CALIFORNIA
Current law: State law, passed by public referendum, bans same-sex marriage (In defiance of that law, San Francisco issued more than 3,200 marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The state high court is expected to rule on the validity of those marriages). The state will extend certain state-level marriage benefits to those on a domestic partners' registry starting Jan. 1, 2005.
Legislation: Assembly Judiciary committee on April 20 became the first legislative body in America to approve a measure that would allow same-sex couples to wed, but the legislation has not been considered by full Assembly (AB 1967). Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (AJR 67). Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (AJR 67).
Court action:State Supreme Court on August 12 nullified nearly 4,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in San Francisco in violation of state law. The high court is expected to hear a separate case that will decide on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage at a later date.
COLORADO
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Resolution urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was introduced, but died (HJR04-1013).
CONNECTICUT
Current law: State adoption statute refers to marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Legislation: Bill introduced to allow same-sex couples to marry (HBO 3069).
Court action:Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the legal group that won marriage rights for same-sex couples in Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit in state court Aug. 25 on behalf of seven same-sex couples seeking the right to marry.
DELAWARE
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriages and civil unions introduced March 31, but Senate President Thurman G. Adams (D) has blocked the measure from coming to a vote (SB 246).
FLORIDA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: None
Court action: Miami lawyer Ellis Rubin has filed 8 lawsuits 3 federal cases and 5 state cases in 2004 on behalf of about 40 same-sex couples. Two of the federal cases seek recognition of marriages performed in Canada and Florida and challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The other cases were filed on behalf of unwed same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. None have gone to trial yet. The National Center for Lesbian Rights has filed a lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples challenging Florida's same-sex marriage ban.

GEORGIA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman was approved by the Legislature and by 85 percent of voters on Nov. 2.
Court action:A trial court judge dismissed a lawsuit Sept. 29 seeking to remove the same-sex marriage ban from the ballot. Gay-rights advocates say they will re-file the lawsuit now that the amendment has been approved by voters.
HAWAII
Current law: Constitutional amendment giving the legislature the right to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. DOMA passed by the legislature and adopted as state law by public referendum. But Hawaii law provides limited state benefits to same-sex partners.
Legislation: None.
IDAHO
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed the state House Feb. 11, but was not voted on in the Senate before the legislature adjourned in March (HJR 009).
ILLINOIS
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage introduced but failed to pass (HJRCA 24, SJRCA 56, HJRCA 25, HJRCA 31). Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage .
INDIANA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: The Legislature adjourned March 4, effectively killing a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The measure passed the state Senate but stalled in the House when Democrats refused to bring it to a vote. Republicans unsuccessfully attempted to force a vote by stalling all legislative activity for one week by refusing to enter the House chambers. (HJR 3, SJR 7).
Court action: The Indiana Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of three same-sex couples challenging Indiana's same-sex marriage ban. The case was dismissed by a trial court judge in 2003 and is currently pending in the state Court of Appeals.

IOWA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Senate voted down a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (SJR 2002). Proposed state law that would prohibit recognition of same-sex marriage or any legal union that provides marriage-like benefits failed (SF 216). Resolutions urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage also have been introduced and approved by committees in both chambers (HJR 2002, SJR 2005).
KANSAS
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and benefits that associate marriage to other relationships was approved by the state Senate May 1 but narrowly defeated in the state House May 4 (HCR 5005). A similar measure had narrowly passed the House in March but was voted down by the Senate.
KENTUCKY
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman was approved by the Legislature April 19 and by nearly 75 percent of voters Nov. 2.
LOUISIANA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: Constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples and prohibiting state officials and courts from recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions performed elsewhere was passed by a 4-to-1 margin Sept. 18.
Court action: A district judge struck down the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage Oct. 5, ruling that the measure was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because the provision had more than one purpose banning not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions. Opponents plan to appeal the ruling.
MAINE
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was proposed but failed in both legislative chambers.
MARYLAND
Current law: The first state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman was adopted by Maryland in 1973.
Legislation: State constitutional amendment and proposed state law banning same-sex marriage were introduced and defeated (HB 16, HB 728, SB 746).
Court action: The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit July 7, 2004 challenging the state's same-sex marriage ban on behalf of nine same-sex couples and a man whose partner recently died.

MASSACHUSETTS
Current law: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ordered legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry by May 17, 2004.
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages but establishing civil unions gained preliminary approval March 29 during the state Constitutional Convention. The measure must be approved in identical form during the next legislative session in 2005 before going to a statewide vote in 2006. Three bills introduced to permit same-sex couples to marry but are not likely to come to a vote (HB 3556, HB 3677, SB 935). A citizen initiated petition drive is under way to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, but 2008 is the soonest it could come to a statewide vote.
Court action: Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders filed a lawsuit July 2004 challenging a 1913 law that prohibits out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts. On August 17, a trial court upheld the 1913 law but GLAD said it will appeal the ruling.

MICHIGAN
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by 59 percent of voters.
Court action: The state Court of Appeals ruled Sept. 3 that the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage should appear on the Nov. 2 ballot even though the state canvassing board could not overcome a partisan deadlock to certify the measure.
MINNESOTA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was introduced but died when the legislature adjourned May 14 without voting on the measure.
MISSISSIPPI
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman was approved by the Legislature and passed by voters on Nov. 2.
MISSOURI
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law and written into constitution Aug. 3
Legislation: None

MONTANA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by voters.
NEBRASKA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution
Legislation: None
Court action: The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in 2003 in federal court in Nebraska challenging the state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

NEVADA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution
Legislation: None
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Current law: State law bans same-sex marriage and pre-dates DOMA laws.
Legislation: The state House and Senate have approved a bill that would reinforce a state law banning same-sex marriages and prohibit recognition of gay marriages performed elsewhere (SB 427). Republican Gov. Craig Benson has said he would sign it.
NEW JERSEY
Current law: State law provides for a domestic partners' registry with marriage-like benefits for same-sex couples.
Legislation: Bill introduced proposing adoption of DOMA to prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying (AB 460). Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage .
Court action: Lambda Legal filed a case on behalf of seven same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. A trial court judge dismissed the case in November 2003. Lambda is seeking an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

NEW MEXICO
Current law: No public policy
Legislation: None
NEW YORK
Current law: No public policy
Legislation: State law proposed that would prohibit recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions performed elsewhere (A 2998). Bill that would recognize same-sex marriage has been proposed in the state Senate (SB 3816) and in the Assembly (AB 7392); three bills to extend some marriage benefits to same-sex couples have been introduced in the state Assembly (AB 2998, AB 3129, AB 8844).
Court action: Lambda filed a case March 5, 2004 on behalf of a same-sex couple seeking the right to marry. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a case July 1, 2004 on behalf of 13 same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. Neither case has gone to trial yet.

NORTH CAROLINA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage were introduced but no action was taken before the legislature adjourned July 18 (H1606, S1057).
NORTH DAKOTA
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by voters.
OHIO
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by voters.
OKLAHOMA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: The legislature approved putting a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman to a statewide vote in November (SJR 46). Legislation strengthening the state's existing DOMA law was approved. Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (HR 1028).
OREGON
Current Law: DOMA written into state constitution (Multnomah County officials in Portland issued marriage licenses to 3,000 same-sex couples before being ordered to stop by a circuit court judge April 20. The case is likely to go to the state Supreme Court).
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by 55 percent of voters.
Court action: The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit seeking recognition of nearly 3,000 marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples by Multnomah County officials. A trial court judge ruled in April 2004 that the marriages were valid and banning same-sex marriage violates the state's constitution. The state Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in July but has stayed the decision until the state Supreme Court considers the matter. A hearing is scheduled before the high court on Nov. 17.

PENNSYLVANIA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment is expected to be introduced.
RHODE ISLAND
Current law: No public policy
Legislation: Two bills to adopt state DOMA laws were introduced but failed (HB 7395, HB 7571). Bill that would recognize same-sex marriage has been proposed
SOUTH CAROLINA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Bill that would strengthen the state's existing DOMA by forbidding the state to recognize same-sex marriages or to grant marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples pased the House but failed in the Senate (HB 4657). Resolution urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage died in a House committee (H 4736).
SOUTH DAKOTA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Bill that would strengthen the state's existing DOMA by forbidding the state to recognize same-sex marriage or to grant marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples was introduced but failed (HB 1289).
TENNESSEE
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages gained preliminary approval by both houses of the legislature (HJR 990). The measure must be approved in identical form during the next legislative session in 2005 before going to a statewide vote in 2006.Senate passed a bill March 31 that would strengthen the state's existing DOMA by forbidding the state from recognizing a "civil union or domestic partnership between individuals of the same sex" (SB 2661). Was voted down by a House committee but may be reintroduced. Resolution urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed by the Senate and a House committee (SJR 27).
TEXAS
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
UTAH
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: A state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman and barring state recognition of any "domestic partnership" was approved by the Legislature and by voters Nov. 2. A bill changing state law to do essentially the same thing was passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor (SB 24).
VERMONT
Current law: State law defines marriage as union between man and woman, but civil unions created in 2000 to provide same-sex couples access to state-level marriage benefits.
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage introduced but failed (PR0005). Bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry was introduced but failed (HB 676). Resolution urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was introduced but failed.
VIRGINIA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Both chambers of the Legislature have approved a bill reaffirming that Virginia has no constitutional or legal obligation to recognize marriages, civil unions or domestic partnership contracts between same-sex couples (HB 751). Gov. Mark Warner (D) has not indicated whether he will sign the bill, but it passed by a veto-proof majority. Resolutions urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed both houses of the Legislature (HJR 187, SJR 91).
WASHINGTON
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment and state law banning same-sex marriage were introduced but died in committee when the legislature adjourned (HJR 4220).
Court action: A second Superior Court judge ruled Sep. 7 that banning same-sex couples from marrying violates the state's constitution. If the case, argued by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 11 same-sex couples, is taken up by the state Supreme Court, it likely will be joined with a similar lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal that resulted in the state's first Superior Court ruling to strike down the state's ban against same-sex marriage on Aug. 2. Both judges delayed implementing their ruling to let the high court take up the case.

WEST VIRGINIA
Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
Legislation: Resolution introduced urging Congress to pass a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage
WISCONSIN
Current law:No DOMA, but state supreme court ruling and Attorney's General opinion held that only heterosexual marriages are legal.
Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions has been approved by the both chambers of the Legislature. The legislation must clear both houses again in the 2005 session before going before voters in a statewide referendum. Proposed statute to establish a state DOMA was approved by the Legislature but vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle in 2003. (SJR, 63, AJR 66).
WYOMING
Current law: State law bans same-sex marriage and pre-dates DOMA laws.
Legislation: Legislation to enact a state law modeled after DOMA was introduced but failed


Clearly, homosexuals do not have the same rights when it comes to marriage.

[jimnyc]

What about homosexual marriages?



Clearly, homosexuals do not have the same rights when it comes to marriage.

They have IDENTICAL rights, or did you have trouble reading what I wrote previously?

Hetero can marry someone of opposite sex
Hetero cannot marry someone of same sex

You're talking about ADDITIONAL rights. All the laws apply to EVERYONE equally.

[jimnyc]

Oh, and thanks for the stats showing just how much the queers are supported. :)

[Rahul]

They have IDENTICAL rights, or did you have trouble reading what I wrote previously?

Hetero can marry someone of opposite sex
Hetero cannot marry someone of same sex

You're talking about ADDITIONAL rights. All the laws apply to EVERYONE equally.

I am not talking about additional rights. I am talking about the same rights.

A man and a woman have the right to marry a woman, and a man respectively.

Why then, should a man not have the right to marry a man, provided the two partners want to marry each other? There is no valid reason for this.

[jimnyc]

I am not talking about additional rights. I am talking about the same rights.

A man and a woman have the right to marry a woman, and a man respectively.

Why then, should a man not have the right to marry a man, provided the two partners want to marry each other? There is no valid reason for this.

And a man and a woman DO NOT have the right to marry someone of the same sex - whether hetero or homo. See that, applied equally! They have the same rights to go forward with, and must adhere to the same no no's.

You are speaking of altering the current laws, which shouldn't be done just to appease a bad lifestyle choice.

What if I wanted to enlist thousands to get rid of bigamy laws, should we allow multiple partners too? Let's say we allow marrying within the family? How about picking random retards to marry? At what point do we stand up and defend marriage for what it was meant to be originally? I say leave things exactly the way they are and alter for no one.

[Rahul]

And a man and a woman DO NOT have the right to marry someone of the same sex - whether hetero or homo. See that, applied equally! They have the same rights to go forward with, and must adhere to the same no no's.

Let's look at it a different way.

Homosexual couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to marriage, or other legal rights such as adoption. That is what I am trying to say.


You are speaking of altering the current laws, which shouldn't be done just to appease a bad lifestyle choice.

Have you ever stopped to consider that what you consider to be bad might not be bad for them?



What if I wanted to enlist thousands to get rid of bigamy laws, should we allow multiple partners too?

No, because that would create legal issues. To whom would you award a man's estate if he had three wives? Upon whom would the burden of child care fall if a woman had two husbands, and she divorced both?



Let's say we allow marrying within the family?

I think that is already allowed. If someone wanted to marry a distant cousin, I highly doubt there are any laws prohibiting that, but correct me if I am wrong.



How about picking random retards to marry?

That was a silly remark. :)


At what point do we stand up and defend marriage for what it was meant to be originally?


I say leave things exactly the way they are and alter for no one.

Marriage is a state of union between two people, and that is exactly what I am saying should be allowed. I don't advocate three men marrying one man. I am simply advocating that one homosexual should be allowed to marry another. Simple.

[OCA]

Homosexuals are still the major carrier of new AIDS cases in the United States(harmful to themselves)

Homosexuals willingly contaminated the blood supply in the 1980's needlessly infecting hundreds of thousands of innocent normal people(harmful to others)

In America we live under a democracy, this issue has been put to a vote of the people, the people have overwhelmongly spoken against queer marriage for many valid reasons.

There are currently only two(Gandhi said there were some) out of 50 states that allow queers to marry(Massachusets and New Jersey) and both those were the results of legislative acts thwarting the will of the people.

Gandhi refuses to see that there are hundreds of legitimate reasons to deny queer choicers the right to marry. If it was up to him 70 yr olds could marry 10 yr olds.

[glockmail]

...
Homosexuals willingly contaminated the blood supply in the 1980's needlessly infecting hundreds of thousands of innocent normal people(harmful to others)

.....

Why is that any different thna putting poison in Tylenol bottles, or bombs in the mail? That's equivalent to murder, isn't it?


...

There are currently only two(Gandhi said there were some) out of 50 states that allow queers to marry(Massachusets and New Jersey) and both those were the results of legislative acts thwarting the will of the people......

Wasn't the Mass deal done by a Judge?

[OCA]

Why is that any different thna putting poison in Tylenol bottles, or bombs in the mail? That's equivalent to murder, isn't it?



Wasn't the Mass deal done by a Judge?

Sure its murder, the queers were told that they had this terrible disease rampaging through their community and that until they had it under control maybe they should stop donating blood but no....................thats discriminatory and queers kept donating hiv pos or not everyone else be damned.

Was it done by a judge or the legislature, can't remember.

[glockmail]

Sure its murder, the queers were told that they had this terrible disease rampaging through their community and that until they had it under control maybe they should stop donating blood but no....................thats discriminatory and queers kept donating hiv pos or not everyone else be damned.

Was it done by a judge or the legislature, can't remember.

If its murder then some prosecuter should man up and do his job.

As I recall the Gay State deal was by a Judge. Not sure about Queer Jersey.

[OCA]

If its murder then some prosecuter should man up and do his job.

As I recall the Gay State deal was by a Judge. Not sure about Queer Jersey.

I believe the Mass. fuckup was the judges on the Mass. SC ordered the legislature to pass a law.

[Rahul]

Gandhi refuses to see that there are hundreds of legitimate reasons to deny queer choicers the right to marry.

Perhaps you could list a few of those reasons.

[glockmail]

I believe the Mass. fuckup was the judges on the Mass. SC ordered the legislature to pass a law. It always was a fucked up State. That's why I left it as soon as I was able. Its been almost 25 years and you couldn't pay me to move back there.

[glockmail]

Perhaps you could list a few of those reasons. Because marraige is between a man and a woman, and forms the backbone of a civilized society.

[Rahul]

Because marraige is between a man and a woman,

So, what is wrong with marriage between two men, or two women?

[OCA]

Perhaps you could list a few of those reasons.

Already listed in several hundred threads laying around.....up to you to go find them. You are not worth the search on my part.

[OCA]

So, what is wrong with marriage between two men, or two women?

Assinine question, its been answered.

Board, this is more evidence that the ignore Rahul campaign needs to be implemented. As soon as members agree i'll stop replying to this ignoramus.

[glockmail]

So, what is wrong with marriage between two men, or two women?


It doesn't result in a family.

[glockmail]

Assinine question, its been answered.

Board, this is more evidence that the ignore Rahul campaign needs to be implemented. As soon as members agree i'll stop replying to this ignoramus.
Maybe you should do a poll. But his neg rep points already point to what the result will be.

[OCA]

Maybe you should do a poll. But his neg rep points already point to what the result will be.


Glock check the lounge.

[Rahul]

Already listed in several hundred threads laying around.....up to you to go find them. You are not worth the search on my part.

In other words, you have no proof. Got it! :-d


It doesn't result in a family.

How about heterosexual intercourse between a man and woman using protection? Should that be banned as well?

[OCA]

In other words, you have no proof. Got it! :-d





You've seen the proof and ignored it....got it!:laugh2:

[Rahul]

You've seen the proof and ignored it....got it!:laugh2:

You have not gotten anything.

Regardless, homosexuals deserve the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.

[glockmail]

....



How about heterosexual intercourse between a man and woman using protection? Should that be banned as well?

No, because sex between a man and his wife makes their relationship stronger, thus strengthening the family.

[OCA]

You have not gotten anything.

Regardless, homosexuals deserve the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.


The desperate cries of a person scraping the bottom of the barrel lol.

[Rahul]

No, because sex between a man and his wife makes their relationship stronger, thus strengthening the family.

Sex between a man and a man does not make their relationship stronger?

[glockmail]

.....

Regardless, homosexuals deserve the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. Can you offer and proof, or any reason whatsoever, of the legitimacy of your assertion?

[glockmail]

Sex between a man and a man does not make their relationship stronger? Moot point, as two queers does not a family make.

[glockmail]

The desperate cries of a person scraping the bottom of the barrel lol.
I had the same impression. What a dot-head! :laugh2:

[Rahul]

Can you offer and proof, or any reason whatsoever, of the legitimacy of your assertion?

Sure. Homosexual couples aren't affecting anyone else by marrying, and they thus deserve the same marriage rights.


Moot point, as two queers does not a family make.

Can you offer proof, or any reason whatsoever of the legitmacy of your assertion?

[glockmail]

Sure. Homosexual couples aren't affecting anyone else by marrying, and they thus deserve the same marriage rights.



Can you offer proof, or any reason whatsoever of the legitmacy of your assertion?

1. They are affecting my rights as a married person by denigrating the institution.
2. The proof is that that two queers can't make a baby.

[Rahul]

1. They are affecting my rights as a married person by denigrating the institution.

What rights are they affecting? Be more specifc.



2. The proof is that that two queers can't make a baby.

Neither can two heterosexuals using protection. Or, should heterosexual activity be banned too?

[glockmail]

What rights are they affecting? Be more specifc.



Neither can two heterosexuals using protection. Or, should heterosexual activity be banned too?

1. How would you like it if you achieved a high standard with title then some group started using your title without meeting same standard? Its like that.

2. That was explained tou you earlier. Your ignoring that is why you have a dot on your head. :poke: :laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

OK... here it is..... from this point on, ignore the dothead, moron, rajiv....

************************************************** ***************************

[Gunny]

Assinine question, its been answered.

Board, this is more evidence that the ignore Rahul campaign needs to be implemented. As soon as members agree i'll stop replying to this ignoramus.


Who?

[OCA]

Who?


Gandhi

[Gunny]

Gandhi

***ahem*** Who?:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Rahul is a weird poster. Polar bears and pro-Palestinians, including terrorists. Go figure. Do not forget his most important screed it global warming, Palis be damned.

[Rahul]

1. How would you like it if you achieved a high standard with title then some group started using your title without meeting same standard? Its like that.

What standard was it that homosexuals failed to meet but heterosexuals using protection met?


2. That was explained tou you earlier. Your ignoring that is why you have a dot on your head. :poke: :laugh2:[/QUOTE]

Please stop with the obtuse remarks already.


OK... here it is..... from this point on, ignore the dothead, moron, rajiv....

************************************************** ***************************

Name calling is against Forum Rules.


Rahul is a weird poster. Polar bears and pro-Palestinians, including terrorists. Go figure. Do not forget his most important screed it global warming, Palis be damned.

I am not wierd. How I am wierd? The bears need our help not your personal comments and obtuse remarks. In the meantime, this thread is about homosexuals, not bears. Perhaps you could stick to the topic being discussed. Thanks in advance for your co-operation!

[jimnyc]

Rahul, homosexuality is looked at not much differently than those who engage in scat, golden showers, extreme kink, asphyxiation... Such perversions might seem "natural" or normal to some, but a civilized society would be wrong to "accept" it. Hey, have at it if that's what floats your boat, but keep it behind closed doors and don't demand to be looked upon or treated the same as those who don't deviate to such behavior.

[glockmail]

What standard was it that homosexuals failed to meet but heterosexuals using protection met?... Normality.

[Rahul]

Rahul, homosexuality is looked at not much differently than those who engage in scat, golden showers, extreme kink, asphyxiation... Such perversions might seem "natural" or normal to some, but a civilized society would be wrong to "accept" it. Hey, have at it if that's what floats your boat, but keep it behind closed doors and don't demand to be looked upon or treated the same as those who don't deviate to such behavior.

Sorry, but I disagree. In fact, attitudes towards homosexuals are changing for the better (except on the issue of homosexual marriages), and homosexuals certainly are not looked upon as those who practice scat etc.

Homosexuals might not see heterosexuals as "normal". Does that mean heterosexuals shouldn't have equal rights?

I see NO reason why one's sexual preference means one should have less rights. . . And, I don't see why a civilized society would be wrong to accept it either.

[jimnyc]

Sorry, but I disagree. In fact, attitudes towards homosexuals are changing for the better (except on the issue of homosexual marriages), and homosexuals certainly are not looked upon as those who practice scat etc.

Homosexuals might not see heterosexuals as "normal". Does that mean heterosexuals shouldn't have equal rights?

I see NO reason why one's sexual preference means one should have less rights. . . And, I don't see why a civilized society would be wrong to accept it either.

That's fine if you disagree, I'm not offended. But I am glad that the overwhelming majority of people disagree with you. That's why there are fights about this at every step, and there always will be. And in case you haven't been keeping score, the homos are losing badly.

You see, and we feel that homosexuals already have the very same rights, and they want it changed to enhance and/or accept their lifestyle. Sorry, but I won't lower my standards because a deviant feels his behavior is being discriminated against.

[Rahul]

That's fine if you disagree, I'm not offended.

Thank you.



But I am glad that the overwhelming majority of people disagree with you. That's why there are fights about this at every step, and there always will be. And in case you haven't been keeping score, the homos are losing badly.

Actually, the only major fights occue on the issue of homosexual marriage and/or adoption.



You see, and we feel that homosexuals already have the very same rights, and they want it changed to enhance and/or accept their lifestyle.

You are wrong. Homosexual couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples do on many issues.



Sorry, but I won't lower my standards because a deviant feels his behavior is being discriminated against.

It isn't deviance. Just a different sexual preference. :)

[jimnyc]

You are wrong. Homosexual couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples do on many issues.

Nothing is unattainable by the homos that are available to legitimately married couples. They can either seek legal assistance to get their affairs in order, or they can marry someone of the opposite sex and go that route. Either way, all "benefits" are available to all, and all marriage rules apply equally.


It isn't deviance. Just a different sexual preference. :)

I suggest you look up 'deviant'. Homosexuality fits the definition to the letter.

[glockmail]

....
Homosexuals might not see heterosexuals as "normal". Does that mean heterosexuals shouldn't have equal rights?

.... .

One percenters don't see the remainder as normal? :laugh2:

[Rahul]

Nothing is unattainable by the homos that are available to legitimately married couples. They can either seek legal assistance to get their affairs in order, or they can marry someone of the opposite sex and go that route. Either way, all "benefits" are available to all, and all marriage rules apply equally.

You are dodging the entire point, which is that two men cannot (legally) marry at all, let along have the same rights as married (heterosexual) couples do.




I suggest you look up 'deviant'. Homosexuality fits the definition to the letter.

Deviant behavior is behavior which is a recognized violation of social norms, however, these days, social norms are far more permissive and the description does not quite apply. I'd rather say "different".

[jimnyc]

You are dodging the entire point, which is that two men cannot (legally) marry at all, let along have the same rights as married (heterosexual) couples do.

You stated that homos didn't have the same rights on many issues, and that's just not true. Whatever they feel they DON'T have, their remedy is to address the courts for law changes. How's that coming along?


Deviant behavior is behavior which is a recognized violation of social norms, however, these days, social norms are far more permissive and the description does not quite apply. I'd rather say "different".

I'd say the percentage of people engaging in homosexual activities makes it "extremely" deviant. I'd further state that the voting in the states so far show that it IS a violation of social norms.

[Rahul]

You stated that homos didn't have the same rights on many issues, and that's just not true.

They don't when it comes to marrying another person of the same sex.

Saying heterosexuals don't have that right is silly, since no heterosexual would want to marry another person of the same sex anyway. . .




I'd say the percentage of people engaging in homosexual activities makes it "extremely" deviant.

Percentages do not always show the entire picture for what it is. Given the social stigma attached to homosexuality, many might not come out and admit they are homosexual. Further, studies haven't been conducted on latent homosexuality either. I'd be willing to bet the percentages would look a LOT different if all factors were taken into account. . .

[jimnyc]

They don't when it comes to marrying another person of the same sex.

Saying heterosexuals don't have that right is silly, since no heterosexual would want to marry another person of the same sex anyway. . .

Just because normal people don't have deviant tendencies doesn't mean we must excuse, acknowledge or accept those that do.

And again, if they aren't happy, their recourse is to address the courts and let the people decide. I'll ask again, how's that working out?


Percentages do not always show the entire picture for what it is. Given the social stigma attached to homosexuality, many might not come out and admit they are homosexual. Further, studies haven't been conducted on latent homosexuality either. I'd be willing to bet the percentages would look a LOT different if all factors were taken into account. . .

Whether 1-2% or 20% - doesn't change the fact that it's deviant by definition.

You can complain until your lungs fall out, but this will always be decided by the courts and the people. Society is making it clear that homosexuality will not be accepted as normal. Society is making it clear it is against homosexual marriages.

[Rahul]

Just because normal people don't have deviant tendencies doesn't mean we must excuse, acknowledge or accept those that do.


How do you know "normal" people do not have deviant tendencies? What about closet homosexuals, for one?



And again, if they aren't happy, their recourse is to address the courts and let the people decide. I'll ask again, how's that working out?

The courts <> the people. The courts = Judge's decision. Now, I agree that homosexuals are not getting equal treatement when it comes to marriage but that is precisely why I started this thread - to do my bit in removing some of the stigma attached to homosexual marriages.




Whether 1-2% or 20% - doesn't change the fact that it's deviant by definition.

You evaded the whole point I made about stats not always showing the true story. Especially on topics like THIS. . .



You can complain until your lungs fall out, but this will always be decided by the courts and the people.

The courts, perhaps.



Society is making it clear that homosexuality will not be accepted as normal. Society is making it clear it is against homosexual marriages.

Unfortunately, that is the current attitude towards homosexual marriages but we must work towards being more open.

[jimnyc]

How do you know "normal" people do not have deviant tendencies? What about closet homosexuals, for one?

They do, and I already admitted as much, but there's a line that society won't allow crossed. I would say there are varying degrees of deviant behavior, and homosexuality is almost as bad as it gets.


The courts <> the people. The courts = Judge's decision. Now, I agree that homosexuals are not getting equal treatement when it comes to marriage but that is precisely why I started this thread - to do my bit in removing some of the stigma attached to homosexual marriages.

I see no stigma, I just see sick people that want their perversions legitimized.


You evaded the whole point I made about stats not always showing the true story. Especially on topics like THIS. . .

I've avoided nothing. The fact remains that homosexuality makes up such a small percentage of society (and sexual acts), that you have a severe uphill climb to NOT consider their behavior deviant.


The courts, perhaps.

But ultimately the people, and the majority want no part of homosexuality in a civilized society.


Unfortunately, that is the current attitude towards homosexual marriages but we must work towards being more open.

Maybe you, or others, but not me. I don't need to do a damn thing for them, except speak out against it when I can and vote when the time comes.

[glockmail]

.....



Whether 1-2% or 20% - doesn't change the fact that it's deviant by definition.

....

Humor me while I mimic a queer enabler from another thread: 'prove that the low percentage makes it deviant'.

What a crock of bull these Q.E.s pull.
:pee:

[Rahul]

They do, and I already admitted as much, but there's a line that society won't allow crossed. I would say there are varying degrees of deviant behavior, and homosexuality is almost as bad as it gets.

If they do, then why do you not agree that stats do not always tell the full story?




I've avoided nothing. The fact remains that homosexuality makes up such a small percentage of society (and sexual acts), that you have a severe uphill climb to NOT consider their behavior deviant.


Again, these stats may not be telling you the full story.



But ultimately the people, and the majority want no part of homosexuality in a civilized society.Maybe you, or others, but not me. I don't need to do a damn thing for them, except speak out against it when I can and vote when the time comes.

Well, speak out against them all you like. You are entitled to your point of view, but it does not mean that homosexuality is any way "wrong". I believe people who are this opposed to homosexuality just do not want to see the overall picture for what it is.

[jimnyc]

If they do, then why do you not agree that stats do not always tell the full story?

Again, these stats may not be telling you the full story.

What story am I supposed to see from these stats? That homosexuality is actually practiced more than I think, that it's almost commonplace and NOT deviant? Sorry, ain't gonna happen. It ISN'T commonplace and it IS deviant.


Well, speak out against them all you like. You are entitled to your point of view, but it does not mean that homosexuality is any way "wrong". I believe people who are this opposed to homosexuality just do not want to see the overall picture for what it is.

And I can push the same arguments on you about smoking marijuana, incest, bigamy and a handful of other subjects. That's why we're called a "civilized" society, because we 'as a people' set the standards that we are going to accept. I'm sorry that you feel that homosexuality should be accepted and legitimized by society, and I'm also sorry that you're in the super minority on this issue.

[Rahul]

What story am I supposed to see from these stats? That homosexuality is actually practiced more than I think, that it's almost commonplace and NOT deviant?

Not that it's common place, but you'd see that a far greater number of people think/practice homosexuality than have been reported.


Sorry, ain't gonna happen. It ISN'T commonplace and it IS deviant.

How do you know it ain't gonna happen? People don't always respond honestly to these type of polls, anyway.




And I can push the same arguments on you about smoking marijuana, incest, bigamy and a handful of other subjects.

So long as incest occurs between CONSENTING ADULTS (both words are very important), I don't particularly have a problem with it. I would not engage in incest but if two consenting adults decide to, hey, I am not going to tell them not to. . .

Smoking marijuana? Hardly in the same category.




That's why we're called a "civilized" society, because we 'as a people' set the standards that we are going to accept. I'm sorry that you feel that homosexuality should be accepted and legitimized by society, and I'm also sorry that you're in the super minority on this issue.

Homsexuality has already been "accepted" - it's homosexual marriages that are not getting accepted. There is a difference.

[jimnyc]

Not that it's common place, but you'd see that a far greater number of people think/practice homosexuality than have been reported.

And can you explain to us how you come up with this "far greater number"? How do we know it's not much smaller?


How do you know it ain't gonna happen? People don't always respond honestly to these type of polls, anyway.

Ain't gonna happen. That's my opinion, you have yours.


So long as incest occurs between CONSENTING ADULTS (both words are very important), I don't particularly have a problem with it. I would not engage in incest but if two consenting adults decide to, hey, I am not going to tell them not to. . .

I'm thankful you're in the minority regarding what society thinks is acceptable.


Smoking marijuana? Hardly in the same category.

Why is that? No victim, nobody is being hurt or subjected to it if I engage in my own privacy. If it's not hurting others, it should be fine then, no?


Homsexuality has already been "accepted" - it's homosexual marriages that are not getting accepted. There is a difference.

Neither have been accepted, nor will either happen anytime in the near future. Society hasn't collapsed THAT far to where we'll just let deviants have their way unimpeded.

[OCA]

So long as incest occurs between CONSENTING ADULTS




"your honour the prosecution rests its case in this case accusing Rahul of low morality."

Again....unfuckinbelievable.

Jimmy you can't argue with dirtbags, they aren't capable of seeing right from wrong with their askewed standards.

[Gunny]

"your honour the prosecution rests its case in this case accusing Rahul of low morality."

Again....unfuckinbelievable.

Jimmy you can't argue with dirtbags, they aren't capable of seeing right from wrong with their askewed standards.

Standards? Since when has ghandi shown any standards?

[nevadamedic]

Gunny, do you think gay people should be allowed to serve in the military?

[Rahul]

And can you explain to us how you come up with this "far greater number"? How do we know it's not much smaller?

I meant greater than what your studies say. If it says 5 percent of people admit to practising homosexuality, then I'd wager a bet saying that 5 percent would be 15 percent in actuality. . .

Throw in the number of people who have homosexual thoughts, and the number would probably rise.

How do I know? It's human nature not to be honest on such matter. Now, I'm not referring to you, but I really wonder if some of the people dead set against homosexuality are uncomfortable withtheir own latent homosexual desires. . .

:beer:




Ain't gonna happen. That's my opinion, you have yours.

Fine, if you choose not to listen, up to you.




I'm thankful you're in the minority regarding what society thinks is acceptable.


I'm thankful I'm open minded.



Why is that? No victim, nobody is being hurt or subjected to it if I engage in my own privacy. If it's not hurting others, it should be fine then, no?

You just listed the reasons why smoking marijuana is not harmful. :-D Thanks!




Neither have been accepted,

One has, the other hasn't in most places.



nor will either happen anytime in the near future.


We don'tknow that.


Jimmy you can't argue with dirtbags, they aren't capable of seeing right from wrong with their askewed standards.

Insults are not required. Do you always insult those whose opinions you are critical of?

[nevadamedic]

I meant greater than what your studies say. If it says 5 percent of people admit to practising homosexuality, then I'd wager a bet saying that 5 percent would be 15 percent in actuality. . .

Throw in the number of people who have homosexual thoughts, and the number would probably rise.

How do I know? It's human nature not to be honest on such matter. Now, I'm not referring to you, but I really wonder if some of the people dead set against homosexuality are uncomfortable withtheir own latent homosexual desires. . .

:beer:




Fine, if you choose not to listen, up to you.




I'm thankful I'm open minded.



You just listed the reasons why smoking marijuana is not harmful. :-D Thanks!




One has, the other hasn't in most places.



We don'tknow that.



Insults are not required. Do you always insult those whose opinions you are critical of?

You figure out OCA's MO, im surprised it took you so long.

[jimnyc]

I meant greater than what your studies say. If it says 5 percent of people admit to practising homosexuality, then I'd wager a bet saying that 5 percent would be 15 percent in actuality. . .

Throw in the number of people who have homosexual thoughts, and the number would probably rise.

And how do you magically come up with these figures? And even so, the behavior WOULD STILL be quite deviant.


How do I know? It's human nature not to be honest on such matter. Now, I'm not referring to you, but I really wonder if some of the people dead set against homosexuality are uncomfortable withtheir own latent homosexual desires. . . That's the oldest and lamest rhetoric. Maybe they're dead set against it because they don't want the society they are a part of to decay without a fight.


Fine, if you choose not to listen, up to you.I listen just fine, and make informed and intelligent decisions.


I'm thankful I'm open minded.I'm open minded too, just not about queers and their deviant behavior.


You just listed the reasons why smoking marijuana is not harmful. :-D Thanks!And thank YOU, that was EXACTLY my point. And yet society has deemed it inappropriate. But I'll bet you'll see marijuana legalization long before queers are accepted. Simply put, just because something doesn't hurt "you", doesn't mean it isn't bad for society.


One has, the other hasn't in most places.Marriages are not being accepted, the voting proves that. Homosexuality is not being accepted, voting proves that. What do you think is the underlining reason for those against homo marriages? I wouldn't suppose it has anything to do with them being homos?

[Rahul]

And how do you magically come up with these figures? And even so, the behavior WOULD STILL be quite deviant.

The behavior might be different, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.


That's the oldest and lamest rhetoric. Maybe they're dead set against it because they don't want the society they are a part of to decay without a fight.

It isn't rhetoric. It's fact.


I listen just fine, and make informed and intelligent decisions.

Not on this issue.



I'm open minded too, just not about queers and their deviant behavior.

That statement is an example of your close mindedness on this issue.



And thank YOU, that was EXACTLY my point. And yet society has deemed it inappropriate. But I'll bet you'll see marijuana legalization long before queers are accepted. Simply put, just because something doesn't hurt "you", doesn't mean it isn't bad for society.

How is it bad for society if it doesn't hurt society? Explain this most interesting statement.



Marriages are not being accepted, the voting proves that. Homosexuality is not being accepted, voting proves that.

The first statement is true, the second is not. Homosexuals are gaining more acceptance by the day.



What do you think is the underlining reason for those against homo marriages? I wouldn't suppose it has anything to do with them being homos?

Probably religion. . .

[jimnyc]

The behavior might be different, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

I said it was deviant, and that's what you've been trying to dispute.


It isn't rhetoric. It's fact.

It is fact that "some of the people dead set against homosexuality are uncomfortable withtheir own latent homosexual desires"? Can you please back that up somehow?


Not on this issue.

Yep, sorry to say, but I am. I opened my mind and learned about the issue over the past 25 years or so. I have listened to both sides, news, scientists, doctors, stories... I am still 100% against it and not swayed in the slightest bit.


That statement is an example of your close mindedness on this issue.

No, it's a statement about what I believe. One can be open minded and still end up disagreeing.


How is it bad for society if it doesn't hurt society? Explain this most interesting statement.

I said it didn't hurt the individual or those around him/her, I never said it didn't hurt society. I think homosexuals and drugs both are bad for a civilized society.


The first statement is true, the second is not. Homosexuals are gaining more acceptance by the day.

I'm glad they are in your part of the world, but everywhere I go the overwhelming majority of people want nothing to do with queers.


Probably religion. . .

Probably for some, and I bet many are opposed simply because they find it offensive that some want their deviant lifestyles to be accepted as the norm.

[Rahul]

I said it was deviant, and that's what you've been trying to dispute.

Deviant, or different, my point is that it's not wrong. Much as a man engaging in S&M with a woman isn't "wrong".



It is fact that "some of the people dead set against homosexuality are uncomfortable withtheir own latent homosexual desires"? Can you please back that up somehow?

Yes, it is a fact. A lot of these people are homophobic. From your favorite source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

Here is one interesting snippet:



Some claim (including Sigmund Freud in his psychoanalytic theory[citation needed]) that some or most homophobics are repressed homosexuals, but this claim is somewhat controversial. In 1996, a controlled study of 64 heterosexual men (half claimed to be homophobic by experience and self-reported orientation) at the University of Georgia[29] found that the allegedly homophobic men (as measured by the Index of Homophobia)[30] were considerably more likely to experience more erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images than non-homophobic men.



Followed by. . .



A component considered to play into homophobia, as considered by some theorists, such as Calvin Thomas and Judith Butler, is an individual's fear of being identified as homosexual him- or herself.

This notion suggests that when expressing homophobic viewpoints and emotions, the individual who does so is not only expressing his thoughts as to homosexuals, but also actively attempting to distance himself from this category and attributed social status. Therefore, by distancing him or herself from the people in question, he/she is reaffirming his/her role as a heterosexual, within heteronormativity, and contributing to the avoidance of his/her potential labeling and consequent treatment as a homosexual.

This interpretation plays into notions of violent opposition to "the Other" as a means of establishing one's identity as part of the majority and therefore, validated by society. This concept is also recurrent in interpretations of racism and xenophobia.

Nancy J. Chodorow states that homophobia can be viewed as method of protection of male masculinity.[31]

Various psychoanalytic theories explain homophobia as a threat to an individual's own homosexual impulses or to a possibility of arising such impulses. This threat causes repression, denial or reaction formation.[32]





No, it's a statement about what I believe. One can be open minded and still end up disagreeing.

True.




I said it didn't hurt the individual or those around him/her, I never said it didn't hurt society. I think homosexuals and drugs both are bad for a civilized society.

Well, if it doesn't hurt the individual, then how does it hurt society which is a collection of individuals?




I'm glad they are in your part of the world,

They are not accepted where I am at currently, but are in the US to a great degree.




Probably for some, and I bet many are opposed simply because they find it offensive that some want their deviant lifestyles to be accepted as the norm.

Yes, but I'd bet the religous opposition far opposes any others on this issue.

[jimnyc]

Deviant, or different, my point is that it's not wrong. Much as a man engaging in S&M with a woman isn't "wrong".

S&M is deviant too, it's just that society isn't as against that behavior as much as homosexual activities. Whether it's "wrong" or not is up to the person you're asking, it's all pretty much opinion at that point.


Yes, it is a fact. A lot of these people are homophobic. From your favorite source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

Why is it my favorite source? It wasn't me who used it as a source. Hey, maybe there are some that are opposed as a result of their own insecurities, but certainly not me! I'm opposed because I find it to be vile and disgusting, and I do not want it to be a part of the society I belong to.


Well, if it doesn't hurt the individual, then how does it hurt society which is a collection of individuals?

Society needs principles, decency and standards. There are TONS of things that are outlawed without victims, simply because society doesn't accept them.


They are not accepted where I am at currently, but are in the US to a great degree.

Again, not where I'm from. I grew up in NJ/NY/CT and have traveled the East Coast extensively, and my experience is that the overwhelming majority find homosexuality to be disgusting and offensive.


Yes, but I'd bet the religous opposition far opposes any others on this issue.

Maybe so, as a result of their personal beliefs. But I'm not religious, and it's my personal belief as well.

[Rahul]

S&M is deviant too, it's just that society isn't as against that behavior as much as homosexual activities.

And, the reason is that S&M does not involve religion. . . while religion is a key bone of contention in the homosexual marriage issue.



Whether it's "wrong" or not is up to the person you're asking, it's all pretty much opinion at that point.


Aha. So you agree that right or wrong is simply personal opinion, and not a basis on which to deny gay people marriage rights.




Why is it my favorite source? It wasn't me who used it as a source.


I think (but am not sure) that you quoted Wiki while arguing about Muhammad on a thread. . .

If it wasn't you, my apologies. I am human and get confused easily, especially with the massive amount of questions directed at me on the Forum.


Hey, maybe there are some that are opposed as a result of their own insecurities, but certainly not me!

I didn't say you were opposed because of that reason. I simply provided a source for what I was saying.



Society needs principles, decency and standards.


Those are again all relative.


There are TONS of things that are outlawed without victims, simply because society doesn't accept them.

Name some.



Again, not where I'm from. I grew up in NJ/NY/CT and have traveled the East Coast extensively, and my experience is that the overwhelming majority find homosexuality to be disgusting and offensive.


And THOSE are the states where gays havethemost rights.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are gays not allowed to marry in New Jersey?

[jimnyc]

And, the reason is that S&M does not involve religion. . . while religion is a key bone of contention in the homosexual marriage issue.

I'm sure this is true to an extent.


Aha. So you agree that right or wrong is simply personal opinion, and not a basis on which to deny gay people marriage rights.

I think society reserves the right to let the people decide what they are prepared to accept.


I think (but am not sure) that you quoted Wiki while arguing about Muhammad on a thread. . .

If it wasn't you, my apologies. I am human and get confused easily, especially with the massive amount of questions directed at me on the Forum.

Wasn't I, although I did question as to why it wasn't a credible source. While editing and defacing does occur I've found, I've also found that Wikipedia is a great and impartial resource of the facts.


I didn't say you were opposed because of that reason. I simply provided a source for what I was saying.

Fair enough...


Those are again all relative.

Yes, and the majority will decide.


Name some.

Smoking pot, nudity laws, prostitution...


And THOSE are the states where gays havethemost rights.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are gays not allowed to marry in New Jersey?

Gays have rights in NJ, but cannot get married there. The only state in the entire USA that can perform a same sex marriage is Massachusetts, and even then it's useless unless your home state recognizes it as well.

Keep in mind though, that this will change should it ever come to a vote. There's a huge difference between judges making the decision and the people voting. Do you know what happened in the 19 states that have voted thus far?

[Rahul]

I'm sure this is true to an extent.


Thank you.



I think society reserves the right to let the people decide what they are prepared to accept.

My point is, that someone's personal likes or dislikes shouldn't influence things to the degree that they get banned, or not allowed in the first place.




Wasn't I,

Noted, and my apologies then.



although I did question as to why it wasn't a credible source. While editing and defacing does occur I've found, I've also found that Wikipedia is a great and impartial resource of the facts.

Because anyone can go in and change it on the spur of the moment. You could change the Wiki entry for Gandhi, for instance, to say he was a Terrorist, or some such rubbish. Now, they'd eventually remove it, and habitual offenders are tracked by IP, but for the moment, that change would be displayed on the site.

Basically, it's the honor system, and not everyone is that honorable.



Smoking pot, nudity laws, prostitution...


And these don't create "victims"?



Gays have rights in NJ, but cannot get married there. The only state in the entire USA that can perform a same sex marriage is Massachusetts, and even then it's useless unless your home state recognizes it as well.

You are right - I got the two states mixed up. NJ has civil unions but they do not recognize gay/lebsian marriages.



Keep in mind though, that this will change should it ever come to a vote. There's a huge difference between judges making the decision and the people voting. Do you know what happened in the 19 states that have voted thus far?

Yes, but feel free to reinforce the point anyway. ;)

[OCA]

You figure out OCA's MO, im surprised it took you so long.

ROTFLMFAO!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Hey nevada you got irrefuteable evidence of the claim of queer at birth you've been making? Or are you as I suspect a closet lib just throwing out the GLAD talking points?

BTW throwing in with Rahul is not looking good on the board.

[OCA]

Gunny, do you think gay people should be allowed to serve in the military?


I'll answer that with an emphatic no.

[Pale Rider]

I'll answer that with an emphatic no.

Yeah... definitely... Gunny's answer is NO!

[Pale Rider]

I guess we win. :D

[Gunny]

Gunny, do you think gay people should be allowed to serve in the military?

Would you like to be crammed into a berthing space with 250 other people, stacked 4 racks deep in which you can barely fit your shoulders down the aisles knowing a dozen or so want to watch you strip to take a shower?

Or share a two man tent with one? Or a two-man fighting hole?

How about combat, with a guy carrying a loaded weapon who doesn't have enough common sense or judgement to know where he's supposed to be sticking his dick?

Pale and OCA got it right ... they don't belong.

[Gunny]

I guess we win. :D

We always do.:cheers2:

[glockmail]

I guess we win. :D


We always do.:cheers2: The battle, yes, but the war will drag on forever.

[Pale Rider]

The battle, yes, but the war will drag on forever.

Hey, we got a good fighting crew here when it comes to defending "normal." Thanks for being there glock, Gunny, OCA, Jimmy, dmp, and anyone else I'm leaving out.

The fag enablers know they're wrong. Nobody wants to continue a fight when they know they're wrong. Trying to perpetuate a lie just to be politically correct is as bad as faggotness itself. It's people making horribly bad decisions.

[glockmail]

Hey, we got a good fighting crew here when it comes to defending "normal." Thanks for being there glock, Gunny, OCA, Jimmy, dmp, and anyone else I'm leaving out.

The fag enablers know they're wrong. Nobody wants to continue a fight when they know they're wrong. Trying to perpetuate a lie just to be politically correct is as bad as faggotness itself. It's people making horribly bad decisions.

Thanks Pale. I'll be around until I'm banned or treated unfairly. :cheers2:

[nevadamedic]

Would you like to be crammed into a berthing space with 250 other people, stacked 4 racks deep in which you can barely fit your shoulders down the aisles knowing a dozen or so want to watch you strip to take a shower?

Or share a two man tent with one? Or a two-man fighting hole?

How about combat, with a guy carrying a loaded weapon who doesn't have enough common sense or judgement to know where he's supposed to be sticking his dick?

Pale and OCA got it right ... they don't belong.

Ok let me ask you this....... I am sure there were a lot of gay people in the military when you were in, did any try to hit on you or do strange things to you? Did any activly watch you while you changed or showered? Im guessing no as you would have probably killed them. So what's wrong with having them in the military? If they arn't bothering people then let them serve our country.

Contrary to popular belief gay people don't just go on the prowl for straight people. They leave them alone. Im sure you have shared a tent with one while in the military and didn't even know he was gay.

What does not knowing where he's supposed to stick his dick have to do with a combat situation? Just because they are gay doesn't mean they wont be valuable in combat. Hell I would think that everyone who hates gay people would love to see them go into combat.

[Pale Rider]

Ok let me ask you this....... I am sure there were a lot of gay people in the military when you were in, did any try to hit on you or do strange things to you? Did any activly watch you while you changed or showered? Im guessing no as you would have probably killed them. So what's wrong with having them in the military? If they arn't bothering people then let them serve our country.

Contrary to popular belief gay people don't just go on the prowl for straight people. They leave them alone. Im sure you have shared a tent with one while in the military and didn't even know he was gay.

What does not knowing where he's supposed to stick his dick have to do with a combat situation? Just because they are gay doesn't mean they wont be valuable in combat. Hell I would think that everyone who hates gay people would love to see them go into combat.

Ooooooooo K....... alright nm....... I'm tellin' ya...... this post here makes me just a little bit SICK.

I know you threw this crap at Gunny, but I spent EIGHT YEARS in the military myself, so I know a thing or two about it. So first off, I can tell you with 100% certainty, there is NOT, "a lot of," HOMOS in the military, as you state. Have you ever served? No? Then how the hell do you come up with those kinds of statements? Queers KNOW they're not allowed in the military to begin with. Second, little fiarey boys don't find regimentation and war something they want to do like normal men. Third, I'm getting real curious as to WHY you so VEHEMENTLY defend this PERVERSION! Sick sons a bitches, and you are over and over defending this BUTT FUCKING SICKNESS! The same old bull shit, time and time again. So I wonder, are you a queer? Is your brother a queer? Do you have a whole bunch of queer friends? Something is going on here. For some reason you've taken it upon yourself to champion two men sucking each others cock as just good ole boys that are A-OK and should be left alone. Frankly I find it disturbing. I find anyone that defends this vile, disgusting, perversion the way you do a bit odd, especially coming from a proffesed conservative. Because it's NOT a conservative position. Defending FAGGOTS is a LIBERAL position. So please expain why it is you have taken upon yourself to so vigorously defend men fucking each other up the ass.

But to just wrap this up... NO... it is NOT a good idea allow FAGGOTS in the MILITARY. It has been expained in this thread probably better, and more reasons given why NOT, than any other topic on this BOARD. And yet here you are, patting the faggots on the ass all the while you defend them, apologize for them, and make excuses for them. Tell us why.

[gabosaurus]

Better gays than your kind, Pale.

[Pale Rider]

Better gays than your kind, Pale.

If that's an example of your judgement, then that just reaffirms how fucked up you are.

[Gunny]

Ok let me ask you this....... I am sure there were a lot of gay people in the military when you were in, did any try to hit on you or do strange things to you? Did any activly watch you while you changed or showered? Im guessing no as you would have probably killed them. So what's wrong with having them in the military? If they arn't bothering people then let them serve our country.

Contrary to popular belief gay people don't just go on the prowl for straight people. They leave them alone. Im sure you have shared a tent with one while in the military and didn't even know he was gay.

What does not knowing where he's supposed to stick his dick have to do with a combat situation? Just because they are gay doesn't mean they wont be valuable in combat. Hell I would think that everyone who hates gay people would love to see them go into combat.

I DO wish y'all would READ THE THREAD before asking questions already answered.

The gays currently serving in the military are serving the Nation first, and their abnormal lifestyle comes second. By default, everyone is considered straight.

The only gays that want to serve openly gay in the military serve their choice of lifestyle first; otherwise, they would already be serving without anyone knowing they are gay.

There's an old saying ... "God, country and Corps ..." in THAT order. So if you aren't serving God, and you aren't serving the Nation, it doesn't go in front of "Corps."

That isn't a game out there. People die playing that "game." If sticking your dick up Billy's butt is more important than accomplishing the mission, I don't want you around me; especially, with a loaded weapon.

[nevadamedic]

Ooooooooo K....... alright nm....... I'm tellin' ya...... this post here makes me just a little bit SICK.

I know you threw this crap at Gunny, but I spent EIGHT YEARS in the military myself, so I know a thing or two about it. So first off, I can tell you with 100% certainty, there is NOT, "a lot of," HOMOS in the military, as you state. Have you ever served? No? Then how the hell do you come up with those kinds of statements? Queers KNOW they're not allowed in the military to begin with. Second, little fiarey boys don't find regimentation and war something they want to do like normal men. Third, I'm getting real curious as to WHY you so VEHEMENTLY defend this PERVERSION! Sick sons a bitches, and you are over and over defending this BUTT FUCKING SICKNESS! The same old bull shit, time and time again. So I wonder, are you a queer? Is your brother a queer? Do you have a whole bunch of queer friends? Something is going on here. For some reason you've taken it upon yourself to champion two men sucking each others cock as just good ole boys that are A-OK and should be left alone. Frankly I find it disturbing. I find anyone that defends this vile, disgusting, perversion the way you do a bit odd, especially coming from a proffesed conservative. Because it's NOT a conservative position. Defending FAGGOTS is a LIBERAL position. So please expain why it is you have taken upon yourself to so vigorously defend men fucking each other up the ass.

But to just wrap this up... NO... it is NOT a good idea allow FAGGOTS in the MILITARY. It has been expained in this thread probably better, and more reasons given why NOT, than any other topic on this BOARD. And yet here you are, patting the faggots on the ass all the while you defend them, apologize for them, and make excuses for them. Tell us why.

I don't support it and I think it is sick, twisted and demented, but I think that everyone is equal and should have equal rights. As long as they do their thing behond closed doors and people don't have to see it then it doesn't bother me.

[nevadamedic]

Better gays than your kind, Pale.

What's his kind? You have no room to rip him on this subject. He has served his country so you have no room to comment on that unless you have as well. That is the one reason I never question his patriotism along with Gunny, 82marine and anyone else here who has served.

You don't make sense, one minute you call him gay, the next you don't will you make up your damn mind? Also did you talk to your doctor about the medications I told you about yesterday? I really think you will benefit from Lithium and Thorozine.

[Pale Rider]

I don't support it and I think it is sick, twisted and demented, but I think that everyone is equal and should have equal rights. As long as they do their thing behond closed doors and people don't have to see it then it doesn't bother me.

Your "rights" end when you raise your right hand and swear into the military, and serving in the military is NOT a place for fags to play. It's serious business, not a social experiment.

[Gunny]

I don't support it and I think it is sick, twisted and demented, but I think that everyone is equal and should have equal rights. As long as they do their thing behond closed doors and people don't have to see it then it doesn't bother me.

This statement is contradictory to your argument.

Explain exactly what Right homosexuals are being denied. There is no "right to express one's sexuality" in enlistment documentation. As a matter of fact, enlisted documentation, DD Form 4, page 3 used to ask something along he lines ..."are you homosexual or have you ever engaged in any homosexual or other suxually deviant behavior?"

That line has been deleted since "Don't ask, don't tell" was implemented in the early 90's. No homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals, and any sexual deviants who are not homosexual to keep their sexuality private.

Homosexuals have EVERY right under he US Consitution that anyone else has. Thay have LEGAL equality.

What they don't have is social equality because the vast majority does not believe homosexual behavior is normal behavior. Because it isn't. Tough shit. If one chooses to live outside the conforms of society then must also accept the consequences that go with it.

[Psychoblues]

Let me give you my experience with the queers in the Military. I met my first in the Air Force in 1969. He was an administrative clerk in Base Head Quarters. I met the other one in an Army Hospital in King Fahd Airport outside Dhahran, Saudi Arabia in March, 1991.

My older brother was in Viet Nam, had a wife and a daughter and I had nobody but me. I volunteered to go to Viet Nam in order to allow my older brother to return to his family. Mr. Air Force Q wrote letters, made many phone calls, testified in several hearings on my behalf but I was not sent to Viet Nam until my older brother finished and survived his time there and then I went as ordered. My advocate, Mr. Air Force Q was not a part of that decision.

In March, 1991, while finishing up my tour in Desert Storm I started shitting blood. I wound up in an Army Hospital at King Faud Airport. The Army doctors didn't give one shucks for me but the capital Q ward clerk hovered over me and everyone else on that ward as if we were his entire responsibility. I stopped bleeding and I returned to full duty. Others on that ward can kiss my ass to this day. They obviously didn't want to be there and I didn't either.

Neither of these guys ever absolutely revealed to me their gayness but I was left with no doubt about their sexual propensities/dilemmas. Shame on who? These were both genuine American Heroes in my honest opinion. I would trust my life in the decisions of either long before I could again trust the same in many of those that I served with so long ago.

This is not to say that I did not also receive competent and fair treatment from others that I can only consider hetero (really, I don't know) but condemnation of the queers in the military just doesn't get it with me. They certainly helped me when I needed help the most.

[glockmail]

Let me give you my experience with the queers in the Military. I met my first in the Air Force in 1969. He was an administrative clerk in Base Head Quarters. I met the other one in an Army Hospital in King Fahd Airport outside Dhahran, Saudi Arabia in March, 1991.

My older brother was in Viet Nam, had a wife and a daughter and I had nobody but me. I volunteered to go to Viet Nam in order to allow my older brother to return to his family. Mr. Air Force Q wrote letters, made many phone calls, testified in several hearings on my behalf but I was not sent to Viet Nam until my older brother finished and survived his time there and then I went as ordered. My advocate, Mr. Air Force Q was not a part of that decision.

In March, 1991, while finishing up my tour in Desert Storm I started shitting blood. I wound up in an Army Hospital at King Faud Airport. The Army doctors didn't give one shucks for me but the capital Q ward clerk hovered over me and everyone else on that ward as if we were his entire responsibility. I stopped bleeding and I returned to full duty. Others on that ward can kiss my ass to this day. They obviously didn't want to be there and I didn't either.

Neither of these guys ever absolutely revealed to me their gayness but I was left with no doubt about their sexual propensities/dilemmas. Shame on who? These were both genuine American Heroes in my honest opinion. I would trust my life in the decisions of either long before I could again trust the same in many of those that I served with so long ago.

This is not to say that I did not also receive competent and fair treatment from others that I can only consider hetero (really, I don't know) but condemnation of the queers in the military just doesn't get it with me. They certainly helped me when I needed help the most.

Times have changed. As we no longer have the draft, most of those admin and hospital types work as civvies and are hired by the military through private companies.

Queers can't be trusted in positions where they may see active combat.

[Psychoblues]

Bullshit.



Times have changed. As we no longer have the draft, most of those admin and hospital types work as civvies and are hired by the military through private companies.

Queers can't be trusted in positions where they may see active combat.

You are an idiot with ignorance to boot.

[glockmail]

Bullshit.




You are an idiot with ignorance to boot.

That post is lacking in your usual quality. :rolleyes:

[Pale Rider]

Let me give you my experience with the queers in the Military. I met my first in the Air Force in 1969. He was an administrative clerk in Base Head Quarters. I met the other one in an Army Hospital in King Fahd Airport outside Dhahran, Saudi Arabia in March, 1991.

My older brother was in Viet Nam, had a wife and a daughter and I had nobody but me. I volunteered to go to Viet Nam in order to allow my older brother to return to his family. Mr. Air Force Q wrote letters, made many phone calls, testified in several hearings on my behalf but I was not sent to Viet Nam until my older brother finished and survived his time there and then I went as ordered. My advocate, Mr. Air Force Q was not a part of that decision.

In March, 1991, while finishing up my tour in Desert Storm I started shitting blood. I wound up in an Army Hospital at King Faud Airport. The Army doctors didn't give one shucks for me but the capital Q ward clerk hovered over me and everyone else on that ward as if we were his entire responsibility. I stopped bleeding and I returned to full duty. Others on that ward can kiss my ass to this day. They obviously didn't want to be there and I didn't either.

Neither of these guys ever absolutely revealed to me their gayness but I was left with no doubt about their sexual propensities/dilemmas. Shame on who? These were both genuine American Heroes in my honest opinion. I would trust my life in the decisions of either long before I could again trust the same in many of those that I served with so long ago.

This is not to say that I did not also receive competent and fair treatment from others that I can only consider hetero (really, I don't know) but condemnation of the queers in the military just doesn't get it with me. They certainly helped me when I needed help the most.

So your story, although intended to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy about faggots, doesn't prove anything. They may not even have been queer. They may have just been feminine type men who still like women.

Try again Pb. That was lame.

By the way... did you mean "Vietnam?"

[Psychoblues]

Kinda like you, pr?


So your story, although intended to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy about faggots, doesn't prove anything. They may not even have been queer. They may have just been feminine type men who still like women.

Try again Pb. That was lame.

I've seen some of your feminine antics but I never thought you were queer. Maybe I was wrong about you all along.

[glockmail]

Kinda like you, pr?



I've seen some of your feminine antics but I never thought you were queer. Maybe I was wrong about you all along.

Why do liberals always use queer as an insult?

:laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

I can't speak for "all the liberals" but you got this one wrong.



Why do liberals always use queer as an insult?

:laugh2:

What in hell are you talking about, gm?

[glockmail]

I can't speak for "all the liberals" but you got this one wrong.




What in hell are you talking about, gm?
No need to read between the lines with this one, Psych. Its black and white.

[Pale Rider]

Kinda like you, pr?

I've seen some of your feminine antics but I never thought you were queer. Maybe I was wrong about you all along.

Right, you're insulting me, I'm so hurt you say that, even though it's bullshit and everyone knows it, I don't think I can make it, please say you're sorry... :lmao:

At least try something new Pb. That old liberal, "I think you're gay," line is so stale and lame by now, it only makes you look stupid, which isn't really that hard to do.

Try again slow leak.

[Psychoblues]

Certainly not a liberal line, jerkoff. But, I'm glad you liked it.




Right, you're insulting me, I'm so hurt you say that, even though it's bullshit and everyone knows it, I don't think I can make it, please say you're sorry... :lmao:

At least try something new Pb. That old liberal, "I think you're gay," line is so stale and lame by now, it only makes you look stupid, which isn't really that hard to do.

Try again slow leak.

What an admonishment!!!!!!! But, I still respect you, you lil' cocksucker, you!!!!!!!!!!!!

[glockmail]

Certainly not a liberal line, jerkoff. But, I'm glad you liked it.

....

Actually it is. Libs/ queer enablers always use queer as an insult, proving that they truly hate those they claim to serve. You're simply following the template.

[Gunny]

Let me give you my experience with the queers in the Military. I met my first in the Air Force in 1969. He was an administrative clerk in Base Head Quarters. I met the other one in an Army Hospital in King Fahd Airport outside Dhahran, Saudi Arabia in March, 1991.

My older brother was in Viet Nam, had a wife and a daughter and I had nobody but me. I volunteered to go to Viet Nam in order to allow my older brother to return to his family. Mr. Air Force Q wrote letters, made many phone calls, testified in several hearings on my behalf but I was not sent to Viet Nam until my older brother finished and survived his time there and then I went as ordered. My advocate, Mr. Air Force Q was not a part of that decision.

In March, 1991, while finishing up my tour in Desert Storm I started shitting blood. I wound up in an Army Hospital at King Faud Airport. The Army doctors didn't give one shucks for me but the capital Q ward clerk hovered over me and everyone else on that ward as if we were his entire responsibility. I stopped bleeding and I returned to full duty. Others on that ward can kiss my ass to this day. They obviously didn't want to be there and I didn't either.

Neither of these guys ever absolutely revealed to me their gayness but I was left with no doubt about their sexual propensities/dilemmas. Shame on who? These were both genuine American Heroes in my honest opinion. I would trust my life in the decisions of either long before I could again trust the same in many of those that I served with so long ago.

This is not to say that I did not also receive competent and fair treatment from others that I can only consider hetero (really, I don't know) but condemnation of the queers in the military just doesn't get it with me. They certainly helped me when I needed help the most.

Are you sure he wasn't just a man who displayed feminine mannerisms? I learned a long time ago, one does not necessarily equate to the other by judging others under the same misconception.

[Pale Rider]

Are you sure he wasn't just a man who displayed feminine mannerisms? I learned a long time ago, one does not necessarily equate to the other by judging others under the same misconception.

Tried the ask the same thing Gunny, and all I got was the old liberal, "you act like a queer, you must be one," line from him. You know, the line they throw at you when they've run out of something maybe worth listening to.

[Pale Rider]

Certainly not a liberal line, jerkoff. But, I'm glad you liked it.





What an admonishment!!!!!!! But, I still respect you, you lil' cocksucker, you!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pathetic Pb... just pathetic. We've reduced your rediculous arguments to dirt, and now with nothing more to say, you resort to this. Pathetic little man you are... pathetic.

[glockmail]

Tried the ask the same thing Gunny, and all I got was the old liberal, "you act like a queer, you must be one," line from him. You know, the line they throw at you when they've run out of something maybe worth listening to.
Chock it up as a score for you. Insults from libs are a badge of honor.

[Pale Rider]

Chock it up as a score for you. Insults from libs are a badge of honor.

I see it more as, "we've run out of things to say, so now we're going to just talk shit."

[actsnoblemartin]

are we talking about openly gay or just gay service members.

I dont have a problem with gays serving in the military.

The same codes of conduct would apply wouldnt they?.

[nevadamedic]

are we talking about openly gay or just gay service members.

I dont have a problem with gays serving in the military.

The same codes of conduct would apply wouldnt they?.

Just think, you can join the Military now! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[nevadamedic]

I can't speak for "all the liberals" but you got this one wrong.




What in hell are you talking about, gm?

Are you fantasizing about Pale Rider again? Let me help you out, I can guarantee he isn't interested Fag.

[actsnoblemartin]

you are just a ray of sunshine arent ya :slap:


Are you fantasizing about Pale Rider again? Let me help you out, I can guarantee he isn't interested Fag.

[Pale Rider]

are we talking about openly gay or just gay service members.

I dont have a problem with gays serving in the military.

The same codes of conduct would apply wouldnt they?.

There's no need for them, and there's no accomodations for them. They should get back in their filthy, disgusting, perverted CLOSET is what they SHOULD do.

[glockmail]

There's no need for them, and there's no accomodations for them. They should get back in their filthy, disgusting, perverted CLOSET is what they SHOULD do. Don't hold back, Pal. Tell us what you really think. :laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

Don't hold back, Pal. Tell us what you really think. :laugh2:

I thought you'd be used to me by now... I "WAS" holding back.

[glockmail]

I thought you'd be used to me by now... I "WAS" holding back. Used to it, yes. Never tire of it though. :salute:

[Pale Rider]

Used to it, yes. Never tire of it though. :salute:

Then carry on... and keep up the good fight brother... :beer:

[glockmail]

Then carry on... and keep up the good fight brother... :beer: Lookie here. 6 pm, time to crack one. :cheers2:

[Pale Rider]

Lookie here. 6 pm, time to crack one. :cheers2:

3:21 PM here on Pacific time. Better get going pretty quick. Need to take a shower and get ready for tonights Hot August Nights (http://www.hotaugustnights.net/) action... :D

[Gunny]

Why do liberals always use queer as an insult?

:laugh2:

They don't. It's a figment of your imagination because EVERYBODY knows libs don't label ANYONE ... well, except conservatives ..... and Christtians .... and blacks ..... and hispanics ....and ...umm...

[Gunny]

There's no need for them, and there's no accomodations for them. They should get back in their filthy, disgusting, perverted CLOSET is what they SHOULD do.

No shit. How many times do we have to say the same damned thing?

[emmett]

Lets just ban straight people. It would be less folks to kick out of the military since fags seem to be everywhere. Only let gays enlist and we can kill two problems with one stone so to speak.

[Gunny]

Lets just ban straight people. It would be less folks to kick out of the military since fags seem to be everywhere. Only let gays enlist and we can kill two problems with one stone so to speak.

You can teach biology without once mentioning homosexuality.

You cannot teach biology without heterosexuality.

[Pale Rider]

Lets just ban straight people. It would be less folks to kick out of the military since fags seem to be everywhere. Only let gays enlist and we can kill two problems with one stone so to speak.

Oh there ya go... that's a good one... let's ban normal, and make our military all faggots. I wonder how long it would take for America to be taken over then?

[glockmail]

Oh there ya go... that's a good one... let's ban normal, and make our military all faggots. I wonder how long it would take for America to be taken over then?
That appears to be his goal. :pee:

[Pale Rider]

That appears to be his goal. :pee:

It's bullshit, and he can't even defend it. Just another liberal loser talking shit.

[Gunny]

It's bullshit, and he can't even defend it. Just another liberal loser talking shit.

Y'all got emmett wrong. He's being sarcastic. Not much of a liberal that I'm aware of.

[Pale Rider]

Y'all got emmett wrong. He's being sarcastic. Not much of a liberal that I'm aware of.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to give people the impression they're a liberal?

Terrrrrrrrible I say.

[Gunny]

Why would anyone in their right mind want to give people the impression they're a liberal?

Terrrrrrrrible I say.

Don't ask me. Unless he's been captured and brainwashed with Michael Moore videos, Emmett isn't one that I know if. I think he was more trying to give the impression he's Don Rickles.:laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

Don't ask me. Unless he's been captured and brainwashed with Michael Moore videos, Emmett isn't one that I know if. I think he was more trying to give the impression he's Don Rickles.:laugh2:

If he's got your endorsement Gunny, that's good enough for me.

[actsnoblemartin]

Its a disgrace they banned you!!


I honestly don't have a problem with gays serving in the military but this doesn't make sense...a policy is still a policy. How can someone in the navy be openly gay? :dunno:

(I know the majority of sailors are gay but didn't know they could do it openly. :2up:)

[Pale Rider]

Its a disgrace they banned you!!

So I guess you're making clear your opinion of the military.

[AFbombloader]

There's no need for them, and there's no accomodations for them. They should get back in their filthy, disgusting, perverted CLOSET is what they SHOULD do.

I didn't have a chance to look at all the posts here, but as an AF recruiter and 19 year member, I agree there is no place for "gays". Living in tents, open bay showers, I don't want or need to worry about that crap! I don't recruit them, and as a supervisor I will do everything in my power to gently remove them from my AF.

[Pale Rider]

I didn't have a chance to look at all the posts here, but as an AF recruiter and 19 year member, I agree there is no place for "gays". Living in tents, open bay showers, I don't want or need to worry about that crap! I don't recruit them, and as a supervisor I will do everything in my power to gently remove them from my AF.

As an eight year, service connected disabled veteran of the Air Force, you have my humble thanks.

[mrg666]

I honestly don't have a problem with gays serving in the military but this doesn't make sense...a policy is still a policy. How can someone in the navy be openly gay? :dunno:

(I know the majority of sailors are gay but didn't know they could do it openly. :2up:)

tell that to the village people :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

I think letting gays in is a bad idea. Gays like men, so if you have all men, i just think its a bad idea.

its as bad as putting men and women serving in close quarters.

I just think its a bad idea.

[JackDaniels]

I think letting gays in is a bad idea. Gays like men, so if you have all men, i just think its a bad idea.

its as bad as putting men and women serving in close quarters.

I just think its a bad idea.

You really do not understand the policy. Gays under the policy for the last 15 years are NOT banned from the military.

[Classact]

I spent twenty years in the army and served with gays undoubtedly... I'm sure my commanding officer in one garrison assignment was a lesbian... no she didn't tell... I'm also sure several cooks were gay within units I served but again they never found it necessary to tell.

I think don't ask - don't tell is probablly unconstitutional but great legislation... Since America's founding the common law was brought forward... not the European version but the Pre-Declaration American version of common law was adopted by the US at it founding... these laws reflect the communities where people live... for example if you drive east from Dallas you can drive three hours before being able to buy any type of alcohol... I don't have the right to bother the bible thumpers to insist they provide beer in their supermarkets or 7-11's... The majority of the mob made those laws because they feel comfortable with such laws. The military is a similar community inasmuch there are certain expectations.

The problem is that maybe 3 to 12% of the military would choose to leave the military if they were forced to work openly with gays. So what you may ask... it would cause a draft... even if the figure was 3% there would be another 15% in leadership that would stay in the service due to the retirement investment they have already made. So imagine the law changes and a considerable group of servicemembers exit suddenly, a draft is instituted to fill the gap... the draftees and those hidden in leadership entrapment investments would make openly serving gays and gays in leadership positions impossible.

It's a very bad idea.

The

[bullypulpit]

General Wants Gay Ban Lifted



Military.com | January 03, 2007

In an op-ed published in Tuesday's New York Times, John M. Shalikashvili, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Congress should give "serious reconsideration" to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on openly lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. Shalikashvili, who supported the ban on open service in 1993, writes that "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," and goes on to say that "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is out of step with both the American public and those within our armed forces," said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "The counsel of military leaders increasingly supports repeal of the law. Congress must, as General Shalikashvili urges, consider the overwhelming evidence of the past fourteen years. If they do, the clear answer is that we must lift the ban."

Shalikashvili, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 1993 to 1997, joins other senior retired military officers who have called for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." In May 2006, Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, USA (Ret.), the first female three-star officer in Army history, called the law "a hollow policy that serves no useful purpose." Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, former superintendent of West Point, recently told The New York Times that "It is clear that national attitudes toward this issue have evolved considerably in the last decade. This has been led by a new generation of service members who take a more relaxed and tolerant view toward homosexuality." Retired Admiral John Hutson, who currently serves as Dean of Franklin Pierce Law School, also recently wrote that "It would be a great tragedy if we didn't take advantage of (the) chance to correct a flawed policy."

In 2003, two retired generals and an admiral 'came out' in the New York Times, and in November 2006 fourteen senior retired military officers urged the First Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ban. They wrote that the law "undermines the military's ability to fulfill its primary mission of providing national security by discouraging the enlistment of gay persons qualified to serve their country and by expelling from the military those who have served with honor."

In today's op-ed, General Shalikashvili writes that "Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers."

A December 18th Zogby poll also found that 73% of military personnel polled were comfortable with lesbians and gays.

"General Shalikashvili's statement is the first by a Joint Chiefs Chairman to call for repeal, and as such is enormously significant," said Osburn. "The Pentagon has dismissed more than 11,000 men and women under this law. It is clear that enforcement of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is arbitrary. We continue to lose critical personnel who happen to be gay. As General Shalikashvili points out, continuing to keep this law on the books is detrimental to our national security."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121509,00.html?ESRC=airforce.nl

Who cares if you're straight, as long as you can shoot straight?

[glockmail]

Who cares if you're straight, as long as you can shoot straight? Becasue no one wants a straight shooter poking him up the ass.

[Pale Rider]

I think letting gays in is a bad idea. Gays like men, so if you have all men, i just think its a bad idea.

its as bad as putting men and women serving in close quarters.

I just think its a bad idea.

That is logistical problem number 1. There is no way straight men should be forced into the uncomfortable circumstance of having to be naked in front of someone that is of the same sex and afflicted with a mental illness that makes them sexually attracted to them. It would never work, and the powers to be know it. There is simply not one single scenario where a homo could be incorporated into a basic training situation without problems.

[Pale Rider]

In conclusion... fags in the military, bad idea. Just can't be done.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont feel gays should be able to serve in the military.

#1 they will be in close quarters with heterosexual men

#2 their lifestyle is deviant (against gods plan and nature)

#3 we must not promote or send the message that being gay is ok, when they cannot have kids without cheating nature to do it.






General Wants Gay Ban Lifted



Military.com | January 03, 2007

In an op-ed published in Tuesday's New York Times, John M. Shalikashvili, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Congress should give "serious reconsideration" to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on openly lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. Shalikashvili, who supported the ban on open service in 1993, writes that "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," and goes on to say that "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is out of step with both the American public and those within our armed forces," said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "The counsel of military leaders increasingly supports repeal of the law. Congress must, as General Shalikashvili urges, consider the overwhelming evidence of the past fourteen years. If they do, the clear answer is that we must lift the ban."

Shalikashvili, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 1993 to 1997, joins other senior retired military officers who have called for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." In May 2006, Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, USA (Ret.), the first female three-star officer in Army history, called the law "a hollow policy that serves no useful purpose." Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, former superintendent of West Point, recently told The New York Times that "It is clear that national attitudes toward this issue have evolved considerably in the last decade. This has been led by a new generation of service members who take a more relaxed and tolerant view toward homosexuality." Retired Admiral John Hutson, who currently serves as Dean of Franklin Pierce Law School, also recently wrote that "It would be a great tragedy if we didn't take advantage of (the) chance to correct a flawed policy."

In 2003, two retired generals and an admiral 'came out' in the New York Times, and in November 2006 fourteen senior retired military officers urged the First Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ban. They wrote that the law "undermines the military's ability to fulfill its primary mission of providing national security by discouraging the enlistment of gay persons qualified to serve their country and by expelling from the military those who have served with honor."

In today's op-ed, General Shalikashvili writes that "Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers."

A December 18th Zogby poll also found that 73% of military personnel polled were comfortable with lesbians and gays.

"General Shalikashvili's statement is the first by a Joint Chiefs Chairman to call for repeal, and as such is enormously significant," said Osburn. "The Pentagon has dismissed more than 11,000 men and women under this law. It is clear that enforcement of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is arbitrary. We continue to lose critical personnel who happen to be gay. As General Shalikashvili points out, continuing to keep this law on the books is detrimental to our national security."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121509,00.html?ESRC=airforce.nl

[Pale Rider]

I dont feel gays should be able to serve in the military.

#1 they will be in close quarters with heterosexual men

#2 their lifestyle is deviant (against gods plan and nature)

#3 we must not promote or send the message that being gay is ok, when they cannot have kids without cheating nature to do it.

I just heard the other day in conversation that the number of homos kicked out of the military was down this year, drastically. Sounds like in times of war and bad recruitment, the military decides fags can fight after all. Never thought I'd think bad of the military, but this sounds a lot like turning a blind eye just because they're in need of troops. Sounds like something is rotten to me.

[actsnoblemartin]

I understand that, but i dont think its good for gays to serve at all. Based on their immoral behavior.

I wouldnt want a straight man, if he beats his wife, is a drunk, or you could add other reasons

you need moral people


You really do not understand the policy. Gays under the policy for the last 15 years are NOT banned from the military.

[OCA]

I understand that, but i dont think its good for gays to serve at all. Based on their immoral behavior.

I wouldnt want a straight man, if he beats his wife, is a drunk, or you could add other reasons

you need moral people


And I don't think its good for autistic people to post on message boards based upon their erratic behavior and mental shortcomings.

[5stringJeff]

Speaking of gays in the military...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=173127&postcount=272

[actsnoblemartin]

Your opinion has nothing to do with this thread, but typical of you.. cant debate someone's opinion, so you take cheap shots.

I may have mental illness, but you have no class, morals, or values


And I don't think its good for autistic people to post on message boards based upon their erratic behavior and mental shortcomings.

[OCA]

Your opinion has nothing to do with this thread, but typical of you.. cant debate someone's opinion, so you take cheap shots.

I may have mental illness, but you have no class, morals, or values


Can't debate someone's opinion? LMFAO! I owned this fucking thread months ago Raymond, you are as typical a day late and a dollar short.

[actsnoblemartin]

youre a disgrace.


Can't debate someone's opinion? LMFAO! I owned this fucking thread months ago Raymond, you are as typical a day late and a dollar short.

[actsnoblemartin]

I think you should be permanently banned from the board.


And I don't think its good for autistic people to post on message boards based upon their erratic behavior and mental shortcomings.

[mrg666]

Can't debate someone's opinion? LMFAO! I owned this fucking thread months ago Raymond, you are as typical a day late and a dollar short.

hey charlie see you back at it :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

oca= More like scumbag

:lol:


hey charlie see you back at it :laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

Speaking of gays in the military...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=173127&postcount=272

Amazing. If I knew her recruiter, I'd rat her out. I'm sure he/she would find not only the fact that she's a gash licker interesting, but the fact that she was so proud of that burning American flag avatar.

[LiberalNation]

Would you like his email. You guys are so full of it.

[jimnyc]

Would you like his email. You guys are so full of it.

LN - stick to your guns and debate your best, but don't do anything stupid. Don't ever share information such as that. You're a nutcase at times but have the right to live your own life just as much as the rest of us. Just stay cute though as nobody likes the lesbians that look like men! :)

[OCA]

hey charlie see you back at it :laugh2:

What? Telling the truth about somebody is being back at it?

You seen those women bashing threads of his? He's not way off his rocker mentally with those? Not too mention his other posts, this sumbitch probably needs help wiping his own ass!

[OCA]

Would you like his email. You guys are so full of it.


You don't have it and even if you did you would not do something that stupid.

[OCA]

I think you should be permanently banned from the board.


Good luck.

Sounds like you don't like people to challenge your sanity although it doesn't take anybody very long to figure out you aren't right in the head.

Your filthy trash post whoring is starting to stink up the board, clean it up Raymond.

[Pale Rider]

Would you like his email. You guys are so full of it.

Put it up or shut up you anti American lezbo. I'll fuck your day up good, and love doing it.

[LiberalNation]

Uh ha, fuck my day up, lol, maybe save me from myself, lol.

What I find interesting is you seem to think better people than me are clamoring to do what I'm planning. 4 years of nursing school, then give 8 years of your life to the government and country. There are so many full ride nursing scholarships out there, I've got tons of offers. You want your college paid for, if it's for nursing the private sector and state governments beat out the military in offering them with much easier commitments. Out of a class of hundreds of students I'm the only one doing it in conservative Kentucky. All the students you might approve of say hell no.

And another thing lets say I'm a nurse in a hospital for a soldier whose been seriously injured in an IED attack. You think that soldiers gona give a damn if I'm a lesbian or just be grateful to have adequate nursing considering the shortage of nurses everywhere. I don't think anyone would.

[mrg666]

Uh ha, fuck my day up, lol, maybe save me from myself, lol.

What I find interesting is you seem to think better people than me are clamoring to do what I'm planning. 4 years of nursing school, then give 8 years of your life to the government and country. There are so many full ride nursing scholarships out there, I've got tons of offers. You want your college paid for, if it's for nursing the private sector and state governments beat out the military in offering them with much easier commitments. Out of a class of hundreds of students I'm the only one doing it in conservative Kentucky. All the students you might approve of say hell no.

And another thing lets say I'm a nurse in a hospital for a soldier whose been seriously injured in an IED attack. You think that soldiers gona give a damn if I'm a lesbian or just be grateful to have adequate nursing considering the shortage of nurses everywhere. I don't think anyone would.

:clap:

very well said

[Missileman]

And another thing lets say I'm a nurse in a hospital for a soldier whose been seriously injured in an IED attack. You think that soldiers gona give a damn if I'm a lesbian or just be grateful to have adequate nursing considering the shortage of nurses everywhere. I don't think anyone would.

I applaud your decision to serve, but would implore you to aim higher than "adequate".

[Pale Rider]

Uh ha, fuck my day up, lol, maybe save me from myself, lol.

What I find interesting is you seem to think better people than me are clamoring to do what I'm planning. 4 years of nursing school, then give 8 years of your life to the government and country. There are so many full ride nursing scholarships out there, I've got tons of offers. You want your college paid for, if it's for nursing the private sector and state governments beat out the military in offering them with much easier commitments. Out of a class of hundreds of students I'm the only one doing it in conservative Kentucky. All the students you might approve of say hell no.

And another thing lets say I'm a nurse in a hospital for a soldier whose been seriously injured in an IED attack. You think that soldiers gona give a damn if I'm a lesbian or just be grateful to have adequate nursing considering the shortage of nurses everywhere. I don't think anyone would.

I don't give a rats ass what the soldier that got hit with an IED is thinking. I care what the military thinks. That's what matters, and the military thinks if you openly admit you're a lesbian, you don't belong there. Period.

And also, next time you're at the recruiters office, why don't you brag about your burning American flag avatar you so proudly displayed here. Think you'll find many people that think it was as cute as you did? No. I don't either. You'll probably get your ass kicked.

Just do the military and yourself a favor and stick with the private sector. The military doesn't need your anti American, lesbian, stench in it.

[Pale Rider]

I applaud your decision to serve, but would implore you to aim higher than "adequate".

You would. You'd applaud any swinging dick or dripping gash that proclaims themself to be homo for anything they do.

[Pale Rider]

:clap:

very well said

Watch out how hard you pat this one on the back. She's an America hater and proud of it. You want to be aligned with that?

[mrg666]

Watch out how hard you pat this one on the back. She's an America hater and proud of it. You want to be aligned with that?

i think she's just finding her way and growing up in the process .
the flag burning avatar was purely to send you bat shit , if my memory serves me well it worked.
credit where it's due and she was due some there

[Missileman]

You would. You'd applaud any swinging dick or dripping gash that proclaims themself to be homo for anything they do.

In the same manner that I applaud the prior service of a slack-jawed scooter mechanic. Honorable service requires applause despite the shortcomings of the server.

[Pale Rider]

i think she's just finding her way and growing up in the process .
the flag burning avatar was purely to send you bat shit , if my memory serves me well it worked.
credit where it's due and she was due some there

Finding her way my ass. She's about as deeply rooted into anti America, twisted, liberal ideals as one can get. She posted the flag burning avatar because she thought it was cool, and she didn't just piss "ME" off. She pissed off every veteran, patriot, and practically every other person on the board. And if it didn't piss you off, then I have serious doubts as to what you are, and I'll keep that in mind.

[Pale Rider]

In the same manner that I applaud the prior service of a slack-jawed scooter mechanic. Honorable service requires applause despite the shortcomings of the server.

That's IBM Customer Engineer, Avionics Instrumentation/Flight Controls Systems Specialist, Electronics Engineer, Licensed Electrician, Small Business Owner, Certified Welder, *MASTER* Harley Davidson Technician, and now own my SECOND business to you punk.

You'll never accomplish HALF of what I have in your pathetic life.

[Missileman]

That's IBM Customer Engineer, Avionics Instrumentation/Flight Controls Systems Specialist, Electronics Engineer, Licensed Electrician, Small Business Owner, Certified Welder, *MASTER* Harley Davidson Technician, and now own my SECOND business to you punk.

You'll never accomplish HALF of what I have in your pathetic life.

Leave it to a mouth-breathing troglodyte to totally miss the point.

[Pale Rider]

Leave it to a mouth-breathing troglodyte to totally miss the point.

You haven't made a point worth spit since you been here ya slack jawed cum gurgler.

Debate why faggots shouldn't be in the military or shut the fuck up.

(I don't give a damn what you do or don't applaud. It's irrelevant to me.)

[Missileman]

You haven't made a point worth spit since you been here ya slack jawed cum gurgler.

Debate why faggots shouldn't be in the military or shut the fuck up.

Honorable service is honorable service and commendable no matter who provides it. Now you can prove that homosexuals are incapable of providing honorable service or STFU yourself.

[Pale Rider]

Honorable service is honorable service and commendable no matter who provides it. Now you can prove that homosexuals are incapable of providing honorable service or STFU yourself.

The ONLY way homos have been able to serve is to HIDE the fact that they're homos. That means they have to act STRAIGHT. Normal fighting men don't want Bruce snuggling up behind him wanting to pump him in the fox hole. Fags just can't be around normal men. They'll either get themselves or someone else killed if they act like homos.

lastly, it doesn't really matter what a homo is doing, there is NOTHING "honorable" about being a faggot. It's immoral, sick, perverted and disgusting.

[Missileman]

The ONLY way homos have been able to serve is to HIDE the fact that they're homos. That means they have to act STRAIGHT. Normal fighting men don't want Bruce snuggling up behind him wanting to pump him in the fox hole. Fags just can't be around normal men. They'll either get themselves or someone else killed if they act like homos.

lastly, it doesn't really matter what a homo is doing, there is NOTHING "honorable" about being a faggot. It's immoral, sick, perverted and disgusting.

The quality of their service isn't dependent on their sexuality.

[Pale Rider]

This doesn't answer the question about whether homosexuals are capable of providing honorable service.

Yes it does. Completely. Homos in the military are dangerous, on many different levels.

[Missileman]

Yes it does. Completely. Homos in the military are dangerous, on many different levels.

Had to edit my previous response to cover your edit

[mrg666]

Finding her way my ass. She's about as deeply rooted into anti America, twisted, liberal ideals as one can get. She posted the flag burning avatar because she thought it was cool, and she didn't just piss "ME" off. She pissed off every veteran, patriot, and practically every other person on the board. And if it didn't piss you off, then I have serious doubts as to what you are, and I'll keep that in mind.

she's a kid

[Missileman]

Yes it does. Completely. Homos in the military are dangerous, on many different levels.

Was your heterosexuality a factor in the quality of your military service?

Lemme rephrase thar:

Was your lack of sexual morality a factor in the quality of your military service?

[Pale Rider]

Had to edit my previous response to cover your edit

Sorry. The quality of a homos service isn't the issue. The issue is the danger and disruption of a homo being among masses of straight people, which in the course of that service also includes them all to be naked together. That is number one. The military just is not set up to deal with people that have a gender identity crisis.

[Pale Rider]

she's a kid

I think you're a good person mrg, and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but saying "she's a kid" is really lame. By all intents and purpose, she's an adult, but to even say she's a kid, that's no excuse for not knowing right from wrong. I knew right from wrong when I was a kid, and I'd bet you did too.

[actsnoblemartin]

My personal opinion, gays engage in deviant behaviors that are against nature and gods plan, and which are more likely to cause disease.

Not to mention, a substantial amount dont wear protection.

Lets not forget who got aids first, homosexuals.

And to be fair, we should not un-moral straights in the military, if you cheat, are an alcoholic, or a deviant in any way, youre gone.


Honorable service is honorable service and commendable no matter who provides it. Now you can prove that homosexuals are incapable of providing honorable service or STFU yourself.

[actsnoblemartin]

she is a very arrogant woman. I believe she likes attacking, christians, white males, and conservatives, because she is a brain washed liberal.


i think she's just finding her way and growing up in the process .
the flag burning avatar was purely to send you bat shit , if my memory serves me well it worked.
credit where it's due and she was due some there

[mrg666]

I think you're a good person mrg, and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but saying "she's a kid" is really lame. By all intents and purpose, she's an adult, but to even say she's a kid, that's no excuse for not knowing right from wrong. I knew right from wrong when I was a kid, and I'd bet you did too.

and i made mistakes .
i certainly rebelled unfortunately i had to do it in the real world, so i paid real world prices for my rebellion.
theres a lot she says and does i certainly dont agree with , but then again going back years i did the same on the c.b winding folk up localy and internationaly , i put her antics down as that ,winding folk up. she lays the bait ......................

[actsnoblemartin]

mrg :), your my homie

:laugh2:

on liberalnation, she will wake up one day, and realized that people will disagree with her, and that their NOT facists.

:laugh2:


and i made mistakes .
i certainly rebelled unfortunately i had to do it in the real world, so i paid real world prices for my rebellion.
theres a lot she says and does i certainly dont agree with , but then again going back years i did the same on the c.b winding folk up localy and internationaly , i put her antics down as that ,winding folk up. she lays the bait ......................

[OCA]

Not to mention, a substantial amount dont wear protection.




Is this a personal observation?