PDA

View Full Version : Obama signs repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' policy


Pages : [1] 2 3

rearnakedchoke
12-22-2010, 07:07 PM
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama brought the long political struggle over the military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy to a close Wednesday, signing legislation that will bring an end of the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the armed forces.

The president signed the bill repealing the 17-year-old law in front an jubilant crowd of supporters at the Department of Interior. Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, were among those in attendance.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen also was present for the occasion.

The repeal "will strengthen our national security and uphold (America's) ideals," Obama said. "No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie."

"I believe this is the right thing to do for our military," he added. "It's the right thing to do, period."

This is a moment "more than two centuries in the making," the president said. Over the course of U.S. history, "gay Americans fought just as hard (and) gave just as much to protect" the country as anyone else. "We are a nation that believes all men and women are created equal."

Passage of the repeal was a major political victory for Obama and congressional Democrats. Obama promised to repeal the ban during the 2008 presidential election.

The crowd chanted "Yes we can" as Obama was introduced before the bill signing -- a reference to Obama's campaign slogan.

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay Democrat, called the bill's passage "the biggest single thing" in terms of the progress of gay rights in the United States.

"To see the president today put ink to paper and sign this into law, its been a tremendous day," said Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach. "He made a promise to me a year-and-a-half ago. He looked me in the eye and said, 'I'm going to get this done.'"

Air Force veteran Jeff Cadavona said Wednesday's signing was a long time coming.

"When I was in the military in the '60s -- that hammer over you for being openly gay," he said. "If they found you out, they'd kick you right out."

The change won't be immediate, however. The White House has noted that the repeal may take several months to implement.

The Pentagon has an 87-page implementation plan for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Over the next several weeks, military officials need to examine and rewrite a series of policies, regulations and directives related to the current law.

Once that potentially lengthy process is complete, Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Mullen each will have to certify that the repeal can move ahead without negatively affecting unit cohesion and military readiness.

After the certification, another 60 days will need to pass before the repeal is officially enacted.

Obama said that he has spoken to every one of the military service chiefs, and that they have all promised to enact the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy "swiftly and efficiently."

"We are not going to be dragging our feet to get this done," he promised.

Even after the repeal, gay and lesbian service members will not have every right and privilege accorded to heterosexual members of the military, largely because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

A Pentagon study released this month concluded that allowing openly gay or lesbian troops to serve in the military would have little lasting impact on the U.S. forces.

"Those people are soldiers or sailors or Marines first," said Korea War veteran Lee Holl. "They do what they're told, just like the rest of us did.

Opposition to the change was much stronger in Army and Marine combat units than in the military as a whole.

More than 14,000 military members have been discharged because of "don't ask, don't tell" since it was enacted in 1993.

Miss Foxy
12-22-2010, 07:50 PM
No effin comment..:angry:

rearnakedchoke
12-22-2010, 07:51 PM
No effin comment..:angry:

why not?

Miss Foxy
12-22-2010, 07:51 PM
why not?

Gee the upset face should have been enough...

rearnakedchoke
12-22-2010, 07:52 PM
Gee the upset face should have been enough...

ahh .. i see, because it took so long?

Tyburn
12-22-2010, 08:36 PM
:laugh: Why would they even have to ask a soldier if he was homosexual?? I dont understand that! this is like a non issue, because the Government surely shouldnt be ASKING in the first place!! those who are in the closset can stay there, those who are not surely arent any more a danger.

Tell me...when you go to the bank...do you ask the person serving you what sexuality they are???

Why should someone whose gay not do military service? is their any particular thing that a hetrosexual soldier can do...that a gay one cant?? I mean....Really??

I'd love to know why this means anything at all.

...ohh and being "uncomfortable" around gays doesnt count. Your not paid to be comfortable around everyone you work with in any environment.

TENNESSEAN
12-22-2010, 09:18 PM
:laugh: Why would they even have to ask a soldier if he was homosexual?? I dont understand that! this is like a non issue, because the Government surely shouldnt be ASKING in the first place!! those who are in the closset can stay there, those who are not surely arent any more a danger.

Tell me...when you go to the bank...do you ask the person serving you what sexuality they are???

Why should someone whose gay not do military service? is their any particular thing that a hetrosexual soldier can do...that a gay one cant?? I mean....Really??

I'd love to know why this means anything at all.

...ohh and being "uncomfortable" around gays doesnt count. Your not paid to be comfortable around everyone you work with in any environment.

because gay solders cant march they skip:rolleyes:

BamaGrits84
12-22-2010, 09:27 PM
This is BS. Women and men are kept seperate in most housing situations during combat to prevent sexual misconduct. So why in the hell would we now distract military officals with needing to figure out what to do to prevent misconduct between same sexes? This is retarded. I mean it is simply not a distraction our military needs.

TENNESSEAN
12-22-2010, 09:34 PM
This is BS. Women and men are kept seperate in most housing situations during combat to prevent sexual misconduct. So why in the hell would we now distract military officals with needing to figure out what to do to prevent misconduct between same sexes? This is retarded. I mean it is simply not a distraction our military needs.

hummm, that is a problem. there are many ways this is going to backfire on B.O. but he wont have to worry about it. hes only got 2 more years. he can sweep it under the rug for 2 years.

NateR
12-22-2010, 10:41 PM
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama brought the long political struggle over the military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy to a close Wednesday, signing legislation that will bring an end of the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the armed forces.

The president signed the bill repealing the 17-year-old law in front an jubilant crowd of supporters at the Department of Interior. Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, were among those in attendance.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen also was present for the occasion.

The repeal "will strengthen our national security and uphold (America's) ideals," Obama said. "No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie."

"I believe this is the right thing to do for our military," he added. "It's the right thing to do, period."

This is a moment "more than two centuries in the making," the president said. Over the course of U.S. history, "gay Americans fought just as hard (and) gave just as much to protect" the country as anyone else. "We are a nation that believes all men and women are created equal."

Passage of the repeal was a major political victory for Obama and congressional Democrats. Obama promised to repeal the ban during the 2008 presidential election.

The crowd chanted "Yes we can" as Obama was introduced before the bill signing -- a reference to Obama's campaign slogan.

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, an openly gay Democrat, called the bill's passage "the biggest single thing" in terms of the progress of gay rights in the United States.

"To see the president today put ink to paper and sign this into law, its been a tremendous day," said Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach. "He made a promise to me a year-and-a-half ago. He looked me in the eye and said, 'I'm going to get this done.'"

Air Force veteran Jeff Cadavona said Wednesday's signing was a long time coming.

"When I was in the military in the '60s -- that hammer over you for being openly gay," he said. "If they found you out, they'd kick you right out."

The change won't be immediate, however. The White House has noted that the repeal may take several months to implement.

The Pentagon has an 87-page implementation plan for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Over the next several weeks, military officials need to examine and rewrite a series of policies, regulations and directives related to the current law.

Once that potentially lengthy process is complete, Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Mullen each will have to certify that the repeal can move ahead without negatively affecting unit cohesion and military readiness.

After the certification, another 60 days will need to pass before the repeal is officially enacted.

Obama said that he has spoken to every one of the military service chiefs, and that they have all promised to enact the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy "swiftly and efficiently."

"We are not going to be dragging our feet to get this done," he promised.

Even after the repeal, gay and lesbian service members will not have every right and privilege accorded to heterosexual members of the military, largely because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

A Pentagon study released this month concluded that allowing openly gay or lesbian troops to serve in the military would have little lasting impact on the U.S. forces.

"Those people are soldiers or sailors or Marines first," said Korea War veteran Lee Holl. "They do what they're told, just like the rest of us did.

Opposition to the change was much stronger in Army and Marine combat units than in the military as a whole.

More than 14,000 military members have been discharged because of "don't ask, don't tell" since it was enacted in 1993.

I read about this several days ago and have just been too angry to comment.

This is one of those things where Obama thinks he is doing some great service for the American people, but is really just pissing off a vast majority of the population.

This is going to destroy unit cohesion and troop morale especially in the combat arms units. Notice how the article simply says "Opposition to the change was much stronger in Army and Marine combat units than in the military as a whole," but doesn't actually give any quotes from that opposition? That's a nice bit of unbiased journalism there. :rolleyes:

The big misconception about "don't ask, don't tell" is that it banned gay people from serving in the military. It didn't. That ban had already been in place for decades, DADT simply provided a loophole that allowed homosexuals to serve. Basically saying, "your sexual orientation is your business, so just don't bring it up and we'll allow you to serve."

DADT basically opened the door for gays to serve in the military and most likely a complete lifting of the ban was the ultimate goal of the policy. Of those 14,000 troops who have been discharged, I can name at least 2 heterosexual women who simply used the policy as a quick and easy way to get honorably discharged from the Army. They were in my unit in Ft. Hood, TX and they weren't lesbians, but they were willing to say that they were just so they could get discharged. So, I have a hard time believing that a big chunk of those 14,000 discharges weren't heterosexuals willing to claim that they were gay just to get released from service.

Also, notice how this article never bothers to mention that DADT was a Clinton policy? Even though it mentions that the law is 17 years old and was enacted in 1993, it never bothers to name Bill Clinton as the President who signed it into law.

NateR
12-22-2010, 10:46 PM
This is BS. Women and men are kept seperate in most housing situations during combat to prevent sexual misconduct. So why in the hell would we now distract military officals with needing to figure out what to do to prevent misconduct between same sexes? This is retarded. I mean it is simply not a distraction our military needs.

How are they going to handle the barracks situation where most soldiers have roommates? What if a straight soldier is assigned a gay roommate and that gay guy wants to bring his boyfriend over for the night? When that heterosexual soldier complains, he's just going to get charged with sexual harassment. That's going to destroy his morale and motivation, and he's going to look for the quickest way out of the Army. Where otherwise he might have stayed in his entire career.

Miss Foxy
12-22-2010, 10:55 PM
How are they going to handle the barracks situation where most soldiers have roommates? What if a straight soldier is assigned a gay roommate and that gay guy wants to bring his boyfriend over for the night? When that heterosexual soldier complains, he's just going to get charged with sexual harassment. That's going to destroy his morale and motivation, and he's going to look for the quickest way out of the Army. Where otherwise he might have stayed in his entire career.

Exactly!!

NateR
12-22-2010, 11:03 PM
Exactly!!

I've seen it happen many times to white soldiers from policies designed to protect African-Americans from discrimination. And to male soldiers from policies designed to protect women from sexual harassment. Those policies are designed to level the playing field, but in fact give the minority the upper hand that a few of them are more than willing to use to "pay back" whoever they feel is oppressing them, whether that oppression is real or imagined.

Miss Foxy
12-22-2010, 11:13 PM
I've seen it happen many times to white soldiers from policies designed to protect African-Americans from discrimination. And to male soldiers from policies designed to protect women from sexual harassment. Those policies are designed to level the playing field, but in fact give the minority the upper hand that a few of them are more than willing to use to "pay back" whoever they feel is oppressing them, whether that oppression is real or imagined.

I had an incident a few months ago similar nature.. A lady thought I was racist, because she felt I slammed the door based on her color!! :punch:

NateR
12-23-2010, 12:03 AM
I had an incident a few months ago similar nature.. A lady thought I was racist, because she felt I slammed the door based on her color!! :punch:

We had a soldier in Korea who got put on charges of racial discrimination because he asked a simple, logical question, "If I'm not allowed to say the word 'nigger' because I'm white, then why should I be forced to listen to that same word repeated over and over and over again in the gangster rap that my roommate plays ALL THE TIME?"

Unfortunately, not only was his roommate black, but so was his squad leader, so he was charged with making a racial slur. He was never the same soldier after that and became completely disillusioned with the Army and started making plans to leave the Army immediately after his enlistment was up.

Spiritwalker
12-23-2010, 01:21 AM
So are we saying that homosexuals shouldn't be able to serve in the armed forces?

NateR
12-23-2010, 01:31 AM
So are we saying that homosexuals shouldn't be able to serve in the armed forces?

DING!DING!DING!DING! WE HAVE A WINNER! :laugh:

Yes, I believe that homosexuals should NOT be allowed to serve in the Armed Forces.

Mark
12-23-2010, 01:56 AM
:laugh: Why would they even have to ask a soldier if he was homosexual?? I dont understand that! this is like a non issue, because the Government surely shouldnt be ASKING in the first place!!


They can ask you anything they want.

NateR
12-23-2010, 02:05 AM
They can ask you anything they want.

Yeah, there is no illusion of personal privacy in the Army. Many Constitutional freedoms are signed away when a person joins the military. As many commanders have said (and I'm sure it's been repeated in more than one movie), "We're here to defend the Constitution, not to practice it."

flo
12-23-2010, 02:14 AM
Good catch on them not mentioning the DADT was a Clinton policy, Nate. As far as this issue goes, I have always just been behind whatever policy the different branches of the military preferred to have in place. Far be it for me to say what is best for the armed services.

If I'm not mistaken, all 4 branches wanted this legislation put off until the Afghanistan conflict was resolved.

Obama chose to add to his political scorecard in lieu of following the advice of his military commanders.

I personally think he wanted this passed now because he was tired of being heckled at all his public appearances. Seriously.

flo
12-23-2010, 02:16 AM
We had a soldier in Korea who got put on charges of racial discrimination because he asked a simple, logical question, "If I'm not allowed to say the word 'nigger' because I'm white, then why should I be forced to listen to that same word repeated over and over and over again in the gangster rap that my roommate plays ALL THE TIME?"

Unfortunately, not only was his roommate black, but so was his squad leader, so he was charged with making a racial slur. He was never the same soldier after that and became completely disillusioned with the Army and started making plans to leave the Army immediately after his enlistment was up.

That is just awful.

Mark
12-23-2010, 02:34 AM
What was wrong with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy anyway?

NateR
12-23-2010, 02:46 AM
What was wrong with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy anyway?

Nothing, it was really the only compromise possible. Prior to that, if a soldier was suspected of being a homosexual, then it could turn into a "witch hunt" as his supervisors would go out of their way to try to prove that he was gay so they could kick him out. So, unfortunately, many straight guys would be under constant harassment simply because they didn't fit into accepted male stereotypes.

DADT allowed gays to serve without harassment provided they simply kept their sexual orientation to themselves. It also prevented heterosexual soldiers from being unfairly classified as gay and threatened with a discharge.

County Mike
12-23-2010, 03:11 AM
Faking it didn't work for Klinger.

http://www.smokeysoffice.com/Entertain/MASH/MashPhoto/MiscCast/Klinger7.jpg

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 12:54 PM
How are they going to handle the barracks situation where most soldiers have roommates? What if a straight soldier is assigned a gay roommate and that gay guy wants to bring his boyfriend over for the night? When that heterosexual soldier complains, he's just going to get charged with sexual harassment. That's going to destroy his morale and motivation, and he's going to look for the quickest way out of the Army. Where otherwise he might have stayed in his entire career.

are you allowed to have any sexual contact?? I thought you couldnt bring people "over for the night" I thought it was pretty much like a boarding school in that respect.

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 12:58 PM
They can ask you anything they want.

but why would they ask that :laugh:

Its not important for the job at hand is it?? ...perhaps if they spent less time asking silly questions, and more time actually allowing members of the Military to get on with their job, then things might run more effectively.

Also...I do think that as grown men, really, they should be able to work out bunking scenarios. I know they are paid to fight and not to be diplomats...but if you have to live in close quarters with someone else, you have to learn to negotiate and to bear with certain things you might not like...its really a matter of maturity I feel.

Spiritwalker
12-23-2010, 01:01 PM
DING!DING!DING!DING! WE HAVE A WINNER! :laugh:

Yes, I believe that homosexuals should NOT be allowed to serve in the Armed Forces.

I just wanted to be clear on that point....

Something to consider... http://cjonline.com/interact/blog/reasonmclucus/2010-12-15/homosexuals_in_combat_reality_check

The main problem with allowing openly homosexual men to serve in combat zones won't be them attacking others, but others killing them because of concerns about being attacked. Some homosexuals claim that they look at other men the way men look at women. Many could interpret this claim as indicating homosexuals might attack other men the way some men attack women. .

One of the motivations of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was the murder of homosexual PO Allen Schindler by shipmate Airman Apprentice Terry Helvey in October, 1992, while Schindler was awaiting discharge for homosexuality. Helvey insisted he killed Schindler for "bossing him around" when he reached a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty.

/Queue Joe Rogan Voice.... "Sounds to me that it might not be the GAY GUY that has the problem..."

I never served... so I don't know how it is being in the military... But I also am not comfortable "flamming gays"... I don't know why.. "specificly".. but I am not. But if they are not bothering me... and I am still not comfortable... then who really has the problem?

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 01:01 PM
Yeah, there is no illusion of personal privacy in the Army. Many Constitutional freedoms are signed away when a person joins the military. As many commanders have said (and I'm sure it's been repeated in more than one movie), "We're here to defend the Constitution, not to practice it."

Your also not there to complain are you? Like, to follow orders, not to question them, if someone tells you to share a room with a gay guy...they probably arent asking you...they are telling you.

Spiritwalker
12-23-2010, 01:13 PM
Also...I do think that as grown men, really, they should be able to work out bunking scenarios. I know they are paid to fight and not to be diplomats...but if you have to live in close quarters with someone else, you have to learn to negotiate and to bear with certain things you might not like...its really a matter of maturity I feel.

damn.. I actually find myself agreeing with Dave????

when recruiters are targeting "the poor inner city" people... you have to deal with what you have...

I went to an air show in Sept. And the Army was there recruiting... and the way the soldiers were acting.. when they thought no one was watching... I was almost embarrassed.

Spiritwalker
12-23-2010, 01:17 PM
How are they going to handle the barracks situation where most soldiers have roommates? What if a straight soldier is assigned a gay roommate and that gay guy wants to bring his boyfriend over for the night? When that heterosexual soldier complains, he's just going to get charged with sexual harassment. That's going to destroy his morale and motivation, and he's going to look for the quickest way out of the Army. Where otherwise he might have stayed in his entire career.

Agreed...and the straight soldier may have even been a great soldier also...

I understand where you were going.. but do you understand that the role reversal is almost as likely as well?

NateR
12-23-2010, 02:42 PM
Your also not there to complain are you? Like, to follow orders, not to question them, if someone tells you to share a room with a gay guy...they probably arent asking you...they are telling you.

However, being forced to follow orders that violate our values and morals does nothing but destroy troop morale and turns potentially good soldiers into disgruntled, angry soldiers. And when everyone is carrying around a rifle and hundreds of rounds of live ammunition, that's not something you want.

The "homosexual lifestyle" is a choice made by someone with a mental disorder. That's all it is. We don't need to be putting the security of our armed forces and our nation at risk because people are too afraid to tell homosexuals the truth about their mental illness.

Twinsmama
12-23-2010, 03:16 PM
because gay solders cant march they skip:rolleyes:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yes, I believe that homosexuals should NOT be allowed to serve in the Armed Forces.

I don't think they should be allowed either. However I value your opinion more than my own because you lived in the situation.


Nate do men and women bunk together? Do they shower together? What are the other ways that men are women are kept seperate?

NateR
12-23-2010, 03:17 PM
but why would they ask that :laugh:

Its not important for the job at hand is it?? ...perhaps if they spent less time asking silly questions, and more time actually allowing members of the Military to get on with their job, then things might run more effectively.

Also...I do think that as grown men, really, they should be able to work out bunking scenarios. I know they are paid to fight and not to be diplomats...but if you have to live in close quarters with someone else, you have to learn to negotiate and to bear with certain things you might not like...its really a matter of maturity I feel.

It's not about maturity it's about trust.

If you've never served in the military, then it's really difficult to explain it to you. I spent over 10 years in the military and was stationed in hazardous duty areas like Bosnia and Croatia. However, even though I've been shot at, I've never actually been in combat. I've felt that bond of brotherhood that comes from living in a danger zone with other guys, however, I've never experienced the true bond of brotherhood that comes only to men who fight in combat. So I can only go by what I've been told by those guys who have actually fought on the battlefield and what I've read in books, like Marcus Luttrell's.

It's about being able to completely entrust your life to the guy next to you. An intimate bond that's required for men to fight side by side in combat. However, the homosexual mind is more likely to pervert that intimacy into something sexual, thus destroying the bond and making it impossible for the two men to form a cohesive fighting unit.

Again, it's tough to put it into words, we just have to trust those men who have actually served in combat to know what's best for our fighting forces. If we allow activists to pressure our military into conforming to some nonsensical politically-correct ideal, then we risk destroying the effectiveness of our military.

NateR
12-23-2010, 03:28 PM
Nate do men and women bunk together? Do they shower together? What are the other ways that men are women are kept seperate?

When I was in the Army, women got separate rooms, separate latrines and shower areas. The only time men and women slept in the same area was when we were deployed or on training exercises. I don't know what the exact situations are in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I can't imagine they have changed much.

Miss Foxy
12-23-2010, 03:51 PM
damn.. I actually find myself agreeing with Dave????

when recruiters are targeting "the poor inner city" people... you have to deal with what you have...I went to an air show in Sept. And the Army was there recruiting... and the way the soldiers were acting.. when they thought no one was watching... I was almost embarrassed.

What would possess you to be so vulgar with that statement? What are "poor inner city people?" Have you served in the military or do you? If you feel embarrassed you outta go get yourself out there and serve..

adamt
12-23-2010, 04:41 PM
well, the armed forces is about honor and integrity. Like with anything else, without a moral foundation you have nothing.

That is to say, without the restraint of one's own conscience evil begins to form. That is what we have with society right now. We have tried to compel righteousness via law. But in the process we have said righteousness is relative, so only what is law is right.

Making homosexuality legal, or forcing others to tolerate does not make it moral.

Without a moral basis, we can do what we want as long as we can get away with it. If my desire to please God did not prevent me from murdering, and i thought i could get away with it then i would do it if it suited me. So would thousands of others..... and unfortunately they have and ARE, because we have taken away the teaching of God and Absolute Truth. The law doesn't scare me but God does.

So about DADT? Well, homosexuality is an abomination. So is beastiality, incest, rape, and murder. And that is why they are not allowed in the military either.

How would it be to let a murderer openly serve in the military? Or a pedophile openly serve?

Tyburn, would you like to attend westboro baptist church? The church that is absolutely not a church and not baptist, and goes around protesting and flying nothing but hate signs and rhetoric? Would you please attend and join that church? Just ignore their values and you will be fine.

It's the same thing. You could not support that church any more than i could support the military and those in it that are moral scum, be it murderers, child molesters, rapists or sodomites.

It completely undermines the honor the military once had.

Is the military going to allow gay killers in the military under the pretense that they just have a mental disorder---- i think not


NateR, i would contend with only one thing you said, that sodomy is a mental disorder. Sodomy is no more a mental disorder than murder and rape is. I am predisposed to egging the houses of jerks and a$$holes, and robbing banks but somehow if i do that i don't think the mental disorder thing will hold up. I say it is a spiritual disorder, a CHOICE, that has consequences. Both immediately and eternally

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 05:29 PM
1) However, being forced to follow orders that violate our values and morals does nothing but destroy troop morale and turns potentially good soldiers into disgruntled, angry soldiers. And when everyone is carrying around a rifle and hundreds of rounds of live ammunition, that's not something you want.

2) The "homosexual lifestyle" is a choice made by someone with a mental disorder. That's all it is. We don't need to be putting the security of our armed forces and our nation at risk because people are too afraid to tell homosexuals the truth about their mental illness.

1) Morals??? That might be applicable to a Christian in the armed forces, but your Armed Forces arent particularly Christian are they?? What percentage of your Army are Christian enough to use that argument...you might be...but I think lots of the disgruntled will be aimed at homophobia rather then religious morals. Thats why a lot of angry soldiers will be angry, they dont want to be forced to share, or be in close quarters with a homosexual.

If they can not be trusted with weaponary, then they shouldnt be in the armed forces. Obviously there is something lacking in your countries basic training if you truely feel that there is a danger of use of firearms for vendetta or hatred, because they are angry and upset...Damn right you dont want that...you dont want anyone prone to anything like that being in the armed forces in the first place.

2) thats your opinion...and it has nothing to do with this argument.

The basis of this is that some army people might be forced to do something they dont like. They are in the Military, they should be used to that! They should have been taught to put their personal feelings aside and get on with their job...They are Men, not Children.

oh...and here is the laugh of it...there have been gays in your military for years...but thats okay?? So long as you dont hear, you can brush it under the carpet and morale is high?? Do you guys really live that kinda delussion?? "I cant see it, so it doesnt exist"

Nobody is asking anyone in the Military to do anything sexual. Nobodies rights will be violated...and as GOD grants free choice to those who choose that ligfestyle, so should your Nation. Really! this is such a non issue, to those who just want to get on with their job.

Its not like you will have a bunch of screaming Queens join up!! It just means that guy, who you always thought might be a bit that way inclined, doesnt need to looose his job if he accidently lets slip that your correct.

Miss Foxy
12-23-2010, 05:35 PM
1) Morals??? That might be applicable to a Christian in the armed forces, but your Armed Forces arent particularly Christian are they?? What percentage of your Army are Christian enough to use that argument...you might be...but I think lots of the disgruntled will be aimed at homophobia rather then religious morals. Thats why a lot of angry soldiers will be angry, they dont want to be forced to share, or be in close quarters with a homosexual.

If they can not be trusted with weaponary, then they shouldnt be in the armed forces. Obviously there is something lacking in your countries basic training if you truely feel that there is a danger of use of firearms for vendetta or hatred, because they are angry and upset...Damn right you dont want that...you dont want anyone prone to anything like that being in the armed forces in the first place.

2) thats your opinion...and it has nothing to do with this argument.

The basis of this is that some army people might be forced to do something they dont like. They are in the Military, they should be used to that! They should have been taught to put their personal feelings aside and get on with their job...They are Men, not Children.

oh...and here is the laugh of it...there have been gays in your military for years...but thats okay?? So long as you dont hear, you can brush it under the carpet and morale is high?? Do you guys really live that kinda delussion?? "I cant see it, so it doesnt exist"

Nobody is asking anyone in the Military to do anything sexual. Nobodies rights will be violated...and as GOD grants free choice to those who choose that ligfestyle, so should your Nation. Really! this is such a non issue, to those who just want to get on with their job.

Its not like you will have a bunch of screaming Queens join up!! It just means that guy, who you always thought might be a bit that way inclined, doesnt need to looose his job if he accidently lets slip that your correct.
Who or what a person screws has no business in with an armed forces members daily job. Therefore allowing them to actively engage in a lifestyle of homosexuality is opening a can of worms that should not be opened...:wacko: Don't ask! Why? It's no ones business.. And don't tell! Why? No one wants to know! Do your job end of story gay or straight. This is not an anti-gay campaign Tyburn.

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 05:38 PM
However, the homosexual mind is more likely to pervert that intimacy into something sexual, thus destroying the bond and making it impossible for the two men to form a cohesive fighting unit.


No its not.

Choosing Sexuality as the basis of who to trust is the most riddiculous and stupid thing I have ever heard anyone say.

You dont know the first thing about homosexuality, so why you suddenly know about how the homosexual mind twists brotherhood into something sexual is beyond me. Up until a week ago, you didnt seem to realize some gays live completely mognamously, for years!! Now you assume because they are gay, everysingle man they look at they want to rape or something???

Thats like saying men and women cant work together, because the man just thinks of sex all day long.

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 05:43 PM
This is not an anti-gay campaign Tyburn.

yes it is...because if a hetro accidently lets slip...he doesnt get punished does he.

Sure you shouldnt be flaughnting your sexuality...but there is a difference between flaughting, and living in fear that someone will discover the truth and hate you for it.

So now...regardless of what sex you find attractive, noone needs to worry that they will get into trouble. Now maybe the homosexuals can stop being anxious about getting into trouble and concentrate on their jobs, and perhaps the hetrosexuals can just leave the homosexuals alone and get on with their jobs also.

Honnestly...the fact that this is even an issue in such an important environment is outrageous...havent your soldiers and your government got anything better to do, then worry about if the person next to them is gay, or worry about being outted.

For goodness sake! its like a bloody school playground!!! I do hope our Military isnt like yours in that respect.

rearnakedchoke
12-23-2010, 05:44 PM
No its not.

Choosing Sexuality as the basis of who to trust is the most riddiculous and stupid thing I have ever heard anyone say.

You dont know the first thing about homosexuality, so why you suddenly know about how the homosexual mind twists brotherhood into something sexual is beyond me. Up until a week ago, you didnt seem to realize some gays live completely mognamously, for years!! Now you assume because they are gay, everysingle man they look at they want to rape or something???

Thats like saying men and women cant work together, because the man just thinks of sex all day long.

true story bro ...

Miss Foxy
12-23-2010, 05:47 PM
yes it is...because if a hetro accidently lets slip...he doesnt get punished does he.

Sure you shouldnt be flaughnting your sexuality...but there is a difference between flaughting, and living in fear that someone will discover the truth and hate you for it.

So now...regardless of what sex you find attractive, noone needs to worry that they will get into trouble. Now maybe the homosexuals can stop being anxious about getting into trouble and concentrate on their jobs, and perhaps the hetrosexuals can just leave the homosexuals alone and get on with their jobs also.

Honnestly...the fact that this is even an issue in such an important environment is outrageous...havent your soldiers and your government got anything better to do, then worry about if the person next to them is gay, or worry about being outted.

For goodness sake! its like a bloody school playground!!! I do hope our Military isnt like yours in that respect.

Are you kidding me? You know how much trouble men get in the service over sexual harassment on women? Its not taken lightly anymore.. A woman cannot flaunt or act inappropriately either they can be kicked out. So it works both ways.. I also don't appreciate your poke at our military!! :angry:

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 05:47 PM
well, the armed forces is about honor and integrity. Like with anything else, without a moral foundation you have nothing.

That is to say, without the restraint of one's own conscience evil begins to form. That is what we have with society right now. We have tried to compel righteousness via law. But in the process we have said righteousness is relative, so only what is law is right.

Making homosexuality legal, or forcing others to tolerate does not make it moral.

Without a moral basis, we can do what we want as long as we can get away with it. If my desire to please God did not prevent me from murdering, and i thought i could get away with it then i would do it if it suited me. So would thousands of others..... and unfortunately they have and ARE, because we have taken away the teaching of God and Absolute Truth. The law doesn't scare me but God does.

So about DADT? Well, homosexuality is an abomination. So is beastiality, incest, rape, and murder. And that is why they are not allowed in the military either.

How would it be to let a murderer openly serve in the military? Or a pedophile openly serve?

Tyburn, would you like to attend westboro baptist church? The church that is absolutely not a church and not baptist, and goes around protesting and flying nothing but hate signs and rhetoric? Would you please attend and join that church? Just ignore their values and you will be fine.

It's the same thing. You could not support that church any more than i could support the military and those in it that are moral scum, be it murderers, child molesters, rapists or sodomites.

It completely undermines the honor the military once had.

Is the military going to allow gay killers in the military under the pretense that they just have a mental disorder---- i think not


NateR, i would contend with only one thing you said, that sodomy is a mental disorder. Sodomy is no more a mental disorder than murder and rape is. I am predisposed to egging the houses of jerks and a$$holes, and robbing banks but somehow if i do that i don't think the mental disorder thing will hold up. I say it is a spiritual disorder, a CHOICE, that has consequences. Both immediately and eternally

Honour and integrity is not a Morality, it is a code of conduct. Thats not the same. Morality is a set of rules that is defined by someone higher then yourself, honour and integrity is basically nothing short of opinion. What I class as honourable, you might not.

So that gets rid of the major premise of your argument about a psydeo religion.

They are asked to work along side a homosexual...it so isnt that difficult...I put up with working along side Hetrosexuals everyday. I say! how do I cope :rolleyes:

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 05:51 PM
Are you kidding me? You know how much trouble men get in the service over sexual harassment on women? Its not taken lightly anymore.. A woman cannot flaunt or act inappropriately either they can be kicked out. So it works both ways.. I also don't appreciate your poke at our military!! :angry:

Anyone acting inappropriately should be kicked out!! that should go without saying!!!

if you are doing your job, then you dont have time to sexually harras anyone, and you shouldnt have time to flaunt anything either.

You shouldnt need to be told this...its not a "Military" thing...its something that is applicable to ANY employment period. You are paid to do a Job, get on and do it...dont complain, dont moan, dont mess around, dont slack, dont harrass, dont flaunt...do your job, and do it to the best of your ability.

Do you dissagree with ANY of the above???

Miss Foxy
12-23-2010, 05:54 PM
Anyone acting inappropriately should be kicked out!! that should go without saying!!!

if you are doing your job, then you dont have time to sexually harras anyone, and you shouldnt have time to flaunt anything either.

You shouldnt need to be told this...its not a "Military" thing...its something that is applicable to ANY employment period. You are paid to do a Job, get on and do it...dont complain, dont moan, dont mess around, dont slack, dont harrass, dont flaunt...do your job, and do it to the best of your ability.

Do you dissagree with ANY of the above???

Thats exactly the point of DADT Tyburn!!! So they don't get harassed for their protection. Also for other reasons!! This is just setting up division amongest our troops and frankly not necessary. Property of US government so your points... don't complain, don't moan, etc.. All valid...

rearnakedchoke
12-23-2010, 06:02 PM
Who or what a person screws has no business in with an armed forces members daily job. Therefore allowing them to actively engage in a lifestyle of homosexuality is opening a can of worms that should not be opened...:wacko: Don't ask! Why? It's no ones business.. And don't tell! Why? No one wants to know! Do your job end of story gay or straight. This is not an anti-gay campaign Tyburn.

i understand that ... but i am sure it comes out in conversation anyways ... i have never been in the military, but i am sure the DT part of DADT was only specified to gays ... i don't think a guy that tells his roomate that he has a wife and kid at home, or puts up a picture of his wife near his bunk is gonna get in trouble, but the gay would ... but i could be wrong .. you either have full disclosure or you simply say that homosexuals cannot serve in the military

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 06:04 PM
Thats exactly the point of DADT Tyburn!!! So they don't get harassed for their protection. Also for other reasons!! This is just setting up division amongest our troops and frankly not necessary. Property of US government so your points... don't complain, don't moan, etc.. All valid...

They shouldnt have to live in fear of being discovered. They shouldnt lie in an environment where trust is important...if they lie about their sexuality, how do you know they wont lie about something else.

So I think that homosexuals should be allowed into the military...and shouldnt need to lie about their orientation IF asked. BUT I dont believe that anyone should do anything inappropriate.

Thats why I've said all along...this is a non issue...if everyone does their jobs, and everyone respects and honours each other, and noone has to lie in an arena where trust is so important...then surely it will be more cohesive...and yes if ANYONE acts inappropriately...Hetro, Homo, Male, Female...Anyone...get rid of them.

These are the rules that most employers work under. It is what I expect when I go to work. I dont tollerate fools in the work place...because I believe we are their to work...we are not paid to mess around...I dont worry though about people finding out im gay...I dont fear that if my boss knew he would sack me...but neither will you find my boss and I speaking about it really...its not the time or the place

But then, dont forget there is other forms of harrasment aswell as sexual...Call me fat in the work place, and you'll be seeing the inside of the industrial compactor before the end of the day :angry:

:laugh: I Kid, I Kid....but I dont tollerate verbal abuse full stop. :)

Spiritwalker
12-23-2010, 06:18 PM
What would possess you to be so vulgar with that statement? What are "poor inner city people?" Have you served in the military or do you? If you feel embarrassed you outta go get yourself out there and serve..

I don't view that as vulgar at all.

It is a fact that recruiters market to the poor. And is that a bad thing? Nope, not at all. That is how they got me. I just backed out when I found out that there were a few basic "lies".. that I was told...

I was "poor inner city youth"... And I pretty much hate to see people exploited.

Miss Foxy
12-23-2010, 06:21 PM
I don't view that as vulgar at all.

It is a fact that recruiters market to the poor. And is that a bad thing? Nope, not at all. That is how they got me. I just backed out when I found out that there were a few basic "lies".. that I was told...

I was "poor inner city youth"... And I pretty much hate to see people exploited.

But what led you to believe they were inner city youth? I don't feel someone joining the military is being exploited. I think it's a great opportunity for anyone poor or rich. Of course the lies come with enlistening someone, but truthfully speaking a lot of work is put into enlisting someone..

Miss Foxy
12-23-2010, 06:24 PM
i understand that ... but i am sure it comes out in conversation anyways ... i have never been in the military, but i am sure the DT part of DADT was only specified to gays ... i don't think a guy that tells his roomate that he has a wife and kid at home, or puts up a picture of his wife near his bunk is gonna get in trouble, but the gay would ... but i could be wrong .. you either have full disclosure or you simply say that homosexuals cannot serve in the military

I was not in either so I can't fully answer that. I was married to one, daughter of one, sister of one...I just think with full disclosure it will divide everyone..I think Obama outta be worrying about our high unemployment rate and other things before he does this to get high liberal approval ratings.. :rolleyes:

Miss Foxy
12-23-2010, 06:25 PM
They shouldnt have to live in fear of being discovered. They shouldnt lie in an environment where trust is important...if they lie about their sexuality, how do you know they wont lie about something else.

So I think that homosexuals should be allowed into the military...and shouldnt need to lie about their orientation IF asked. BUT I dont believe that anyone should do anything inappropriate.

Thats why I've said all along...this is a non issue...if everyone does their jobs, and everyone respects and honours each other, and noone has to lie in an arena where trust is so important...then surely it will be more cohesive...and yes if ANYONE acts inappropriately...Hetro, Homo, Male, Female...Anyone...get rid of them.

These are the rules that most employers work under. It is what I expect when I go to work. I dont tollerate fools in the work place...because I believe we are their to work...we are not paid to mess around...I dont worry though about people finding out im gay...I dont fear that if my boss knew he would sack me...but neither will you find my boss and I speaking about it really...its not the time or the place

But then, dont forget there is other forms of harrasment aswell as sexual...Call me fat in the work place, and you'll be seeing the inside of the industrial compactor before the end of the day :angry:

:laugh: I Kid, I Kid....but I dont tollerate verbal abuse full stop. :)

LOL!! :laugh:

Spiritwalker
12-23-2010, 06:35 PM
However, being forced to follow orders that violate our values and morals does nothing but destroy troop morale and turns potentially good soldiers into disgruntled, angry soldiers. And when everyone is carrying around a rifle and hundreds of rounds of live ammunition, that's not something you want.

Now THAT I can completely agree with!

If we do not want gays in the military...then that is the rule.. the law... period. But this "wishy washy"... whiner voice..."I don't know... ".. is the crappy attitude that is destroying us.

If we, as a people, don't want gays to serve.. fine... but get behind it or get out of the way.

The "homosexual lifestyle" is a choice made by someone with a mental disorder. That's all it is.

But is the disorder genetic or learned? Because if it is one... then they should be allowed to serve being an American...if it is the other, that points to to a failing that we all can learn from.

We don't need to be putting the security of our armed forces and our nation at risk because people are too afraid to tell homosexuals the truth about their mental illness.

Very powerful statement. Would you agree that the same could be said about boy scouts... girl scouts....police departments...SWAT teams..high school sports teams?? public school teachers?? college teachers... very slippery sloope..

J.B.
12-23-2010, 06:38 PM
They shouldnt have to live in fear of being discovered. They shouldnt lie in an environment where trust is important...if they lie about their sexuality, how do you know they wont lie about something else.

So I think that homosexuals should be allowed into the military...and shouldnt need to lie about their orientation IF asked. BUT I dont believe that anyone should do anything inappropriate.

Thats why I've said all along...this is a non issue...if everyone does their jobs, and everyone respects and honours each other, and noone has to lie in an arena where trust is so important...then surely it will be more cohesive...and yes if ANYONE acts inappropriately...Hetro, Homo, Male, Female...Anyone...get rid of them.

These are the rules that most employers work under. It is what I expect when I go to work. I dont tollerate fools in the work place...because I believe we are their to work...we are not paid to mess around...I dont worry though about people finding out im gay...I dont fear that if my boss knew he would sack me...but neither will you find my boss and I speaking about it really...its not the time or the place


The military is not anything like being employed at a grocery store. You are free to quit working at a regular job like that anytime you want to, but that's not how it works in the military. Homosexuals don't have to lie about anything under DADT. They simply don't have to respond at all, because nobody should be asking them in the first place.

Nobody is condoning inappropriate actions against gays, but the reality is that it's more likely to happen if they are allowed to flaunt their gayness around a large group of young heterosexual men. We can't just expect that "equality" will be achieved by writing it down on a piece of paper. DADT was a good policy that has been repealed solely on the basis of political pandering. Now the gays can hold rallies for a couple weeks and feel like Obama actually did something for them.

J.B.
12-23-2010, 06:49 PM
Tyburn, would you like to attend westboro baptist church? The church that is absolutely not a church and not baptist, and goes around protesting and flying nothing but hate signs and rhetoric? Would you please attend and join that church? Just ignore their values and you will be fine.

Real talk...

+1 adamt

Spiritwalker
12-23-2010, 07:30 PM
But what led you to believe they were inner city youth? I don't feel someone joining the military is being exploited. I think it's a great opportunity for anyone poor or rich. Of course the lies come with enlistening someone, but truthfully speaking a lot of work is put into enlisting someone..

well... four white guys and four black guys.. using language that 15 year thugs use.. and acting no where near what is commonly considered military pride..

it was a pretty poor representation of the military...

adamt
12-23-2010, 07:32 PM
Honour and integrity is not a Morality, it is a code of conduct. Thats not the same. Morality is a set of rules that is defined by someone higher then yourself, honour and integrity is basically nothing short of opinion. What I class as honourable, you might not.

So that gets rid of the major premise of your argument about a psydeo religion.

They are asked to work along side a homosexual...it so isnt that difficult...I put up with working along side Hetrosexuals everyday. I say! how do I cope :rolleyes:

relativism at it's best

Play The Man
12-23-2010, 08:12 PM
But is the disorder genetic or learned? Because if it is one... then they should be allowed to serve being an American...if it is the other, that points to to a failing that we all can learn from.


Both. Not a satisfying answer, but likely the truth.

There are twin study databases that can shed light on the matter. The databases include information on identical twins raised together and raised apart (due to separation in adoption situations). Identical twins are more likely to both be homosexual than regular siblings; however, it is not perfect concordance. In some cases, one identical twin is homosexual and one is heterosexual, suggesting that it is not completely genetic.

There are animal and population-based studies that suggest homosexuality can be caused by environmental exposures. For example, about 50 years ago Calhoun did studies on rats concerning crowding into the behavioral sink. In brief, if a large population of rats is kept in a living space too small for the population size, pathological behaviors will occur in the rats - homosexual behavior, cannibalism, fighting, killing infants, etc.

There were studies of post-war Europe that suggested that mothers who faced starvation and extreme stress from bombing during their pregnancy were more likely to have a homosexual offspring.

In the DSM-I and DSM-II homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. It was dropped in 1973. That decision had as much to do with political correctness as science. In the current political environment, it would be career suicide to study homosexuality, unless you were specifically looking to find a strictly genetic basis.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
12-23-2010, 08:17 PM
:laugh: Why would they even have to ask a soldier if he was homosexual?? I dont understand that! this is like a non issue, because the Government surely shouldnt be ASKING in the first place!! those who are in the closset can stay there, those who are not surely arent any more a danger.

Tell me...when you go to the bank...do you ask the person serving you what sexuality they are???

Why should someone whose gay not do military service? is their any particular thing that a hetrosexual soldier can do...that a gay one cant?? I mean....Really??

I'd love to know why this means anything at all.

...ohh and being "uncomfortable" around gays doesnt count. Your not paid to be comfortable around everyone you work with in any environment.

Don't ask don't tell basiclly said if you was keep it to yourself! As for why? Soilder's are in such close proximity it could be trouble. It's like a striat guy showering with the ladies!

NateR
12-23-2010, 08:25 PM
But is the disorder genetic or learned? Because if it is one... then they should be allowed to serve being an American...if it is the other, that points to to a failing that we all can learn from.

Just because some inherits a genetic trait doesn't mean that it is normal and healthy.

What if someone genetically inherits schizophrenia from his/her parents and suffers from severe delusions right from birth? So then should we say, "Oh well, since this person was born schizophrenic, then it must be normal and not a mental illness in any way. In fact, to treat the symptoms with drugs would be implying that this person is ill, thus violating his/her rights as an American. So if this person decides that they want to serve in the Armed Forces, then we have no right to say no. In fact, if it turns out that their schizophrenia (which is completely normal and healthy because God made them that way) is incompatible with military service, then it must mean that there is something wrong with our military. So, we need to rewrite the rules of our military in order to accommodate this person"? Is that even logical?

Of course, gays will claim that they are not mentally ill and that their behavior is completely normal, but trusting the self-diagnosis of someone with a mental disorder is probably not good medicine.

Very powerful statement. Would you agree that the same could be said about boy scouts... girl scouts....police departments...SWAT teams..high school sports teams?? public school teachers?? college teachers... very slippery sloope..

We need to stop pandering to the gay community in every aspect of our lives.

Spiritwalker
12-23-2010, 08:43 PM
Just because some inherits a genetic trait doesn't mean that it is normal and healthy.

Agreed.



What if someone genetically inherits schizophrenia from his/her parents and suffers from severe delusions right from birth? So then should we say, "Oh well, since this person was born schizophrenic, then it must be normal and not a mental illness in any way.

But being homosexual isn't destructive...

In fact, to treat the symptoms with drugs would be implying that this person is ill, thus violating his/her rights as an American. So if this person decides that they want to serve in the Armed Forces, then we have no right to say no. In fact, if it turns out that their schizophrenia (which is completely normal and healthy because God made them that way) is incompatible with military service, then it must mean that there is something wrong with our military. So, we need to rewrite the rules of our military in order to accommodate this person"? Is that even logical?

No it is not. I completely agree with you.


Of course, gays will claim that they are not mentally ill and that their behavior is completely normal, but trusting the self-diagnosis of someone with a mental disorder is probably not good medicine.

What about the various doctors that say that is isn't a mental disorder? Have any of us ever asked our own doctors about that? I haven't. I have a physical in 2 months.. this could be a good discussion...

We need to stop pandering to the gay community in every aspect of our lives.

Very well said... but when does tolerance of others stop.. and indulgence begin.

NateR
12-23-2010, 08:56 PM
But being homosexual isn't destructive...

I would disagree with that. Homosexuals are much more likely to suffer from depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, and attempt suicide than heterosexuals. Even in countries where gays are almost completely accepted as normal and allowed to marry.

But, it's not only destructive to them, it's destructive to society as a whole.

What about the various doctors that say that is isn't a mental disorder? Have any of us ever asked our own doctors about that? I haven't. I have a physical in 2 months.. this could be a good discussion...

Well, if a doctor wants to continue to practice medicine, then he or she will keep their opinions about homosexuality to themselves. Why do you think that psychologists stopped treating homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973? Was it because of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary? No, it was because they would lose their license if they failed to conform to the political pressure.

adamt
12-23-2010, 09:04 PM
But being homosexual isn't destructive...











neither is beastiality or incest

unless you consider disintegrating morale and morals destructive

i don't want to serve with a sheeplover either

Spiritwalker
12-23-2010, 09:08 PM
I would disagree with that. Homosexuals are much more likely to suffer from depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, and attempt suicide than heterosexuals. Even in countries where gays are almost completely accepted as normal and allowed to marry.


Would you agree that the VAST majority of those cases are normally caused by those that refuse to tolerate the differences between them (the homosexual) and the people around them? Persecution and such? Bullying..


But, it's not only destructive to them, it's destructive to society as a whole.

Why? If you are referring to a Christian society I can understand that... But society (in general) changes... a stagnet society is a dead society ...

adamt
12-23-2010, 09:11 PM
It ALL comes back to truth, what is truth?

does adamt decide truth?

does nater decide what is right and what is wrong?

does tyburn decide?

NO


right is that which coincides with God

and wrong is that which does not



homosexuality does not conincide with the character of God


If you don't have a litmus test for what is right, then eventually everything will be

God is the standard by which you decide if something is right or not


God created male and female humans, and meant for one male to reproduce with one female within marriage

anything other than that is perverted

God meant for males to protect and provide and God meant for females to nurture

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 09:16 PM
1) The military is not anything like being employed at a grocery store. You are free to quit working at a regular job like that anytime you want to, but that's not how it works in the military. Homosexuals don't have to lie about anything under DADT. They simply don't have to respond at all, because nobody should be asking them in the first place.

2) Nobody is condoning inappropriate actions against gays, but the reality is that it's more likely to happen if they are allowed to flaunt their gayness around a large group of young heterosexual men. We can't just expect that "equality" will be achieved by writing it down on a piece of paper. DADT was a good policy that has been repealed solely on the basis of political pandering. Now the gays can hold rallies for a couple weeks and feel like Obama actually did something for them.

1) Their silence is their lie. Why should they have to try and convince others that they are hetrosexual....it shouldnt matter....and actually...if you value your life and have dependants and committments, you are not free to leave your job at any time...not unless you want your world to come crashing down.
most of us wouldnt work period if we didnt have to...and codes of conduct and appropriate behaviour in the workplace is applicable across the whole board.

2) Oh I quite agree that it is a political boost. Thats why Obama has done it, and it shows how desperate he's become. Noone said anything about "Flaunt" just that one should not be punished for ones sexuality in that environment.

flo
12-23-2010, 09:18 PM
Both. Not a satisfying answer, but likely the truth.

There are twin study databases that can shed light on the matter. The databases include information on identical twins raised together and raised apart (due to separation in adoption situations). Identical twins are more likely to both be homosexual than regular siblings; however, it is not perfect concordance. In some cases, one identical twin is homosexual and one is heterosexual, suggesting that it is not completely genetic.

There are animal and population-based studies that suggest homosexuality can be caused by environmental exposures. For example, about 50 years ago Calhoun did studies on rats concerning crowding into the behavioral sink. In brief, if a large population of rats is kept in a living space too small for the population size, pathological behaviors will occur in the rats - homosexual behavior, cannibalism, fighting, killing infants, etc.

There were studies of post-war Europe that suggested that mothers who faced starvation and extreme stress from bombing during their pregnancy were more likely to have a homosexual offspring.

In the DSM-I and DSM-II homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. It was dropped in 1973. That decision had as much to do with political correctness as science. In the current political environment, it would be career suicide to study homosexuality, unless you were specifically looking to find a strictly genetic basis.

Fascinating studies, PTM, thanks for the info.

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 09:19 PM
relativism at it's best

Well no, its better then relativism in one way because a core essence can usually be aggreed upon. Its really more humanistic then relativist...but its not religious, not in the proper sense. Ethics and Morals are not the same thing...and Ethical Code of conduct simply tells you an aggreed code on how to deal with people...a Moral is something quite different...because it has nothing to do with the person following it. Morals are to do with the decrees of a Diety, they are set in stone, and unchanging, the follower of them cant change his morals based on his feelings, or opinions.

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 09:21 PM
Both. Not a satisfying answer, but likely the truth.

There are twin study databases that can shed light on the matter. The databases include information on identical twins raised together and raised apart (due to separation in adoption situations). Identical twins are more likely to both be homosexual than regular siblings; however, it is not perfect concordance. In some cases, one identical twin is homosexual and one is heterosexual, suggesting that it is not completely genetic.

There are animal and population-based studies that suggest homosexuality can be caused by environmental exposures. For example, about 50 years ago Calhoun did studies on rats concerning crowding into the behavioral sink. In brief, if a large population of rats is kept in a living space too small for the population size, pathological behaviors will occur in the rats - homosexual behavior, cannibalism, fighting, killing infants, etc.

There were studies of post-war Europe that suggested that mothers who faced starvation and extreme stress from bombing during their pregnancy were more likely to have a homosexual offspring.

In the DSM-I and DSM-II homosexuality was considered a psychological disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. It was dropped in 1973. That decision had as much to do with political correctness as science. In the current political environment, it would be career suicide to study homosexuality, unless you were specifically looking to find a strictly genetic basis.

Bassically, you have no idea. Its alright to say "we dont know, tests are inconclusive."

This isnt about why gays are gay...this is about gays in the military.

Miss Foxy
12-23-2010, 09:26 PM
Bassically, you have no idea. Its alright to say "we dont know, tests are inconclusive."

This isnt about why gays are gay...this is about gays in the military.

Be nice Tyburn!!:angry: He was being nice by providing that info to us all! Would you rather have everyone saying gays are freaks of nature or something similar to that?

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 09:40 PM
1) We need to stop pandering to the gay community in every aspect of our lives.

1) you need to treat everyone with respect, for they are all made in the image of GOD.

If you had your way, I'm sure homosexuals wouldnt be allowed to do anything and would probably all be locked up in mental assylums...They cant serve in the Military incase they frighten the real men, they cant be in leadership roles in the church or of anything Christian, because they are poor role models due to sin (even if we all sin and its all held as equal by GOD) they cant do anything other then lust, they dont have the ability to live in loving long term relationships with a single partner. They cant live together incase they threaten marriage, they cant adopt...they basically cant do anything, they shouldnt even speak about it, lest the embarris or bring into disrepute the reputation of their friends. We wouldnt want other to know we have homosexual friends...if they find out, we'll have to expell the homo from our presence.

But if they dont say a word, you can pretend its not real, and thats fine. You know one of my best friends in the last year of University, was an outspoken hater of homosexuals...yet he spent almost every night debating all kinds of things with me...I believe he chose not to see what was directly infront of him...because its alright speaking shyte about a group of people...but when you have relationships with them that mean something to you, it becomes suddenly hard to put them in the same bracket....and we all do it to a certain extent....I am forever talking to people on here in the political section as if they have the power, or as if they aggreed on the actions of their Government in every single way. Sometimes I speak to people as if they were alive during the war of independance and somehow caused it or something...because again I am categorising everyone as "Americans"

But when I think of "Americans" its all stereotype...its not really individual Americans that I know...its a bit like the term "present company excluded" when you talk ill to someone who is part of a group, but want to show you dont mean them in particular. But I recognise this and I try to work on it.

Do you realize that you appear to do exactly the same with homosexuals...they seem to be all Militant, out to ruin your country and religion, and all perverts. As with all stereotypes, there are elements of truth...but you have to see beyond that, to the person living next door, that might be struggling...or a friend whose never shared that information with you, or the quiet guy who goes his entire life without sex and never tells a soul.

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 09:42 PM
Be nice Tyburn!!:angry: He was being nice by providing that info to us all! Would you rather have everyone saying gays are freaks of nature or something similar to that?

I didnt mean it nastily...all I meant was, NOONE knows what causes homosexuality.

Everyone has a theory, and there are millions of them about...but noone knows...and I doubt we ever will. I dont feel the cause to be that important, personally, I only think what to do to get rid of it is whats important...but thats just me :laugh:

J.B.
12-23-2010, 09:43 PM
1) Their silence is their lie. Why should they have to try and convince others that they are hetrosexual....it shouldnt matter....and actually...if you value your life and have dependants and committments, you are not free to leave your job at any time...not unless you want your world to come crashing down.
most of us wouldnt work period if we didnt have to...and codes of conduct and appropriate behaviour in the workplace is applicable across the whole board.

But you ARE free to choose weather or not you leave a job. I never said there wouldn't be consequences, but you still have the choice NOT to stay in an environment you don't like. When it comes to the military, you are not just "free to leave". You are not a civilian anymore. They own you.

Also, being silent doesn't always constitute a lie. A soldier doesn't owe it to another soldier to disclose his personal sexual tastes anymore than anybody else, be it a boss, co-worker, or some random person on the street.

The rules were simple. Don't ask, don't tell. It didn't have to be a big deal.


2) Oh I quite agree that it is a political boost. Thats why Obama has done it, and it shows how desperate he's become. Noone said anything about "Flaunt" just that one should not be punished for ones sexuality in that environment.

What our president should have told the Gay Headquarters in San Francisco is that not only are we keeping DADT, but we are adding a new policy called "Don't like it? Don't care. STFU".

I know you didn't say people should "flaunt" their gayness, but you can't deny that a lot of gay people do just that. There will be those who go out of their way to do that now that it's repealed. I'm sure there are a lot of soldiers who are gay that won't do that, but I bet those soldiers probably didn't have a problem complying with the DADT policy in the first place.

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 09:43 PM
i don't want to serve with a sheeplover either

:laugh::laugh:

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 09:45 PM
homosexuality does not conincide with the character of God


Neither does telling lies...nor adultory...nor devorce...so perhaps every lier, every cheat, and every devorcee should leave the Military to.

We are not arguing if Homosexuality is right or wrong in a moral sence...we are asking if its alright for a homo to serve in the military

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 09:53 PM
1) But you ARE free to choose weather or not you leave a job. I never said there wouldn't be consequences, but you still have the choice NOT to stay in an environment you don't like. When it comes to the military, you are not just "free to leave". You are not a civilian anymore. They own you.

2) Also, being silent doesn't always constitute a lie. A soldier doesn't owe it to another soldier to disclose his personal sexual tastes anymore than anybody else, be it a boss, co-worker, or some random person on the street.

The rules were simple. Don't ask, don't tell. It didn't have to be a big deal.



What our president should have told the Gay Headquarters in San Francisco is that not only are we keeping DADT, but we are adding a new policy called "Don't like it? Don't care. STFU".

3) I know you didn't say people should "flaunt" their gayness, but you can't deny that a lot of gay people do just that. There will be those who go out of their way to do that now that it's repealed. I'm sure there are a lot of soldiers who are gay that won't do that, but I bet those soldiers probably didn't have a problem complying with the DADT policy in the first place.

1) I'm sure if you wanted to leave you could do something that would get you chucked out. Infact I know thats true, because I know someone who WAS chucked out from your armed forces :laugh:

2) No he doesnt...but he shouldnt have to live in fear of it comming out and then him being in trouble for it...and he shouldnt have to put on a facade to put others at ease...

...and its easy for you to say Silence isnt lying...but if you dont tell people, they form their own ideas. I never told my Gran...She used to write to me about how proud she was of me, and how I would make a good husband some day, or have a wonderful family...she would write things about my character that made her proud...I wonder...would she have been so proud if she had known the truth?


Noone else in my family is. But I let her die without knowing, she had a dream, and ideal of me...and she loved that ideal...but it was false, and I knew it was false, and I let it continue.

Now I regret that.

3) Well, when they flaunt, they should get chucked out for inappropriate behaviour...thats one less gay to worry about isnt it. :laugh:

Miss Foxy
12-23-2010, 09:56 PM
1) I'm sure if you wanted to leave you could do something that would get you chucked out. Infact I know thats true, because I know someone who WAS chucked out from your armed forces :laugh:

2) No he doesnt...but he shouldnt have to live in fear of it comming out and then him being in trouble for it...and he shouldnt have to put on a facade to put others at ease...

...and its easy for you to say Silence isnt lying...but if you dont tell people, they form their own ideas. I never told my Gran...She used to write to me about how proud she was of me, and how I would make a good husband some day, or have a wonderful family...she would write things about my character that made her proud...I wonder...would she have been so proud if she had known the truth?
Noone else in my family is. But I let her die without knowing, she had a dream, and ideal of me...and she loved that ideal...but it was false, and I knew it was false, and I let it continue.

Now I regret that.

3) Well, when they flaunt, they should get chucked out for inappropriate behaviour...thats one less gay to worry about isnt it. :laugh:

Sorry to hear that Tyburn..:sad: Don't let that consume you though. I do give you credit for not participating in homosexual behavior anymore. That is really something your family should be proud of. If it makes you feel any better I think my dad wanted to cry the day I became a Republican :laugh:

Tyburn
12-23-2010, 10:03 PM
Sorry to hear that Tyburn..:sad: Don't let that consume you though. I do give you credit for not participating in homosexual behavior anymore. That is really something your family should be proud of. If it makes you feel any better I think my dad wanted to cry the day I became a Republican :laugh:

:) dont worry, its really only a concern on her years mind, when I read all her old letters and wish I'd had the courage to maybe tell her...or maybe it was best she didnt know...I dont know...She's in heaven now...so she knows it all (poor Gran :laugh::ashamed:)

I have a strange relationship with some in my family, particularly my Father...I dare say we are both as bad as each other. Sometimes they do take issue...but then...I dont exactly roll over and play dead in response

You always cheer me up Miss Foxy...and a lot of it is because even when we dont aggree rather then jump to things, you let me respond, and you actually READ my response, and then reply to that...it doesnt solve our differences, but it does make me feel like you listen and understand, even if you dont aggree...and fair enough...I dont have all the answers...and I'm not out to convince people...but it winds me up when people either ignore me, or worse dont listen to me :laugh:

J.B.
12-23-2010, 10:18 PM
1) I'm sure if you wanted to leave you could do something that would get you chucked out. Infact I know thats true, because I know someone who WAS chucked out from your armed forces :laugh:

Of course you could do that. But that's not being a very good soldier, and something people should consider when they decide to join the military.


2) No he doesnt...but he shouldnt have to live in fear of it comming out and then him being in trouble for it...and he shouldnt have to put on a facade to put others at ease...

...and its easy for you to say Silence isnt lying...but if you dont tell people, they form their own ideas. I never told my Gran...She used to write to me about how proud she was of me, and how I would make a good husband some day, or have a wonderful family...she would write things about my character that made her proud...I wonder...would she have been so proud if she had known the truth?

Now I regret that.

Noone else in my family is. But I let her die without knowing, she had a dream, and ideal of me...and she loved that ideal...but it was false, and I knew it was false, and I let it continue.


But again, there is civilian life and military life.

There are certain freedoms that people knowingly give up when they join the military. It's just a fact of life that there is a stigma surrounding homosexuals, especially when you are talking about a large group of young men who aren't gay. The policy is as much aimed at keeping them from asking about it as it is for homosexuals to feel they should be able to come out and openly talk about it. It wasn't designed to make anybody more uncomfortable then they already are, it was designed to avoid other problems that can stem from this because it's not really comfortable for most people to talk about be it straight or gay.

I can understand it's not likely to be an easy scenario for somebody who is gay to deal with, but dealing with those stigmas are going to be a reality and a person should know they will have to cope with that not only if they want to be a soldier, but basically in all walks of life.

I also realize that it's tough to feel like you let somebody down, or to regret being untruthful. We all go through that in life many times over in multiple ways.


3) Well, when they flaunt, they should get chucked out for inappropriate behaviour...thats one less gay to worry about isnt it. :laugh:

I would agree, they should be punished. I would also say that if a soldier was harassing another soldier because of their sexuality, they should be punished too.

Crisco
12-23-2010, 10:36 PM
I swing both ways on this issue

Crisco
12-23-2010, 10:37 PM
^

See what I did there?

Crisco
12-23-2010, 10:37 PM
Also Dave I love you and God bless.

I miss you all terribly hope to be able to meet some more of you soon.

J.B.
12-23-2010, 10:42 PM
^

See what I did there?

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/681/original/what-you-did-there-i-see-it.thumbnail.jpg

Jonlion
12-23-2010, 11:23 PM
well... four white guys and four black guys.. using language that 15 year thugs use.. and acting no where near what is commonly considered military pride..

it was a pretty poor representation of the military...

Their Soldiers not Angels - sure there is a level of honour and integrity but one the Army can straighten that out and two they need to let off steam somehow as soldiers - I wouldn't worry too much about bad language.

Jonlion
12-23-2010, 11:30 PM
I think they should of left it as it was.

But to be honest I know this has been passed into law but seriously how many will live out openly. I mean it is impossible to police everything and surely the banter will ensure people stay quiet on the subject.

no one likes a troublemaker and they will find themselves isolated soon enough.

I can only imagine some of the banter going round the barracks now with soldiers heckling one another saying that "they can come out now".

Everyone will be cracking jokes and your going to feel stupid making a big show and dance about being gay in such a macho lads atmosphere.

Spiritwalker
12-24-2010, 01:03 AM
1) you need to treat everyone with respect, for they are all made in the image of GOD.

If you had your way, I'm sure homosexuals wouldnt be allowed to do anything and would probably all be locked up in mental assylums...


STRUGGLING TO NOT MAKE COMMNET~~~~~~~:cry:

Spiritwalker
12-24-2010, 01:05 AM
^

See what I did there?

I did!

NateR
12-24-2010, 02:24 AM
Would you agree that the VAST majority of those cases are normally caused by those that refuse to tolerate the differences between them (the homosexual) and the people around them? Persecution and such? Bullying..

The statistics are the same in countries where homosexuality is openly accepted. Thus, societal acceptance, or lack thereof, is not a factor.

NateR
12-24-2010, 02:28 AM
If you had your way, I'm sure homosexuals wouldnt be allowed to do anything and would probably all be locked up in mental assylums...

Considering that I opened my home up to you during your first States trip and allowed you to stay with me for two whole weeks, I find this comment incredibly ironic and more than a little bit insulting.

Homosexuals are sick, not criminals. They need psychological counseling to cure this illness, which is never going to be possible as long as we're not even allowed to recognize it as a mental illness.

Mark
12-24-2010, 02:43 AM
Considering that I opened my home up to you during your first States trip and allowed you to stay with me for two whole weeks, I find this comment incredibly ironic and more than a little bit insulting.

Homosexuals are sick, not criminals. They need psychological counseling to cure this illness, which is never going to be possible as long as we're not even allowed to recognize it as a mental illness.

I thought they should be locked up.

adamt
12-24-2010, 02:57 AM
you know what, the more i think about this the more i like it.


DADT was more of a special right than it was discrimination. I am just wondering what kept some sissy from claiming to be gay and getting out of the military after they decide it isn't for them, or after they get to shoot the guns and have the fun, and correct me if i am wrong but isn't it an honorable discharge?

so i am glad the DADT policy isn't a copout for real or fake gays anymore

I would be willing to bet money that at least 3/4 of the people that get (or got) discharged under DADT turned themselves in, but i am sure there is no way of knowing

so i am happy that at least now those yeller bellies that would like to get discharged as gay whether they are or not, will be forced to stick with it

sounds more like equal rights to me

I might just have to admit i was wrong, except for the fact that sodomy is an abomination of course, and a choice, of course and a spiritual affliction

Chuck
12-24-2010, 02:58 AM
It's about being able to completely entrust your life to the guy next to you. An intimate bond that's required for men to fight side by side in combat. However, the homosexual mind is more likely to pervert that intimacy into something sexual, thus destroying the bond and making it impossible for the two men to form a cohesive fighting unit.
I think that's a pretty ridiculous statement to me honest. Being a soldier especially one in combat is all about duty. The soldiers need to be able to put aside ANY AND ALL differences to perform their duty. If a soldier can't do that, they shouldn't be in the military.


Homosexuals are much more likely to suffer from depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, and attempt suicide than heterosexuals.
I would imagine it would be the same for any segregated group forced to endure abuse, ridicule and hatred on a regular basis.

God is the standard by which you decide if something is right or not
He is also the standard that guides us in how we should treat people correct?

Mark
12-24-2010, 03:03 AM
He is also the standard that guides us in how we should treat people correct?

Chuck are you saying that jesus would be for this?

Chuck
12-24-2010, 03:12 AM
Chuck are you saying that jesus would be for this?

I don't really know to be honest Mark. I'm not even sure how I feel about it. But I know the overwhelming message of Christ and His Word is that we love one another. That we sacrifice for one another, give to one another etc...

Remember 1 Cor. 13???


If some people don't like homosexuals or have a bias against them so be it. That's their choice... but nothing absolutely NOTHING disgusts and angers me more than seeing people pervert God's word to justify their own bias, bigotry or personal feelings.

I wonder where as a society we would be if Christians spent as much time praying for homosexuals as they do condemning them? :huh:

NateR
12-24-2010, 03:41 AM
I think that's a pretty ridiculous statement to me honest. Being a soldier especially one in combat is all about duty. The soldiers need to be able to put aside ANY AND ALL differences to perform their duty. If a soldier can't do that, they shouldn't be in the military.

Spoken like someone who has never served in the military. If this was true, then no one would qualify for military service.

I would imagine it would be the same for any segregated group forced to endure abuse, ridicule and hatred on a regular basis.

I will repeat it AGAIN, the statistics are the same in countries where homosexuality is openly accepted. So, societal acceptance, or lack thereof, is not a factor.

Homosexuality is an unnatural perversion and those who practice it know this. However, it's the denial of that fact and the constant effort required to convince themselves that it is normal, that is causing the emotional trauma that leads to drug/alcohol abuse, depression and suicide. They are living a lie and deep down they recognize that, so they are at war with their own minds.

In Romans 1:28, the Bible describes the homosexual mind as a "depraved mind." Thus, it's not logical to assume that a practicing homosexual can ever have a truly healthy mental state.

NateR
12-24-2010, 03:47 AM
I wonder where as a society we would be if Christians spent as much time praying for homosexuals as they do condemning them? :huh:

I don't know, but I sometimes wonder where we as a society would be if Christians actually stood up for truth, no matter how unpopular:

Romans 1:18-32
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Spiritwalker
12-24-2010, 06:01 AM
I don't know, but I sometimes wonder where we as a society would be if Christians actually stood up for truth, no matter how unpopular:


Nate.. I get where you are coming from.. but all types of religious groups believe that they have the truth.. even those that read the same "manual"

To have Christians, as a whole, stand up for "the truth, no matter how unpopular".. they would have to clean their own house first.

I will repeat it AGAIN, the statistics are the same in countries where homosexuality is openly accepted. So, societal acceptance, or lack thereof, is not a factor.

Got a source for those stats? I would be interested in seeing that...



you know what, the more i think about this the more i like it. DADT was more of a special right than it was discrimination.

You know I hadn't considered that.. very nice point!

Play The Man
12-24-2010, 08:05 AM
Bassically, you have no idea. Its alright to say "we dont know, tests are inconclusive."

This isnt about why gays are gay...this is about gays in the military.

You are correct on both points; the point of the digression was to address an issue raised by a SpiritWalker rhetorical question.

Tyburn
12-24-2010, 12:34 PM
1)Of course you could do that. But that's not being a very good soldier, and something people should consider when they decide to join the military.



2) But again, there is civilian life and military life.

There are certain freedoms that people knowingly give up when they join the military. It's just a fact of life that there is a stigma surrounding homosexuals, especially when you are talking about a large group of young men who aren't gay. The policy is as much aimed at keeping them from asking about it as it is for homosexuals to feel they should be able to come out and openly talk about it. It wasn't designed to make anybody more uncomfortable then they already are, it was designed to avoid other problems that can stem from this because it's not really comfortable for most people to talk about be it straight or gay.

3) I can understand it's not likely to be an easy scenario for somebody who is gay to deal with, but dealing with those stigmas are going to be a reality and a person should know they will have to cope with that not only if they want to be a soldier, but basically in all walks of life.

4) I also realize that it's tough to feel like you let somebody down, or to regret being untruthful. We all go through that in life many times over in multiple ways.



5) I would agree, they should be punished. I would also say that if a soldier was harassing another soldier because of their sexuality, they should be punished too.

1) niether is the inability to follow orders. If someone higher up the tree tells you to share rooms with a gay guy, you share rooms with a gay guy. Its really extremely simple

2) The problem isnt so much talking about it, as having to hide it. I wouldnt reccomend deep discussions, I just think that if someone is exposed that they shouldnt get in trouble for it. that now wont happen.

3) I aggree. But living in fear can do more damage then stigma and rejection...at least thats what I think

4) the point is, that relates directly to this scenario. If someone is frightened they are going to be found out, or if another has preconceived and actually unfounded views on a person...thats not good for soldier where trust and truth matter. Not telling the whole truth is as bad as telling a lie...after all, Lucifer didnt strictly speaking lie in Eden...he simply neglected to tell the whole truth. Had they eaten from the Tree of Life after the Tree of the Knowledge of Goodness and Evil, then they would have become like GOD...the Trinity discuss this and decide this is why Eden must be guarded after the explusion. All Lucifer did was neglect to expound on something...there eyes WERE opened after eating the Apple.

Now if you trust someone with your life, and you discover they have not told the whole truth...would you still trust them?

5) any abuse should be punished, inappropriate behaviour, disrepute, gross missconduct, verbal, physical, and sexual harrasment...that should go without saying. You should not need a charter to tell you that...you must expect that in any job you ever apply and accept. It is right and proper to abide by it. :)

Tyburn
12-24-2010, 12:40 PM
I swing both ways on this issue

:laugh: I Hold great regard for you too Crisco, and wish you would return to us as before. :)

I wont say "love" coz then I'd have to say (No Homo) :laugh: and that might be considered by some a double negative :laugh:

GOD bless you too Crisco :)

Tyburn
12-24-2010, 12:45 PM
STRUGGLING TO NOT MAKE COMMNET~~~~~~~:cry:

Well I dont know how it was in your country...but about forty years ago in England, that is EXACTLY what they would do with Homosexuals...its why Homosexuals developed complex ways of identifying each other...basically it was considered illegal to engage in homosexual practise, and they would send you to prison, or a mental assylum

The way you were treated was usually electro-therapy. Which meant they would bring the gay in. Strap him to a chair, and zap his brain with electric current, hoping to scramble whatever part made him gay, and re-set him as a hetrosexual.

This may not have been policy in America...but it certainly was policy in England. So that Scenario is not as mean or horrible as it sounds...it happened, and the general consensus was exactly as Nathan states...it was considered a condition, a medical condition almost...one which they tried, and failed to treat.

Tyburn
12-24-2010, 12:53 PM
Considering that I opened my home up to you during your first States trip and allowed you to stay with me for two whole weeks, I find this comment incredibly ironic and more than a little bit insulting.

Homosexuals are sick, not criminals. They need psychological counseling to cure this illness, which is never going to be possible as long as we're not even allowed to recognize it as a mental illness.

Do you remember what you said to me on the way home from your Church Nathan?

Yes you let me stay with you, and I am eternally Greatful to you for that...but you recall that I said to you on the way back after that discussion session that focused on your relationship with your Father...that I didnt feel it had been appropriate to tell them I was gay...you told me you were glad I had not said anything because if I had, I would have found myself put up in a hotel.

I guess being associated with me in close quarters is fine, because you know I'm not going to pounce on you or anything...but only fine so long as others in a Christian setting DO NOT KNOW the truth of my orientation.

Now I didnt find that insulting...because I can understand that, and I didnt want to make you feel uncomfortable...what I said about the treatment of gays in Assylums in this thread is true, and actually happened in England. I've been for counselling I dont know how many times...I have never tried psycho-sexual therapy or hypnotism though...one sounded dangerous, the other was far too expensive :laugh:

I hope you dont hate me for what I wrote. I might have blown it out of proportion slightly...but that was to get you to recognise the point I'm trying to make. Not to insult you. I consider you one of my best friends on here actually :laugh: (now that really might be ironic and insulting depending on how you take it ) :laugh::laugh:

Tyburn
12-24-2010, 12:57 PM
I thought they should be locked up.

I always had a hunch you were out to get me :ninja:

:laugh:

thats such a scary thought I try not to think about it :frantics:

Well I still like you anyway :)

NateR
12-24-2010, 02:41 PM
1) niether is the inability to follow orders. If someone higher up the tree tells you to share rooms with a gay guy, you share rooms with a gay guy. Its really extremely simple


Again, spoken like someone who has never served in the military.

Jonlion
12-24-2010, 03:15 PM
I think they should of left it as it was.

But to be honest I know this has been passed into law but seriously how many will live out openly. I mean it is impossible to police everything and surely the banter will ensure people stay quiet on the subject.

no one likes a troublemaker and they will find themselves isolated soon enough.

I can only imagine some of the banter going round the barracks now with soldiers heckling one another saying that "they can come out now".

Everyone will be cracking jokes and your going to feel stupid making a big show and dance about being gay in such a macho lads atmosphere.


Bump

Chuck
12-24-2010, 04:28 PM
Spoken like someone who has never served in the military. If this was true, then no one would qualify for military service.

Again, spoken like someone who has never served in the military.

Enlighten me... help me understand. When you're in the military which orders are you obligated to follow? The ones given to you by people you like? People you align yourself with politically? Spiritually? Did they start segregating soldiers in common interest groups recently so only like minded soldiers are near each other? :huh:

You do realize in your 10 year career you've no doubt taken orders from a gay person.. :scared0011:

You've probably slept in the same room as one!! :scared0011:

Good gracious I bet a gay man has probably seen you naked Nate! :scared0011::scared0011::scared0011::scared0011:

But............................................... .................................................. ..

life went on right? The military still functioned right? Orders were still carried out right?

Amazing!



Homosexuality is an unnatural perversion and those who practice it know this. They are living a lie and deep down they recognize that, so they are at war with their own minds.

Spoken like somebody who is completely ignorant of the subject. Your lack of understanding of who homosexual people are and how they function is sad really.

Homosexuality is a sin. ALL sin separates us from God. Satan is described as a deceiver, the Father of Lies... sin is related to darkness throughout Scripture. To think for a minute that all gay people are walking around with a clear understanding of the Truth and are just choosing to ignore it is ridiculous. I'm sure there are some that aren't deceived and walk in that lifestyle willingly but it's unrealistic to think they all do.



In Romans 1:28, the Bible describes the homosexual mind as a "depraved mind." Thus, it's not logical to assume that a practicing homosexual can ever have a truly healthy mental state.
Can anybody who's separated from Christ?


I wonder where as a society we would be if Christians spent as much time praying for homosexuals as they do condemning them? :huh:

I don't know, but I sometimes wonder where we as a society would be if Christians actually stood up for truth, no matter how unpopular:

Does it have to be one or the other?

What truth do you want us to stand up for? That ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?

We can't just stand up for the truth in Scripture that justifies how we feel about a subject and ignore the rest of the truth can we?

You claim that all homosexuals know they are living a lie... well what does you pointing that out to them help? If a man is drowning in the ocean and all we do is point and say "hey, you're drowning" then shame on us!!!

Finding fault in people and showing them the "truth" about their actions is easy. Loving them, TRULY loving them in spite of it is hard.

Tyburn
12-24-2010, 05:35 PM
Again, spoken like someone who has never served in the military.

Stopped short of saying I was wrong though, didnt you Nathan. :mellow:

You dont need to serve in order to understand basic principles like you do what your told.

Secondly...I might know more about the Military then you think, both from Study (particularly Military Ethics and Strategy) to others, like knowing people who are in the Military and having spoken to them about it. Most of my Teachers throughout my education were Ex-Forces, The discipline required of each person was quite spectacular...its even more like a Military School now. I have a Sister who works in the Army Foundation College (she used to work in a Prison) I live in close proximity to Menwith Hill Airbase (Its a U.S listening Station, I think part of Starwars infact)

I'm also an Extreme J on the myres-Briggs...I know all about codes, taxonomies, rules, structure, routine, regulation.

I dont pretend to be an expert on it...but simple things like doing what you are told and not complaining about it...thats not difficult to understand. The Chain of Command and following Orders is an easy concept to grasp...and because they do what needs to be done, and what they are told to do, and they risk everything to do that, I admire them....

...and I admire you, even if I dont aggree with you all the time, and even if you hate me for what I say sometimes...I hope you recognise that Nathan

Chris F
12-24-2010, 06:07 PM
Okay time for the Devils advocate here.

1. There is a reason people like Ron Paul voted for this it is called the US Constitution. It is a voulenteer army and we should have all the same right under the law regardless of Race, Religion, or sadly choice of sexual partners. Till they amend the constitution to prohibit such an act they should have the exact smae rights under the US Constitution. Plain and simple. DOes nto mean we have to like it since it is a choice and not biological like race. But we forget religion is also a choice and frankly I would not want them banning Christian from the military because some solider was incomfortable because their room mate was a bible fearing, praying, saint of God.

2. I agree it destroys morale and it will. It took years before morale improved after they desegregated. But people will get used to it and will move on. They should however be required to say they are gay and be sperrated just as the Women are in sleeping arrangements and such.

3. No for my personal opinion- It is horrible and this is exactly what happened to Rome before the empire was destroted Welfare and gay military. History will repeat itslef and America will crumble apart form a revival of The Great Awakening magnatiude.

J.B.
12-24-2010, 06:11 PM
1) niether is the inability to follow orders. If someone higher up the tree tells you to share rooms with a gay guy, you share rooms with a gay guy. Its really extremely simple


I don't need to know he's gay....and you telling me he's gay, and that I have to sleep in the same room with him, just made me uncomfortable....see how that works? :wink:

(not saying that's how I personally feel, but that's how a lot of people feel)


2) The problem isnt so much talking about it, as having to hide it. I wouldnt reccomend deep discussions, I just think that if someone is exposed that they shouldnt get in trouble for it. that now wont happen.


Nobody got in trouble for being exposed unless THEY openly exposed it (at least that I've heard of).


3) I aggree. But living in fear can do more damage then stigma and rejection...at least thats what I think


Then don't join the military if it's too much to handle.

Everyday life is obviously tough enough for gay people, if they can't mentally handle the realities of life as a soldier, they probably shouldn't consider trying to be one.


4) the point is, that relates directly to this scenario. If someone is frightened they are going to be found out, or if another has preconceived and actually unfounded views on a person...thats not good for soldier where trust and truth matter. Not telling the whole truth is as bad as telling a lie...after all, Lucifer didnt strictly speaking lie in Eden...he simply neglected to tell the whole truth. Had they eaten from the Tree of Life after the Tree of the Knowledge of Goodness and Evil, then they would have become like GOD...the Trinity discuss this and decide this is why Eden must be guarded after the explusion. All Lucifer did was neglect to expound on something...there eyes WERE opened after eating the Apple.

Now if you trust someone with your life, and you discover they have not told the whole truth...would you still trust them?


We don't need to go all the way back to Eden to understand that another man don't NEED to know if you are gay.

Weather a person likes penises or not has no effect on their ability to cover another soldier in the line of fire. Just do your duty, and worry about penises later. :laugh:


5) any abuse should be punished, inappropriate behaviour, disrepute, gross missconduct, verbal, physical, and sexual harrasment...that should go without saying. You should not need a charter to tell you that...you must expect that in any job you ever apply and accept. It is right and proper to abide by it. :)

Can't say I disagree with that at all. :)

Chris F
12-24-2010, 06:55 PM
Enlighten me... help me understand. When you're in the military which orders are you obligated to follow? The ones given to you by people you like? People you align yourself with politically? Spiritually? Did they start segregating soldiers in common interest groups recently so only like minded soldiers are near each other? :huh:That is not the point here. The fact is these guys need to know that they can trust the man next to them with their life. Not saying all gays are this way or not but the fact is trust is an issue. If you are in combat you must be brothers in arms not worrying if they are gonna hit on you. History has already proved NateR is right on this subject.

You do realize in your 10 year career you've no doubt taken orders from a gay person.. :scared0011:Probably true but not the point officers these days don't seem to get their uniforms dirty much

You've probably slept in the same room as one!! :scared0011:Again not the poin

Good gracious I bet a gay man has probably seen you naked Nate! :scared0011::scared0011::scared0011::scared0011:

But............................................... .................................................. ..

life went on right? The military still functioned right? Orders were still carried out right?

Amazing!A little sanctimonious are we? The fact is one cannot be grey in the truth it must be blaxk or white.





Spoken like somebody who is completely ignorant of the subject. Your lack of understanding of who homosexual people are and how they function is sad really. Actually till political correctness ran rampant this was the accepted truth and homosexuality was treated as a mental disorder. There is no science to back up the fact the homosexuality is anything more than a choice. Most of it stems from absent fathers and a daycare society. when they discover the gay gene than you will have an argument

Homosexuality is a sin. ALL sin separates us from God. Satan is described as a deceiver, the Father of Lies... sin is related to darkness throughout Scripture. To think for a minute that all gay people are walking around with a clear understanding of the Truth and are just choosing to ignore it is ridiculous. I'm sure there are some that aren't deceived and walk in that lifestyle willingly but it's unrealistic to think they all do.Sin is sin period and this sin is no different than any other and by your logic we are all walking around clueless to the truth and thus walk in sin oblivious to Gods truth. That may be true for some but the majority it is not




Can anybody who's separated from Christ?






Does it have to be one or the other?

What truth do you want us to stand up for? That ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? I think he is refering to the weak minded Christians who have watered down the truth to make it more appealing and thus making it null and void. We cannot accept open rebellion and call it normal

We can't just stand up for the truth in Scripture that justifies how we feel about a subject and ignore the rest of the truth can we?I do not see how NateR can be accused of this. He is an equal opportunity condemner :laugh: except for some personal subjects that he chooses to have a blind eye to proper hermeneutics :wink:

You claim that all homosexuals know they are living a lie... well what does you pointing that out to them help? If a man is drowning in the ocean and all we do is point and say "hey, you're drowning" then shame on us!!! This has nothing to do wiht the politics of the situation. I doubt NateR would turn down a bible study with a gay man or woman. It does not change the fact it is still wrong. That is a straw man and you know it Chuck

Finding fault in people and showing them the "truth" about their actions is easy. Loving them, TRULY loving them in spite of it is hard.

Sure it is easier to point out short falls Chuck than loving them. But by your logic here you want Nate R to love their sin and that is never biblical. I am sure NateR can defend his personal POV fine I just wanted to respond to some of your reasoning. However you may be simply asking question like you tend to do and not actually making a point here. If this is your point than it cannot be supported by scripture anywhere.

Tyburn
12-24-2010, 07:16 PM
Okay time for the Devils advocate here.

1. There is a reason people like Ron Paul voted for this it is called the US Constitution. It is a voulenteer army and we should have all the same right under the law regardless of Race, Religion, or sadly choice of sexual partners. Till they amend the constitution to prohibit such an act they should have the exact smae rights under the US Constitution. Plain and simple. DOes nto mean we have to like it since it is a choice and not biological like race. But we forget religion is also a choice and frankly I would not want them banning Christian from the military because some solider was incomfortable because their room mate was a bible fearing, praying, saint of God.

2. I agree it destroys morale and it will. It took years before morale improved after they desegregated. But people will get used to it and will move on. They should however be required to say they are gay and be sperrated just as the Women are in sleeping arrangements and such.

3. No for my personal opinion- It is horrible and this is exactly what happened to Rome before the empire was destroted Welfare and gay military. History will repeat itslef and America will crumble apart form a revival of The Great Awakening magnatiude.

1) aggree
2) I would have no objection to this
3) dissagree. It was standard procedure for men to be with boys...I dont really know why, but it was prevelent in Greek Society also. One of the big Reasons Saint Paul may have mention this specifically in his letters, is because at the time he was tackling a major social situation...not like today...but where Hetrosexual Men, with families, also had some kinda boy, and it at the very least loving, at the very most sexual. But that has nothing to do with the Fall of Rome...infact the Roman Army had nothing to do with the Fall of Rome...Rome got to big, and despite a plea by the Emporar to unite in Faith...it wasnt enough, and the Empire Fragmented into two...one was Rome, one was known as Byzantine...for a while not even did they have separate Emporars...but even separate Popes!

I dont think America will crumble because of this. I think she might end up not being a super power by the end of the next decade, or at least not the only one...but I dont see this being her destruction.

J.B.
12-24-2010, 07:26 PM
Okay time for the Devils advocate here.

1. There is a reason people like Ron Paul voted for this it is called the US Constitution.

I hear ya man, but didn't Ron Paul basically want to abolish every single government agency, like public schools and the FBI?

Tyburn
12-24-2010, 07:29 PM
1) I don't need to know he's gay....and you telling me he's gay, and that I have to sleep in the same room with him, just made me uncomfortable....see how that works? :wink:

(not saying that's how I personally feel, but that's how a lot of people feel)



2) Nobody got in trouble for being exposed unless THEY openly exposed it (at least that I've heard of).



3) Then don't join the military if it's too much to handle.

4) Everyday life is obviously tough enough for gay people, if they can't mentally handle the realities of life as a soldier, they probably shouldn't consider trying to be one.



5) We don't need to go all the way back to Eden to understand that another man don't NEED to know if you are gay.

Weather a person likes penises or not has no effect on their ability to cover another soldier in the line of fire. Just do your duty, and worry about penises later. :laugh:



6) Can't say I disagree with that at all. :)

1) Your going to War....do you think that will be comforting?? put it into perspective please :laugh: Ask not what the Army can do for you...but what you can do for the Army :tongue0011:

2) Oh I thought they got kicked out for being gay :huh:

3) I wouldnt join the military...but not for that reason...but for three reasons...firstly, I am too unhealthy, I'd never make it. Secondly, I really hate what they do in Basic Training...Its one of the most nasty psychological damage you can do...and when they get out, the military dont provide enough ways for the soldiers to re-integrate. Thirdly...I was so rudely insulted by one of their kind at a Jobs fair...when I wasnt even looking at his stand, I decided that I'd not volunteer to be put under someone like that.

I tried the Ministry of Defence, but thats really Government...they didnt want me...because when I was supposed to talk specifically about my part in a group work situation, I used the word "I" too much :rolleyes:

4) Well I cant speak for all gays everywhere. Mentally I would have no trouble, psychologically, I'm pickled anyway so it wouldnt make much difference, but physically...I'd probably die :laugh:

5) Eden was the first example that sprang to mind...and its "pansies" not "pensies" as in the flower :laugh:

6) finally! success at last :happydancing:

J.B.
12-24-2010, 07:42 PM
1) Your going to War....do you think that will be comforting?? put it into perspective please :laugh: Ask not what the Army can do for you...but what you can do for the Army :tongue0011:


I'm going to use terminology I know you understand and say..."bollocks" :)


2) Oh I thought they got kicked out for being gay :huh:


To my knowledge it's only if they exposed it themselves....somebody please correct me on that if I am wrong...:unsure-1:


3) I wouldnt join the military...but not for that reason...but for three reasons...firstly, I am too unhealthy, I'd never make it. Secondly, I really hate what they do in Basic Training...Its one of the most nasty psychological damage you can do...and when they get out, the military dont provide enough ways for the soldiers to re-integrate. Thirdly...I was so rudely insulted by one of their kind at a Jobs fair...when I wasnt even looking at his stand, I decided that I'd not volunteer to be put under someone like that.

I tried the Ministry of Defence, but thats really Government...they didnt want me...because when I was supposed to talk specifically about my part in a group work situation, I used the word "I" too much :rolleyes:


It's not for everybody. I wasn't really saying YOU specifically, just in general.

I didn't join the military either, although in retrospect that's exactly what I wish I had done when I had the chance.


4) Well I cant speak for all gays everywhere. Mentally I would have no trouble, psychologically, I'm pickled anyway so it wouldnt make much difference, but physically...I'd probably die :laugh:

I think you underestimate how strong the bodies that God has given us really are. If you really wanted to do it, I'm sure you'd be fine. :)


5) Eden was the first example that sprang to mind...and its "pansies" not "pensies" as in the flower :laugh:

Hey, whatever....just don't tell me about it! :tongue0011:

:laugh:


6) finally! success at last :happydancing:

:laugh:

Mark
12-24-2010, 10:01 PM
Okay time for the Devils advocate here.

1. There is a reason people like Ron Paul voted for this it is called the US Constitution. It is a voulenteer army and we should have all the same right under the law regardless of Race, Religion, or sadly choice of sexual partners. Till they amend the constitution to prohibit such an act they should have the exact smae rights under the US Constitution. Plain and simple.

You act like anyone can join the military. This is what I have found on the internet, if this not correct please tell me.

Congress and the courts have held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ensures all individuals are treated equally before the law with respect to civilian employment, does not apply to the military profession. No less than seven major Supreme Court decisions support this.

Tyburn
12-24-2010, 10:28 PM
I'm going to use terminology I know you understand and say..."bollocks" :)



To my knowledge it's only if they exposed it themselves....somebody please correct me on that if I am wrong...:unsure-1:



It's not for everybody. I wasn't really saying YOU specifically, just in general.

I didn't join the military either, although in retrospect that's exactly what I wish I had done when I had the chance.



I think you underestimate how strong the bodies that God has given us really are. If you really wanted to do it, I'm sure you'd be fine. :)



Hey, whatever....just don't tell me about it! :tongue0011:

:laugh:



:laugh:

:laugh: I have no deep desire to join the Military...I wouldnt mind working in the civil Service, I wouldnt mind working for the Ministy of Defence...but I dont see myself being capable physically, of being in the Military...I know of people who have tried and failed, and they are far, far physically superior to I.

Tyburn
12-24-2010, 10:35 PM
You act like anyone can join the military. This is what I have found on the internet, if this not correct please tell me.

Congress and the courts have held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ensures all individuals are treated equally before the law with respect to civilian employment, does not apply to the military profession. No less than seven major Supreme Court decisions support this.

The Church of England is exempt from equality laws also. Which means they could legally stop someone of a different faith working for the church, or specify that those working must be Christian...it also means they have the right to sack people who are Homosexual...and probably people who committ adultory...I dont think they ever would...but legally they could if they so desired.

In the US you have a much diminished employment law compared to England, you have relatively few Unions, and so noone to guard the rights of individuals in the same way that you do in England...which I personally think is a requirement of big and political insitutions, that could, without checks and ballences, decided to sack you simply because they dont like you. In England its relatively hard to be sacked if a employee follows protocol...and one false slip on protocol within an insitution trying to get rid of someone, results in them never being able to rid themselves of them.

It means jobs are reasonable secure in England once you get one, presuming of course the company doesnt go bankrupt or get restructured or something. I have no idea how it is within the British Armed Services...I dont imagine they have have unions...but I also dont imagine without doing something wrong, they can easily looose their jobs either.

Jonlion
12-25-2010, 02:40 AM
So we talked about this in theory but how will this actually affect the barracks in reality?

Anyone know any Soldiers right now, I imagine it won't change much

NateR
12-25-2010, 04:03 AM
Stopped short of saying I was wrong though, didnt you Nathan. :mellow:

I'm sorry, I thought it would be implied. To force a soldier to follow an order that violates his conscience is immoral and WRONG.

Not saying it doesn't happen in the military; but when you do it, you've essentially demoralized and dehumanized that soldier. That's not how you treat a person who has volunteered to temporarily suspend his freedoms to protect your freedoms.

NateR
12-25-2010, 04:06 AM
2) Oh I thought they got kicked out for being gay :huh:

Yes, but only if they openly admit to being gay. If they deny the charge then, unless they were caught in the act, they can't get kicked out. At least that's how it was under DADT.

NateR
12-25-2010, 04:25 AM
You act like anyone can join the military. This is what I have found on the internet, if this not correct please tell me.

Congress and the courts have held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ensures all individuals are treated equally before the law with respect to civilian employment, does not apply to the military profession. No less than seven major Supreme Court decisions support this.

The military has to be exempt from many of the equal employment requirements. Most of the people who are not allowed to serve in the military are barred for obvious reasons: physical deformities, physical disabilities (deaf, blind, etc.), mentally handicapped, obese, etc.

Women are also barred from the combat arms roles in the Army, for obvious reasons. We're not talking about the jobs that just require you to sit in a truck and push a button. We're talking about the "throw a 50-pound rucksack over your back, along with your 20-pound flak vest, helmet, web gear, 200-rounds of ammunition, your rifle and walk 5 miles uphill.... quickly, because your life depends on it!" kind of jobs.

Thus, if the military leaders believe that allowing openly gay soldiers into the Army will compromise their mission effectiveness, then I would trust their judgement.

The military exists to do a job that only a few people are capable of doing, forcing them to treat everyone equally compromises their ability to do that job.

NateR
12-25-2010, 04:29 AM
So we talked about this in theory but how will this actually affect the barracks in reality?

Anyone know any Soldiers right now, I imagine it won't change much

Well, the law won't go into effect for a while until they rewrite all the policies and decide on the best way to implement it. I'm sure they will, at least initially, allow soldiers, who suddenly find themselves with a roommate who has come out of the closet, to move to a different room in the barracks.

Chris F
12-25-2010, 05:01 AM
1) aggree
2) I would have no objection to this
3) dissagree. It was standard procedure for men to be with boys...I dont really know why, but it was prevelent in Greek Society also. One of the big Reasons Saint Paul may have mention this specifically in his letters, is because at the time he was tackling a major social situation...not like today...but where Hetrosexual Men, with families, also had some kinda boy, and it at the very least loving, at the very most sexual. But that has nothing to do with the Fall of Rome...infact the Roman Army had nothing to do with the Fall of Rome...Rome got to big, and despite a plea by the Emporar to unite in Faith...it wasnt enough, and the Empire Fragmented into two...one was Rome, one was known as Byzantine...for a while not even did they have separate Emporars...but even separate Popes!I dont think America will crumble because of this. I think she might end up not being a super power by the end of the next decade, or at least not the only one...but I dont see this being her destruction.

Sorry Dave but oyu will not find a single historian other than Catholics or Italians who will agre with you here. In fact the expert who wrote the rise and fall of Western civilization has made that the major belief until recent political correctness surged in the 1990's

Chris F
12-25-2010, 05:09 AM
I hear ya man, but didn't Ron Paul basically want to abolish every single government agency, like public schools and the FBI?

no he wants the gov to stay within the powers of the US COnstitution. We do not need a Federal school department or Federal cops that is not perscribed in the US COnstitution. The local and state Govs need to cover this. The feds job is to build roads protect our bordrs and make trade treaties. That is all./

Chris F
12-25-2010, 05:13 AM
You act like anyone can join the military. This is what I have found on the internet, if this not correct please tell me.

Congress and the courts have held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ensures all individuals are treated equally before the law with respect to civilian employment, does not apply to the military profession. No less than seven major Supreme Court decisions support this.

The civil rights act has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is why they try so hard to label it as such. I agree totally with you Mark but until they change it the gay have every right to serve under our US COnstitution.

Chris F
12-25-2010, 05:15 AM
The military has to be exempt from many of the equal employment requirements. Most of the people who are not allowed to serve in the military are barred for obvious reasons: physical deformities, physical disabilities (deaf, blind, etc.), mentally handicapped, obese, etc.

Women are also barred from the combat arms roles in the Army, for obvious reasons. We're not talking about the jobs that just require you to sit in a truck and push a button. We're talking about the "throw a 50-pound rucksack over your back, along with your 20-pound flak vest, helmet, web gear, 200-rounds of ammunition, your rifle and walk 5 miles uphill.... quickly, because your life depends on it!" kind of jobs.

Thus, if the military leaders believe that allowing openly gay soldiers into the Army will compromise their mission effectiveness, then I would trust their judgement.

The military exists to do a job that only a few people are capable of doing, forcing them to treat everyone equally compromises their ability to do that job.

Exactly!!!!

J.B.
12-25-2010, 08:30 PM
no he wants the gov to stay within the powers of the US COnstitution. We do not need a Federal school department or Federal cops that is not perscribed in the US COnstitution. The local and state Govs need to cover this. The feds job is to build roads protect our bordrs and make trade treaties. That is all./

In today's world, I think the FBI is a very important agency that is able to accomplish more than agencies on the local level are able to do. Of course, there is probably some wasteful spending going on, but that happens on every level of government. Abolishing the FBI would be a terrible decision in my opinion.

I also think the department of education serves a great purpose. Sure public schools aren't perfect, and some kids will get a much a better education in private or even home-schooling. But I totally agree with having a standardized approach to education in this country. Ron Paul's website says it should be a decision made on a "state, local, and personal level" and I can understand that view. I just don't think abolishing the department that sets the standards fixes the problems. Also, the state and local governments do handle appropriation of funds through their very own department of education, so much of the problems in some school districts are problems on the local level. We are also responsible for voting in local government officers who appoint school board members/presidents. If every state in the country feels it needs a DOE, I think it's safe to say it's probably an issue that requires federal oversight. That's just my view though.

Neezar
12-25-2010, 10:02 PM
This is just the first step leading to this:


Biden says gay marriage 'inevitable'


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_gay_marriage



By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Laurie Kellman, Associated Press – Sat Dec 25, 4:04 am ET

WASHINGTON – Vice President Joe Biden is predicting that the evolution in thinking that will permit gays to soon serve openly in the military eventually will bring about a national consensus for same-sex marriage.
Changes in attitudes by military leaders, those in the service and the public allowed the repeal by Congress of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Biden noted in a nationally broadcast interview on Christmas eve.
"I think the country's evolving," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "And I think you're going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with so-called DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_gay_marriage#))." He said he agreed with Obama that his position in gay marriage is "evolving."
Gay marriage is legal in only a handful of states, mostly in the Northeast, and in Iowa. President Barack Obama recently said his feelings on the gay marriage issue (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_gay_marriage#) were in a state of transition. But he also said he still believes in allowing strong civil unions that provide certain protections and legal rights that married couples have.


Obama said he is still wrestling with whether gay couples should have the right to marry, now that the change in the law will allow them to serve openly in combat.

Presidents in recent years have struggled with this issue. President Bill Clinton developed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the military, and Obama promised repeatedly in his 2008 campaign for the presidency that his administration would have a more supportive attitude toward gays. But gay rights groups also have said frequently they have been disappointed with the administration's performance on this issue.

The question about same-sex marriage came at Obama's news conference Wednesday, just hours after he signed landmark legislation repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military. The law ends the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forced gays to hide their sexual orientation or face dismissal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_gay_marriage#). Before that, there was an outright ban on service by gays in the military.

But in letters to the troops after the new bill was signed into law, the four military service chiefs warned that the ban was still in place, and that implementing the policy change in full was still months away.
Recommendations to put the new policy into place were outlined in a report last month, and now these steps must be written into concrete regulations governing the military. Defense officials say that they still don't know how long it will take before the Pentagon completes its implementation plan and certifies the change will not damage combat readiness. Once certified, the implementation would begin 60 days later.
In his interview with ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos, Biden brought up the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that Congress passed in 1996 that defines marriage (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_gay_marriage#) as between a man and a woman.

Obama has repeatedly said he would like to see the law repealed, but the Justice Department has defended its constitutionality, which the agency is required to do.

As recently as October, the department defended DOMA, appealing two rulings in Massachusetts by a judge who called the law unconstitutional for denying federal benefits to gay marriage couples.

In two separate cases, U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_gay_marriage#) in July ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional because it interferes with a state's right to define marriage and denies gay couples an array of federal benefits to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_gay_marriage#).

Chris F
12-25-2010, 10:33 PM
In today's world, I think the FBI is a very important agency that is able to accomplish more than agencies on the local level are able to do. Of course, there is probably some wasteful spending going on, but that happens on every level of government. Abolishing the FBI would be a terrible decision in my opinion.That is what they fool you into thinking. All it does is give more power to the feds. If the states did not have to send do much money to the feds the local police would be better.

I also think the department of education serves a great purpose. Sure public schools aren't perfect, and some kids will get a much a better education in private or even home-schooling. But I totally agree with having a standardized approach to education in this country. Ron Paul's website says it should be a decision made on a "state, local, and personal level" and I can understand that view. I just don't think abolishing the department that sets the standards fixes the problems. Also, the state and local governments do handle appropriation of funds through their very own department of education, so much of the problems in some school districts are problems on the local level. We are also responsible for voting in local government officers who appoint school board members/presidents. If every state in the country feels it needs a DOE, I think it's safe to say it's probably an issue that requires federal oversight. That's just my view though.It was not till Jimmy Carter was elected that we have had a federal public scool department. And since tham our national rank in education has fallen every year. We hve ot get odoctors from India because America's schools are junk. We do not need the Dept of education. It is a waste of money

In red above

Chris F
12-25-2010, 10:34 PM
This is just the first step leading to this:


Biden says gay marriage 'inevitable'


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_gay_marriage

Exactly I am glad someone else saw that as well.

J.B.
12-26-2010, 12:04 AM
That is what they fool you into thinking. All it does is give more power to the feds. If the states did not have to send do much money to the feds the local police would be better.

There are complex issues to consider though. Such as computer crimes and mail fraud that stretch over state and sometimes even international borders. They also police sex/human trafficking rings, organized crime, terrorism, corruption in public offices, and numerous other things.

On average each year we give the FBI less than one tenth of the amount of money we give to some other departments like the department of education or agriculture. I'm all for giving more money to local police to help their departments get better in areas they need improvement, but I don't think we need to abolish the FBI to do that.

Chris F
12-26-2010, 12:26 AM
There are complex issues to consider though. Such as computer crimes and mail fraud that stretch over state and sometimes even international borders. They also police sex/human trafficking rings, organized crime, terrorism, corruption in public offices, and numerous other things.

On average each year we give the FBI less than one tenth of the amount of money we give to some other departments like the department of education or agriculture. I'm all for giving more money to local police to help their departments get better in areas they need improvement, but I don't think we need to abolish the FBI to do that.

then you are pro socialism because that is exactly how socialist societies work. Besides that it is not allowed in our constitution.

J.B.
12-26-2010, 01:22 AM
then you are pro socialism because that is exactly how socialist societies work. Besides that it is not allowed in our constitution.

So I am pro socialism because I disagree with Ron Paul on the FBI? Something that the majority of people on both sides of the political spectrum think is a viable government agency that serves a good purpose?

If the FBI is unconstitutional, then so is almost every other government agency in existence. The constitution was written over 200 years ago, and it's a living document meant to grow with the times. It's not always the be all end all to political discussions. Besides, the FBI is an agency that upholds laws passed by our government. How is that against the constitution?

Rev
12-26-2010, 03:06 AM
Holy Crap!!!!
I cant believe this thread is as big as it is!!!
Im gonna sit this one out but I just want to say "Hi everyone".

Neezar
12-26-2010, 03:21 AM
Holy Crap!!!!
I cant believe this thread is as big as it is!!!
Im gonna sit this one out but I just want to say "Hi everyone".

:laugh:

Hi. And Merry Christmas!

Jonlion
12-26-2010, 05:05 AM
Well, the law won't go into effect for a while until they rewrite all the policies and decide on the best way to implement it. I'm sure they will, at least initially, allow soldiers, who suddenly find themselves with a roommate who has come out of the closet, to move to a different room in the barracks.

I think the practicalities of the matter mean it will be sorted. Moreover sportsman are allowed to come out and say they are gay right? I can think of one that has. There must be more but they do not disclose because they exist in such a macho enviroment. I can't help but think very few soldiers will openly flaunt being gay.

Chris F
12-26-2010, 06:18 AM
So I am pro socialism because I disagree with Ron Paul on the FBI? Something that the majority of people on both sides of the political spectrum think is a viable government agency that serves a good purpose?

If the FBI is unconstitutional, then so is almost every other government agency in existence. The constitution was written over 200 years ago, and it's a living document meant to grow with the times. It's not always the be all end all to political discussions. Besides, the FBI is an agency that upholds laws passed by our government. How is that against the constitution?

Exactly and it is all a scam to milk your paycheck to pay for their racket. The founders were dead set against this. Socialism in its core is a governet that is cnetralized and they take for those who earn and spread it out to those who do not. My guess is you have bought into the lie that those services are for the "public good" If that were the real case than we would have done it that way from the start. Were a Republic and in that each state foos their own bill and the feds are the servants fo the people. What we have now is a socialist democracy were we serve the gov. I encourage to read the works of our founders and books prior to the 1960's What Ameica is today is not the America the founders risked it all for.

J.B.
12-26-2010, 12:40 PM
Exactly and it is all a scam to milk your paycheck to pay for their racket. The founders were dead set against this. Socialism in its core is a governet that is cnetralized and they take for those who earn and spread it out to those who do not. My guess is you have bought into the lie that those services are for the "public good" If that were the real case than we would have done it that way from the start. Were a Republic and in that each state foos their own bill and the feds are the servants fo the people. What we have now is a socialist democracy were we serve the gov. I encourage to read the works of our founders and books prior to the 1960's What Ameica is today is not the America the founders risked it all for.

Not every government program is designed to "redistribute wealth". Case in point...THE FBI...:rolleyes:

I'm sure when the founding fathers were sitting around drafting the constitution, and thinking about the interest of enforcing laws for the greater good, they weren't able to fathom things like the internet where perverts share child pornography across state and international borders 24 hours a day.

I also doubt they planned on the day coming when we would have to worry about suicidal terrorists who integrate into our society for many years only to high-jack an 800,000lb steel flying machine and crash it into our nation's financial epicenter. Besides that, had that day actually come during their era of existence, who do you think would have been some of the first people the the founding would have sent to battle were? I will just take a wild guess and say it probably would have been the slaves they all owned.

I always found it to be a ridiculous notion that what the "founding fathers" wrote on a piece of paper hundreds of years ago needed to be taken as literal gospel from now until the end of time. The founding fathers seem like they were educated men of their time, and I would be willing to bet that even they wouldn't have gone so far as to assume that what they envisioned as a good structure for their time would ultimately be the best for all generations to come. That's like saying you or I know how to handle all the intricacies of life in the year 2210.

I hardly agree with all the ways our government spends our tax dollars. There are plenty of unneeded programs, and plenty of wasteful spending across the board. However, not all of these programs are all bad, and understanding that doesn't mean a person has bought into some grand lie aimed at turning this country into China.

cubsfan47
12-26-2010, 02:43 PM
:laugh:

Hi. And Merry Christmas!

Me too.

Sigh. It's threads like this that bring back the"happy" memories of having been a forum administrator.:laugh:

Chris F
12-26-2010, 06:44 PM
Not every government program is designed to "redistribute wealth". Case in point...THE FBI...:rolleyes:

I'm sure when the founding fathers were sitting around drafting the constitution, and thinking about the interest of enforcing laws for the greater good, they weren't able to fathom things like the internet where perverts share child pornography across state and international borders 24 hours a day.

I also doubt they planned on the day coming when we would have to worry about suicidal terrorists who integrate into our society for many years only to high-jack an 800,000lb steel flying machine and crash it into our nation's financial epicenter. Besides that, had that day actually come during their era of existence, who do you think would have been some of the first people the the founding would have sent to battle were? I will just take a wild guess and say it probably would have been the slaves they all owned.

I always found it to be a ridiculous notion that what the "founding fathers" wrote on a piece of paper hundreds of years ago needed to be taken as literal gospel from now until the end of time. The founding fathers seem like they were educated men of their time, and I would be willing to bet that even they wouldn't have gone so far as to assume that what they envisioned as a good structure for their time would ultimately be the best for all generations to come. That's like saying you or I know how to handle all the intricacies of life in the year 2210.

I hardly agree with all the ways our government spends our tax dollars. There are plenty of unneeded programs, and plenty of wasteful spending across the board. However, not all of these programs are all bad, and understanding that doesn't mean a person has bought into some grand lie aimed at turning this country into China.

By this logic you are indeed a certified socialist who holds to the idea the Constitution is not the foundation of the gov and it is mold able to the whims of the congress.

BTW they did indeed plan for change and it is called the amendment process. Not some judge sitting in a courtroom dictation what they think it means.

BTW the FBI does redistribute wealth. Are there FBI office in every major city? Are there more in area with more crime? The fact is Farmer Joe in Kansas sends his dollars to DC who than sends those dollars to Leroy in Detroit because crime is worse there. This is high school civics man. DId you have a football coach for a teacher or what. That was not meant as an insult I just find it the typical result of those whoa re not educated on this subject. I used to adjunct Political science and history and most this is the case.

Chris F
12-26-2010, 06:45 PM
Me too.

Sigh. It's threads like this that bring back the"happy" memories of having been a forum administrator.:laugh:

I think everyone has been civil so far. The old days no even Big JOhn could moderate so of those battles.:laugh:

J.B.
12-26-2010, 08:00 PM
By this logic you are indeed a certified socialist who holds to the idea the Constitution is not the foundation of the gov and it is mold able to the whims of the congress.

BTW they did indeed plan for change and it is called the amendment process. Not some judge sitting in a courtroom dictation what they think it means.

BTW the FBI does redistribute wealth. Are there FBI office in every major city? Are there more in area with more crime? The fact is Farmer Joe in Kansas sends his dollars to DC who than sends those dollars to Leroy in Detroit because crime is worse there. This is high school civics man. DId you have a football coach for a teacher or what. That was not meant as an insult I just find it the typical result of those whoa re not educated on this subject. I used to adjunct Political science and history and most this is the case.


Since we are going to paint with such a broad brush...Farmer Joe in Kansas has no problem taking government money in agricultural subsidies. We give over 10 times the amount of money to that every year than we do to the FBI in federal tax dollars.

The FBI has offices in every major city/district and they focus on crime nationwide not just where crime rates are higher. They lock up BAD people and enforce laws that are federally mandated. If we are going to have ANY federal laws at all, then it only makes sense to have an agency that enforces those laws. Should we let states decide for themselves if it's okay to enforce counterfeiting laws? How about child rape laws? Wasn't there a judge in Vermont a couple years ago who thought probation was suitable for sodomizing an 8 year old?

You calling me a "certified socialist" as if to imply that I want the government to control every aspect of our life is ridiculous. I don't claim to have all the answers about policies or think that everything is run perfectly, but there are certain things I believe we are better off having some sort of central oversight on than not having it, and that's just my opinion. That's too much in the middle for some people, but that's just how I feel.

I also never claimed to be an expert on the constitution, and I certainly never taught political science. I may be undereducated on certain aspects of it, but I'm certainly not uneducated. I do think that over time there have been things that have HAD to change since the constitution was written and considering all of the founding fathers who wrote it are DEAD, there is little way of knowing exactly what each of them would say about each specific situation in today's world.

Chris F
12-26-2010, 09:07 PM
Since we are going to paint with such a broad brush...Farmer Joe in Kansas has no problem taking government money in agricultural subsidies. We give over 10 times the amount of money to that every year than we do to the FBI in federal tax dollars.

The FBI has offices in every major city/district and they focus on crime nationwide not just where crime rates are higher. They lock up BAD people and enforce laws that are federally mandated. If we are going to have ANY federal laws at all, then it only makes sense to have an agency that enforces those laws. Should we let states decide for themselves if it's okay to enforce counterfeiting laws? How about child rape laws? Wasn't there a judge in Vermont a couple years ago who thought probation was suitable for sodomizing an 8 year old?

You calling me a "certified socialist" as if to imply that I want the government to control every aspect of our life is ridiculous. I don't claim to have all the answers about policies or think that everything is run perfectly, but there are certain things I believe we are better off having some sort of central oversight on than not having it, and that's just my opinion. That's too much in the middle for some people, but that's just how I feel.

I also never claimed to be an expert on the constitution, and I certainly never taught political science. I may be undereducated on certain aspects of it, but I'm certainly not uneducated. I do think that over time there have been things that have HAD to change since the constitution was written and considering all of the founding fathers who wrote it are DEAD, there is little way of knowing exactly what each of them would say about each specific situation in today's world.

Everything in your rant JB can be done by local agencies and the feds are not needed. We do nto need any central oversight and to have DC take a slice. BTW the subsidy thing is also extremely unconstitution as well. And very socialistic.

Also we can know exaclty what the founder intended because they told us in their letters and their papers. ALso they released commentaries to their pecedings to avoid mis understanding. SO you are very wrnog in that case. Today we have judges making it up as they go.

I guess we will just need to agree to disagree because none of this has anything really to do with the topic at hand. Have a great New Year JB

J.B.
12-26-2010, 09:38 PM
Everything in your rant JB can be done by local agencies and the feds are not needed. We do nto need any central oversight and to have DC take a slice. BTW the subsidy thing is also extremely unconstitution as well. And very socialistic.

I don't think we need the feds in everything, but I do think they should be in some things. The point about farm subsidies was simply that there are farmers like "Farmer Joe" who would argue why we need that. I don't think we need to pay out money to a lot of the agencies we do, but I also don't think think the fact that I support some things makes me a "certified socialist" under the premise of which you are implying.


Also we can know exaclty what the founder intended because they told us in their letters and their papers. ALso they released commentaries to their pecedings to avoid mis understanding. SO you are very wrnog in that case. Today we have judges making it up as they go.

I'm not denying that there is evidence of what the founding fathers had intended when they wrote the constitution. I'm saying that there is no way of actually knowing how they would feel about some of the things we have in today's society that they could not have possibly foreseen. Of course, we have an idea about how they felt when it comes to a large number of basic principles, but times change, people change, and things constantly become more complicated.


I guess we will just need to agree to disagree because none of this has anything really to do with the topic at hand. Have a great New Year JB

It's just a discussion forum, and issues tend flow into each other. You mentioned Ron Paul and the Constitution, so I was originally just commenting on that. My intent wasn't to derail the topic at hand, but it happens. No hard feelings?

I hope you have a Happy New Year too.:)

Rev
12-26-2010, 10:27 PM
I think you are both liars and planned to derail this disscussion all along. I am ashamed of yu both for changing the subject from gay soldiers to Ron Paul and men in wigs.

Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
Love ya both and happy new year.

J.B.
12-26-2010, 10:58 PM
I think you are both liars and planned to derail this disscussion all along. I am ashamed of yu both for changing the subject from gay soldiers to Ron Paul and men in wigs.

Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
Love ya both and happy new year.

:laugh:

Happy New Year Rev :)

Chris F
12-27-2010, 02:26 AM
I think you are both liars and planned to derail this disscussion all along. I am ashamed of yu both for changing the subject from gay soldiers to Ron Paul and men in wigs.

Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
Love ya both and happy new year.

You are right you caught us. The whole gay thing made us think about whigs and we digressed. SOrry Rev to disappoint you. I will go to my closet now and flogg myself for your shame. :laugh:

Happy New Year to you too brother!!!

Crisco
12-27-2010, 03:38 AM
I see it now...

Pink Berets...

NateR
12-27-2010, 02:06 PM
I see it now...

Pink Berets...

Actually that was the joke when Clinton passed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Back in 1993, everyone in the military understood that DADT wasn't a ban on homosexuals in the military, because that ban already existed. The whole point of DADT was to create a loophole that would allow gays to serve.

TENNESSEAN
12-27-2010, 03:17 PM
Actually that was the joke when Clinton passed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Back in 1993, everyone in the military understood that DADT wasn't a ban on homosexuals in the military, because that ban already existed. The whole point of DADT was to create a loophole that would allow gays to serve.

i can remember being mad about dadt when Clinton pulled it out of his hat. never would have dreamed one day i would be defending it.

See how this works? baby steps.

Chris F
12-27-2010, 06:11 PM
AS someone already showed on here that civil rights do not apply to military service so maybe they can just go back to an outright man......wishful thinking

CAVEMAN
12-27-2010, 06:13 PM
This whole repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" is just another example of gay and lesbians not being satisfied with acceptance of their lifestyle, THEY WANT THEIR LIFESTYLE TO BE EMBRACED!

Crisco
12-27-2010, 07:38 PM
This whole repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" is just another example of gay and lesbians not being satisfied with acceptance of their lifestyle, THEY WANT THEIR LIFESTYLE TO BE EMBRACED!

Wouldn't you? You and I want Christianity to be embraced by all...

You can't blame them for wanting to be accepted.

Chris F
12-27-2010, 08:02 PM
Wouldn't you? You and I want Christianity to be embraced by all...

You can't blame them for wanting to be accepted.

By your logic here than we should also accept Pedophiles, Beastality, and any other sort of deveiant behavior. I in no way want anyone to ever accept my sins as normal and okay. And since we all sin I hope others would feel the same. I want to be called on the carpet and I have many times. I think Caveman simply saying they want it to be accepted as normal behavior and it should not be since it is a choice. People choose to steal kill, have sex outside of marriage and be gay. All these are not accepted behaviors in the sight of God.

CAVEMAN
12-27-2010, 08:39 PM
Wouldn't you? You and I want Christianity to be embraced by all...

You can't blame them for wanting to be accepted.


:blink::blink::blink::huh::huh::huh::huh:

I think ChrisF covered it well!:)

Rev
12-27-2010, 10:34 PM
I don't think crisco was defending them but making a point about people's desires to be accepted. He was explaining why they are doing what they are doing.

NateR
12-27-2010, 11:57 PM
Wouldn't you? You and I want Christianity to be embraced by all...

You can't blame them for wanting to be accepted.

We shouldn't desire that Christianity should be embraced by all, we should desire to see Christ embraced by all. There is a difference.

And we don't want to see people embrace Christ just so that we can feel some sense of personal acceptance in society. We want people to embrace Christ for their own good and their own eternal well being.

Homosexuals want acceptance because they KNOW that they are living an unnatural and immoral lifestyle and they think that somehow being openly accepted by society is going to make them feel better about this life they chose.

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 12:01 AM
We shouldn't desire that Christianity should be embraced by all, we should desire to see Christ embraced by all. There is a difference.


Nate... I could disagree with everything you ever say from now til the cows come home..... And that statement alone would still make me want to shake your hand.

It takes never and guts.. and confidence to say exactly that... and that is very lacking in the world today.

Homosexuals want acceptance because they KNOW that they are living an unnatural and immoral lifestyle and they think that somehow being openly accepted by society is going to make them feel better about this life they chose.

Now that I don't agree with.. you know this how?

NateR
12-28-2010, 12:01 AM
The civil rights act has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is why they try so hard to label it as such. I agree totally with you Mark but until they change it the gay have every right to serve under our US COnstitution.

Exactly!!!!

I'm not sure if I understand your argument here. Are you saying the US Constitution allows homosexuals in the military (something that would have been classified as criminal activity in the days of the Founding Fathers)? Or are you saying that the vagueness of the Constitution in this matter allows the Gay Rights movement to distort it to fit their own agenda?

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 12:02 AM
I'm not sure if I understand your argument here. Are you saying the US Constitution allows homosexuals in the military (something that would have been classified as criminal activity in the days of the Founding Fathers)? Or are you saying that the vagueness of the Constitution in this matter allows the Gay Rights movement to distort it to fit their own agenda?

I would be more inclined to say that the Constitution is set up to allow all.. but I am not sure.. I will do some digging to see what I can find.

NateR
12-28-2010, 12:11 AM
Now that I don't agree with.. you know this how?

Because homosexuality is a sin, nothing more, nothing less. As such, then it will follow the same patterns of every other sin that consumes people's lives. It's simple logic. You just have to be willing to put aside the modern propaganda surrounding homosexuality and be willing to think outside of the box.

Vizion
12-28-2010, 12:16 AM
We shouldn't desire that Christianity should be embraced by all, we should desire to see Christ embraced by all. There is a difference.

And we don't want to see people embrace Christ just so that we can feel some sense of personal acceptance in society. We want people to embrace Christ for their own good and their own eternal well being.

Homosexuals want acceptance because they KNOW that they are living an unnatural and immoral lifestyle and they think that somehow being openly accepted by society is going to make them feel better about this life they chose.
+ 1 :frantics:

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 12:47 AM
Because homosexuality is a sin, nothing more, nothing less. As such, then it will follow the same patterns of every other sin that consumes people's lives. It's simple logic. You just have to be willing to put aside the modern propaganda surrounding homosexuality and be willing to think outside of the box.

hmmmm.. and you don't consider some of your thinking.. "inside the box"?

NateR
12-28-2010, 12:50 AM
hmmmm.. and you don't consider some of your thinking.. "inside the box"?

Depends on which box you're talking about.

VCURamFan
12-28-2010, 12:56 AM
hmmmm.. and you don't consider some of your thinking.. "inside the box"?
If by "inside the box", you mean "traditional & conservative", then, yes.

I prefer to think of it as "inside The Book", but that's just me. :wink:

Crisco
12-28-2010, 01:00 AM
I don't think crisco was defending them but making a point about people's desires to be accepted. He was explaining why they are doing what they are doing.

Indeed :). You da man Rev.

Chris F
12-28-2010, 01:03 AM
I don't think crisco was defending them but making a point about people's desires to be accepted. He was explaining why they are doing what they are doing.

TRue but you noticed caveman said they wanted more than acceptence but for us to embrace it. SO that is where the disagreement lies. The logic is severly flawed

Chris F
12-28-2010, 01:07 AM
I'm not sure if I understand your argument here. Are you saying the US Constitution allows homosexuals in the military (something that would have been classified as criminal activity in the days of the Founding Fathers)? Or are you saying that the vagueness of the Constitution in this matter allows the Gay Rights movement to distort it to fit their own agenda?

What I am saying is constitutionally speaking since it is a tital voulenteer army they have just as much right to APPLY as the staright man. However it is a job and that does not meant they have a right to get the job. Affirmitive action is not constitutional because by default it robs another of their rights if someone less qulaified get the job because of rules and quotas. The DADT was nothing more than a clever scheme by the Clintions to circumvent the rules of the time.

Chris F
12-28-2010, 01:12 AM
I would be more inclined to say that the Constitution is set up to allow all.. but I am not sure.. I will do some digging to see what I can find.

The Constitution does allow for equality. Where people forget and go wrong is that thier rights are edowed by their creator not the governemnt. They have the same rights we all do. The proble is they want special right becuase their lifestyle choice is in the minorioty and thus need a helping hand to force it on everyone else.

Crisco
12-28-2010, 01:14 AM
TRue but you noticed caveman said they wanted more than acceptence but for us to embrace it. SO that is where the disagreement lies. The logic is severly flawed

It's really not if you don't go into seven shades of gray with your thinking.

It's really quite logical it goes something like

" I'm gay. I know I make some people uncomfortable because of my attraction to male sexual organs. I would like them to accept this fact and possibly not feel so weird about it... I'm going to join their military and fight for the country and just maybe they will accept my lifestyle and allow me to be myself free from any discriminatory actions.:happydancing:"


I don't support the gay life style but I don't pretend to be ignorant of their grievances.

What we as Christians deem right or wrong means diddly squat in the secular world and whether we like to admit it or not America is very much at this point a secular country in terms of government more so now then ever.

AGAIN I'm not saying I agree with the gayness but I do understand their neediness to be fully integrated.

adamt
12-28-2010, 01:45 AM
AGAIN I'm not saying I agree with the gayness but I do understand their neediness to be fully integrated.

okay, i will listen with an open mind here but you will have to explain two things to me....

1. there are alot of rapists , do they need to be integrated, they should have a right to serve too right?


2. how have they not been integrated? it seems to me this is a gay pride, civil rights, being flamboyant issue, not a "i'm a good soldier, let me serve issue" if they wanted to serve they could have since '93

bradwright
12-28-2010, 03:04 AM
okay, i will listen with an open mind here but you will have to explain two things to me....

1. there are alot of rapists , do they need to be integrated, they should have a right to serve too right?


2. how have they not been integrated? it seems to me this is a gay pride, civil rights, being flamboyant issue, not a "i'm a good soldier, let me serve issue" if they wanted to serve they could have since '93

so you are saying that gays are criminals then....lol.

Crisco
12-28-2010, 03:08 AM
okay, i will listen with an open mind here but you will have to explain two things to me....

1. there are alot of rapists , do they need to be integrated, they should have a right to serve too right?


2. how have they not been integrated? it seems to me this is a gay pride, civil rights, being flamboyant issue, not a "i'm a good soldier, let me serve issue" if they wanted to serve they could have since '93

1. Missed your mark buddy I take it that wasn't very well thought out.

2. Aren't civil rights the priority of every American? Do you honestly think a soldier is going to prance around like a fairy? I'm sorry but if your job is able to be lost because of who your facebook says your in a relationship with there is a problem.

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 03:36 AM
Depends on which box you're talking about.

As far as this topic goes..

I believe that the Bible has a good many contradictions and I believe that some of what is said in the Bible has been misconstrued... but those are some of the issues I have. SO I fully admit I could be wrong. That's where we differ on topics such as this. I admit the possibility that I could be wrong.. I don't know that you can (not an insult.. just an observation).

But not bring the religious aspect into this..

If feel that homosexuals should be allowed to serve..

Seeing as how "All men are created equal." per Jefferson...

adamt
12-28-2010, 02:02 PM
so you are saying that gays are criminals then....lol.


see that is where the huge chasm lies within this discussion

some people see sodomy as an abomination

some people don't

wasn't long ago they were:wink: and i don't think anyone on here thinks we are evolving up in our enlightenment right now

1. Missed your mark buddy I take it that wasn't very well thought out.

2. Aren't civil rights the priority of every American? Do you honestly think a soldier is going to prance around like a fairy? I'm sorry but if your job is able to be lost because of who your facebook says your in a relationship with there is a problem.

crisco, if you want to have a good discussion that is fine, underhanded slurs though such as " wasn't very well thought out" will torpedo the thread quickly, cause i greatly want to point out that it was YOUR logic, so a.) you were the one that didn't think it out and b.) you didn't bother thinking about my rebuttal, so there again, you are the one that is not thinking


but to be honest i agree, i "missed the mark" too, i didn't understand that logic when you first used it as an argument :wink:


and to your second point.... civil rights??

freedom yes, liberty yes, civil rights no. I hate the civil rights movement. it isn't about freedom at all. civil rights today does more to hurt equality then anything else. If, specifically the blacks, would quit pointing out that they are black and were slaves then maybe the race issue would actually die down. That is the exact same thing we have here with gays.

Gays would, could and have served. The military doesn't check their facebook status. Get real.





hey it wasn't my logic, i just allowed it to run its course, and using the logic that, just because there is alot of them we should integrate them, i applied it to another scenario(rapists) and you guys have a cow...... and i agree, it is stupid logic

same as any scenario you run it with, i understand rapists hurt someone else, but the logic is still seriously flawed. Use it to apply to any thing else. Potheads, children, illegal aliens. There are alot of them too, but should we allow them to serve? They don't and haven't hurt anyone else, they should be able to openly serve, even if somebody turns them in because their facebook says they are a 16 year old illegal, marijuana smuggling mexican, and hey maybe he could call it racism!!!!

adamt
12-28-2010, 02:12 PM
they should be able to openly serve, even if somebody turns them in because their facebook says they are a 16 year old illegal, marijuana smuggling mexican, and hey maybe he could call it racism!!!!



oh yeah did i mention that kid was a gay, pot smuggling, underaged illegal??

I doubt they deny him serving cause he is gay

but that's what he would claim


anyways,



i think it is about time we let illegals serve, mark my words it is a matter of time

NateR
12-28-2010, 02:27 PM
so you are saying that gays are criminals then....lol.

A better comparison would be pedophiles. Something that is considered a crime right now, but with the way things are going, we will be having this exact same discussion 20-30 years from now about a man's "right" to have sex with a 5-year-old boy.

Don't believe me? Do a search on NAMBLA and read about what they stand for. The most disturbing fact about pedophiles is that the children they victimize are not always unwilling sexual partners.

If you side with the homosexuals now, then you MUST also side with the pedophiles when it comes time for them to demand their "rights." Otherwise, there is a flaw in your logic. Because, LOGICALLY, if a man is born with a preference for men; then, LOGICALLY, a person could also be born with a preference for children, multiple partners, animals, etc. And who are you to deny those people their "civil rights"?

But not bring the religious aspect into this..

If feel that homosexuals should be allowed to serve..

Seeing as how "All men are created equal." per Jefferson...

I can't help but bring my belief in GOD into this. For those of us who truly believe in GOD and in His Son, Jesus Christ, then there is no way to form an opinion about anything without bringing GOD into it.

I agree that "All men are created equal" but that is a completely separate issue from military service. No one has a right to serve in the military. You might as well claim that those who are born blind, deaf, mentally handicapped, or unable to walk are having their civil rights violated by being denied military service.

This is not a civil rights issue. Those who believe it is have simply fallen for the deception.

Twinsmama
12-28-2010, 03:24 PM
A better comparison would be pedophiles. Something that is considered a crime right now, but with the way things are going, we will be having this exact same discussion 20-30 years from now about a man's "right" to have sex with a 5-year-old boy.

Don't believe me? Do a search on NAMBLA and read about what they stand for. The most disturbing fact about pedophiles is that the children they victimize are not always unwilling sexual partners.

If you side with the homosexuals now, then you MUST also side with the pedophiles when it comes time for them to demand their "rights." Otherwise, there is a flaw in your logic. Because, LOGICALLY, if a man is born with a preference for men; then, LOGICALLY, a person could also be born with a preference for children, multiple partners, animals, etc. And who are you to deny those people their "civil rights"?



I can't help but bring my belief in GOD into this. For those of us who truly believe in GOD and in His Son, Jesus Christ, then there is no way to form an opinion about anything without bringing GOD into it.

I agree that "All men are created equal" but that is a completely separate issue from military service. No one has a right to serve in the military. You might as well claim that those who are born blind, deaf, mentally handicapped, or unable to walk are having their civil rights violated by being denied military service.

This is not a civil rights issue. Those who believe it is have simply fallen for the deception.

totally agree. we are too scared to hurt feelings and make people feel different.

Crisco
12-28-2010, 03:45 PM
You can't compare being a gay and being a pedo to each other no matter how far we try to stretch it.


2 Consenting adults are very different then an adult and a consenting 5 yr old Nate.

And Adam I am being very real. If someone in your unit reports you under DADT to the military they will research your background to see if you are infact a homo and they can infact discharge you. Read the news bro the system has been abused in the past.

And Adam I'm not saying that it is racist to block gays from service they are not a race. I'm saying that it is prejudicial.


And I also disagree that Civil service is not a right.


There are so many jobs in the military that can be made available to handicapped people.

Some like 20 percent of our actual military is involved with real combat. There is a clerk position some where for them. Everyone has the right to serve their country if they want to.

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 03:54 PM
A better comparison would be pedophiles. Something that is considered a crime right now, but with the way things are going, we will be having this exact same discussion 20-30 years from now about a man's "right" to have sex with a 5-year-old boy.

Don't believe me? Do a search on NAMBLA and read about what they stand for. The most disturbing fact about pedophiles is that the children they victimize are not always unwilling sexual partners. .

Comparing homosexuality to pedophiles .. cmon Nate..

If you side with the homosexuals now, then you MUST also side with the pedophiles when it comes time for them to demand their "rights." Otherwise, there is a flaw in your logic. Because, LOGICALLY, if a man is born with a preference for men; then, LOGICALLY, a person could also be born with a preference for children, multiple partners, animals, etc. And who are you to deny those people their "civil rights"?.

your talking about consenting adults... (or at least that's what I am talking about).. and comparing that to child molestation..





I can't help but bring my belief in GOD into this. For those of us who truly believe in GOD and in His Son, Jesus Christ, then there is no way to form an opinion about anything without bringing GOD into it. .

Understood..

I agree that "All men are created equal" but that is a completely separate issue from military service. No one has a right to serve in the military. You might as well claim that those who are born blind, deaf, mentally handicapped, or unable to walk are having their civil rights violated by being denied military service..

But to say that they can not serve because of sexual preference is rather poor.. they can fire a gun as well as the next person...

And those with disabilities.. should be able to serve also.. your telling me a blind man, a deaf man, doesn't have any abilities that the military can use? Sure.. not standing on the front lines with a rifle.. but If you are an American.. and want to serve your contry.. it seems that we (as a nation) should be able to find a spot for them. "Ask no what your country can do for you... but what you can do for your country".

This is not a civil rights issue. Those who believe it is have simply fallen for the deception.

I would agree that it's not a civil rights issue.. it's a pretty lame issue.

Homosexuality is a curb that is "one inch high"..Same as racism.. and some people want to get tripped up by the smallest things.. when there is a much bigger picture... In the US, babies die for lack of food... families are living in cars... US Vets.. are living on streets... (wow.. now you got me sounding like a liberal...)..

There are so much more important things that this country needs to address... Hell.. we had congress looking into baseball and PEDs... WTF!!!... Teach Johnny to read first...

If some gay gay wants to go stand on the line in defense of my freedoms.. live and die trying to protect what they love and belive in... I say we should let them. Because there are WAYYYYYY to many hetrosexuals out there.. that couldn't care less.

A question for all...

If this country were to ever have a draft again... (not that it's really possible with the type of wars that would actually be fought)...do you think that this country would/should turn away a man that wanted to go fight.. in favor of draging a person to the lines..that didn't want to fight?

Which would you rather have beside you..?

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 03:57 PM
Some like 20 percent of our actual military is involved with real combat. There is a clerk position some where for them. Everyone has the right to serve their country if they want to.

Using the word "right".. just stick to me for some reason...

Everyone should be able to serve their country if they want to.

Mark
12-28-2010, 04:03 PM
Everyone has the right to serve their country if they want to.

How did you come up with this?

Crisco
12-28-2010, 04:18 PM
How did you come up with this?


Aside from failing the basic intelligence exam what do we rightly think should prevent a patriot from trying their hardest to be of some kind of good use to the country?

Please keep in mind the word patriot I used there. I do not mean some muslim terrorist bent on the downfall of America.

Twinsmama
12-28-2010, 04:22 PM
1)But to say that they can not serve because of sexual preference is rather poor.. they can fire a gun as well as the next person...


2)And those with disabilities.. should be able to serve also.. your telling me a blind man, a deaf man, doesn't have any abilities that the military can use? Sure.. not standing on the front lines with a rifle.. but If you are an American.. and want to serve your contry.. it seems that we (as a nation) should be able to find a spot for them.
3)"Ask no what your country can do for you... but what you can do for your country".


4)Homosexuality is a curb that is "one inch high"..Same as racism.. and some people want to get tripped up by the smallest things.. when there is a much bigger picture... In the US, babies die for lack of food... families are living in cars... US Vets.. are living on streets... (wow.. now you got me sounding like a liberal...)..

5)There are so much more important things that this country needs to address... Hell.. we had congress looking into baseball and PEDs... WTF!!!... Teach Johnny to read first...

If some gay gay wants to go stand on the line in defense of my freedoms.. live and die trying to protect what they love and belive in... I say we should let them. Because there are WAYYYYYY to many hetrosexuals out there.. that couldn't care less.

6)A question for all...

If this country were to ever have a draft again... (not that it's really possible with the type of wars that would actually be fought)...do you think that this country would/should turn away a man that wanted to go fight.. in favor of draging a person to the lines..that didn't want to fight?

Which would you rather have beside you..?

1)would you want to bunk with a 19 year old that routinely has sex with a 16 year old. not exactly child molestation? i wouldn't. my opinion is he has bad judgement. what about the sheep lover. my opinion also bad judgement.
2)we shouldn't be able to find a job for everyone just because.
3)i wish all the 18 and 19 year old able body unemployed people would do this!:laugh:
4) racism and homosexuality are 1 inch high curbs:laugh:
5) i have small kids in the school system and they only johnny's that can't read are the ones that their parents don't care. the teachers can try but if a kid comes to kindergarten not even knowing their abc's the teacher doesn't have much to work with. why don't you ask donna on that one.
6)no they shouldn't be turned away if they are going to act like a "man" but if they are going to act like a "man lover" than yes.

Mark
12-28-2010, 04:29 PM
Aside from failing the basic intelligence exam what do we rightly think should prevent a patriot from trying their hardest to be of good use to the country?

Please keep in mind the word patriot I used there. I do not mean some muslim terrorist bent on the downfall of America.

Anybody on Death row that gets out can join? Timothy McVeigh was in the Army I wonder if they want him back? Why dont we have 2000 people from a street gang in the Army and see how that goes. I will think of some more and get back with you.

Crisco
12-28-2010, 04:40 PM
Anybody on Death row that gets out can join? Timothy McVeigh was in the Army I wonder if they want him back? Why dont we have 2000 people from a street gang in the Army and see how that goes. I will think of some more and get back with you.

Actually Mark if you look at the stats our recently I think it's something 1 to 2% of service members are in street gangs and that was taken in 2008 so I assume its grown a bit.

And also putting non-criminals in the same boat as criminals it doesn't jive.

Timothy Mcveigh was definately not a Patriot... I mentioned that word for a reason if your going to try to come at me with more later please keep in mind that phrase.

Mark
12-28-2010, 04:51 PM
Everyone has the right to serve their country if they want to.

Lets see who agrees with you. If you agree with this please reply and say yes. If you do not agree please reply and say no.

Mark
12-28-2010, 04:52 PM
Lets see who agrees with you. If you agree with this please reply and say yes. If you do not agree please reply and say no.

No. Letting anyone who wants to serve in the military is one of the dumbest things I have heard this year.

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 05:04 PM
no

I understand the need to keep some people out. No doubt.

Crisco
12-28-2010, 05:11 PM
Ok seriously keep it perspective and you never answered the question.


What PATRIOT who is not a criminal doesn't deserve the chance to serve their country some how. Answer me that and then do your agree ot disagree post don't just base it off of a single line in the whole post. You left out the entire explaination of the statement.

VCURamFan
12-28-2010, 05:17 PM
No. Letting anyone who wants to serve in the military is one of the dumbest things I have heard this year.
Woulda been funnier if you had waited until Saturday to post this. :laugh:

O, and my answer"s "No"

Crisco
12-28-2010, 05:20 PM
Woulda been funnier if you had waited until Saturday to post this. :laugh:

O, and my answer"s "No"

Jimminy cricket read the ****ing post first lol.

Twinsmama
12-28-2010, 05:21 PM
Woulda been funnier if you had waited until Saturday to post this. :laugh:

O, and my answer"s "No"

:laugh::laugh:

My answer is heck no!!!

Crisco
12-28-2010, 05:23 PM
"Aside from failing the basic intelligence exam what do we rightly think should prevent a patriot from trying their hardest to be of some kind of good use to the country?

Please keep in mind the word patriot I used there. I do not mean some muslim terrorist bent on the downfall of America. "

I'll post it again just incase for those who just simply see the word Mark and then press agree.

Crisco
12-28-2010, 05:27 PM
And to clarify my statement a bit:

Do you have the heart to tell a person in a wheel chair who loves their country and wants nothing more then to serve it in anyway shape or form that they aren't allowed to be a military accountant or filing clerk because their not Chuck Norris.

VCURamFan
12-28-2010, 05:29 PM
I'll post it again just incase for those who just simply see the word Mark and then press agree.
In fairness, Chris, these are 2 seperate questions. I was very careful to read what you wee quoted as saying & responding simply to it. I hope you have more respect for me than to assume I'm just a "Yes man".

As for you question you pose above, I'll do my best to give a few quick examples off the top of my head:
Aside from failing the basic intelligence exam what do we rightly think should prevent a patriot from trying their hardest to be of some kind of good use to the country?


Felony conviction
Mental handicap (this prolly falls under failing the exam, but I wanted to list it just in case)
Physical handicap
Moral handicap

I'm not saying that everyone necessarily needs to swear to what I believe, but I don't want amoral psycopaths running around fully armed & train, either. There most definitely needs to be a "minimum" standard moral accountability if I'm going to entrust my safety to you

Like I said, that's just off the top of my head. Serving is not a right. There are hundreds of men a year who are turned down for various reasons.

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 05:39 PM
Woulda been funnier if you had waited until Saturday to post this. :laugh:

O, and my answer"s "No"

What's your thoughts on Don't Ask Don't Tell?

Crisco
12-28-2010, 05:45 PM
In fairness, Chris, these are 2 seperate questions. I was very careful to read what you wee quoted as saying & responding simply to it. I hope you have more respect for me than to assume I'm just a "Yes man".

I do. I love you(no homo)

.



I don't think physical handicap should exclude someone from military service perhaps from combat but not from military service.

Really what I'm getting at here is that criminals are not patriots. You obviously don't love your country much if your commiting crimes against its citizens.

I gave the word patriot to much room for interpretation. That's my bad.

VCURamFan
12-28-2010, 05:49 PM
I do. I love you(no homo)


I don't think physical handicap should exclude someone from military service perhaps from combat but not from military service.

You, too, bro. :wink:

See, that's the problem I have with this: there should be no non-combat roles in the military. I mean, obviously there are going to be clerks & cooks & accountants & etc., etc., etc., but there should be no position in which you don't have to worry about fighting because you're a ______. In the Marines, you're a Rifleman first & everything else second. If you're going to join the military, you must assume that you're going to be in combat & be 100% capable & prepared for that.

Jonlion
12-28-2010, 05:50 PM
I think sodomy and homosexuality is an adbonimation and punishable by death.

But I have to bear in mind that those who are envious, gossips, slanderous, haters of god, insolent haughty, boastful, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless and ruthless are also an abbonimation and should be punishable by death.

Hands up if you fall short????????????????????

ME!

Thank the lord for his mercy and grace.

Homosexuals absolutely can fight and die for their country just don't tell people about it. Simple as that and bet you won't see many openly come out, no way no how.

There are gay MMA fighters who are all welcome to declare themselves as gay - will they?

As for criminals fighting in the army - they have pretty much made the backbone of armies for millenia.

The French system of conscription brings together a fair sample of all classes; ours is composed of the scum of the earth — the mere scum of the earth. It is only wonderful that we should be able to make so much out of them afterwards. Duke of Wellington.

bradwright
12-28-2010, 05:51 PM
A better comparison would be pedophiles. Something that is considered a crime right now, but with the way things are going, we will be having this exact same discussion 20-30 years from now about a man's "right" to have sex with a 5-year-old boy.

Don't believe me? Do a search on NAMBLA and read about what they stand for. The most disturbing fact about pedophiles is that the children they victimize are not always unwilling sexual partners.

If you side with the homosexuals now, then you MUST also side with the pedophiles when it comes time for them to demand their "rights." Otherwise, there is a flaw in your logic. Because, LOGICALLY, if a man is born with a preference for men; then, LOGICALLY, a person could also be born with a preference for children, multiple partners, animals, etc. And who are you to deny those people their "civil rights"?



I can't help but bring my belief in GOD into this. For those of us who truly believe in GOD and in His Son, Jesus Christ, then there is no way to form an opinion about anything without bringing GOD into it.

I agree that "All men are created equal" but that is a completely separate issue from military service. No one has a right to serve in the military. You might as well claim that those who are born blind, deaf, mentally handicapped, or unable to walk are having their civil rights violated by being denied military service.

This is not a civil rights issue. Those who believe it is have simply fallen for the deception.

do you really believe its a criminal act to be gay Nate ?...really ?

and for you to say if i defend gays i must also believe there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile is just insane...they are two totally different things and if you dont see the difference then all i can say to that is..... WOW ! ! !

Twinsmama
12-28-2010, 05:53 PM
And to clarify my statement a bit:

Do you have the heart to tell a person in a wheel chair who loves their country and wants nothing more then to serve it in anyway shape or form that they aren't allowed to be a military accountant or filing clerk because their not Chuck Norris.


you can't make decisions based on heart. wheelchair guy should get a filing job....really there are probably 1000's of people more qualified. sorry my opinion would be that he would have a hard time bending and reaching.

wait....i strike the above statement....i think i'm going to wait for Mark to reply before I decide if I agree with you....

Jonlion
12-28-2010, 05:55 PM
I don't think physical handicap should exclude someone from military service perhaps from combat but not from military service.

Really what I'm getting at here is that criminals are not patriots. You obviously don't love your country much if your commiting crimes against its citizens.

I gave the word patriot to much room for interpretation. That's my bad.


Criminals are not patriots - what baloney.


Not all criminals are rapists, Paedo's and murderers! And some murderers are still patriots.

VCURamFan
12-28-2010, 05:56 PM
What's your thoughts on Don't Ask Don't Tell?
To be honest, I don't know. I've not really read either the original bill that Clinton signed into law nor the one which Obama just signed, so I'm not in a place to offer an educated decision.

My knee-jerk reaction is to say let them serve. Even though homosexuality is a sin, it is exactly the same sin as committed by all the heterosexuals who get whores or sleep with each other: lusting after & having sex with someone who isn't their husband/wife (y'all know what I mean, let's not spin this off into a gay marraige debate! :frantics:).

Like I said, that's just my knee-jerk reaction & it's not an educated position, so please don't interpret it as such.

Chris F
12-28-2010, 05:57 PM
I'll post it again just incase for those who just simply see the word Mark and then press agree.

Crisco this is not about you or people want to disagree wiht Mark. I disagree with Mark a lot and we get along just fine. What it is, is your logic. Notice as the thread progressed you began to add prefaces to your statement. You already lose credibility by doing that. The fact is you statement as made has to be answered NO. Not anyone who wants to join should be allowed. You must make amends in order to make that statement more accurate. A better question might have been should anyone be denied simply because they are gay for example. Then the only rebuttal would be a slippery slope on their part. For example NateR response while I agree with what he said it is a fallacy because it is a slippery slope argument because he cannot prove pedophiles and homosexuals think the same way. Why because they are both choices and they have found no biological proof as of yet. So his argument is nothing more than speculation and thus a slippery slope, one I happen to agree with.

SO should people get to join w/o fear of prejudice, sure but not just anybody should be allowed plain and simple it is a job and there must be standards.

adamt
12-28-2010, 06:03 PM
Aside from failing the basic intelligence exam what do we rightly think should prevent a patriot from trying their hardest to be of some kind of good use to the country?

Please keep in mind the word patriot I used there. I do not mean some muslim terrorist bent on the downfall of America.


if a rapist is a patriot you would let him serve? How about a pedophile or murderer?

Now this is YOUR logic not mine:

" A pedophile, rapist or murderer should be able to serve their country as long as they are patriots and want to"




Ok seriously keep it perspective and you never answered the question.


What PATRIOT who is not a criminal doesn't deserve the chance to serve their country some how. Answer me that and then do your agree ot disagree post don't just base it off of a single line in the whole post. You left out the entire explaination of the statement.

you are using man's law as the litmus test and standard

we are using God's law

You say if they are a criminal? Well shouldn't some sins be criminalized? Beastiality for example?

Sodomy in my book is criminal.

And don't tell me that we are all sinners and we all would be disqualified. That is like me saying we have all got speeding tickets and we are all criminals and unable to serve under your logic.




i've said it before and i'll say it again.


this isn't about serving and it isn't about military.

this is just another way the sodomites are attempting to make their sin mainstream. To legitamize it.

I'll admit, you have some valid arguments, though they are flawed.

They know they have valid arguments(though the same arguments can be applied to other agregious people as well, as many of us have already pointed out), and they know that if they can get the military to acknowledge, toleract and then accept them, they will have to be more accepted in other arenas.

The sad fact of the matter is, is that christians feel compelled to accept the sinner and forget the sin, the problem is that the sin is still allowed to continue on. That is the boat we are in today. Homosexuals have been allowed in society and accepted and tolerated. Even good christians are desensitized to their abomination and no longer feel the need to separate their evil from our society.

Crisco answer me one good question. Where does it stop? You are obviously against rapists being soldiers, but what if they pay thier penalty to society?

How about someone who likes to have intercourse with dead bodies? They don't hurt noboby else do they. Is that illegal? Should it be illegal?

What's the standard and why is it so different today than it was 100 years ago.

The point is, you need to use God's standard. Not man. and by saying the legality of it is all that matters is using man's truth, not God's Truth.




If you take a ruler and measure off a 12" piece of string, then you use that piece to measure out another piece, then you use that new piece to measure out another piece and so on, i guearantee you will be way off after 20-30 cuts. Why? because of the standard you are using. That has happened in our legal system, we keep building off the prior generations standard, instead of maintaining one standard. And that standard ought to be God. Period.

Chris F
12-28-2010, 06:05 PM
do you really believe its a criminal act to be gay Nate ?...really ?

and for you to say if i defend gays i must also believe there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile is just insane...they are two totally different things and if you dont see the difference then all i can say to that is..... WOW ! ! !

Brad look at the logic they use about homosexuality. They say they were born with that desire for men and should be protected because that is just the way they are. If one were to accept this claim w/o any biological proof then they must agree that it is possible for the pedophiles to make the same claim and thus it is the exact same thing. BTW it is criminal in our country because we have standards of conduct that is not the case in some places. In fact kids are pimped out to older men. The cirminal act is irrelevent to the argument because it does not speak to the issue NateR makes and that is they want the right because htey feel that is just the way they are. SO you fail your burden of rebuttal here because you just assume the two cannot equate because of your personal belief.

adamt
12-28-2010, 06:14 PM
And to clarify my statement a bit:

Do you have the heart to tell a person in a wheel chair who loves their country and wants nothing more then to serve it in anyway shape or form that they aren't allowed to be a military accountant or filing clerk because their not Chuck Norris.

do you have the heart to tell them they can't be n combat?

What's that? You wouldn't let them be in combat? Isn't that discrimination? You wouldn't discriminate would you? But what if he loves his country? Oh okay, then it would be okay.



they don't want to be discriminated against, but they sure don't mind parking in the handicapped spots when it is snowing and five below out, they don't mind that special treatment

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 06:16 PM
you are using man's law as the litmus test and standard

we are using God's law
If you take a ruler and measure off a 12" piece of string, then you use that piece to measure out another piece, then you use that new piece to measure out another piece and so on, i guearantee you will be way off after 20-30 cuts. Why? because of the standard you are using. That has happened in our legal system, we keep building off the prior generations standard, instead of maintaining one standard. And that standard ought to be God. Period.


But not everyone in this country shares the same belifes in regards to religion.. A religious standard for a country based on freedoms would be very difficult (granted there are plenty of Christian and Jewish standards in the USA that most people don't even know about)...then you start having disagreements on which religious view should be used to draw standards.. then the other groups complain.. then some kook from a really small groups make a bomb... or the biggest group has a crusade/jihad..

bradwright
12-28-2010, 06:18 PM
Brad look at the logic they use about homosexuality. They say they were born with that desire for men and should be protected because that is just the way they are. If one were to accept this claim w/o any biological proof then they must agree that it is possible for the pedophiles to make the same claim and thus it is the exact same thing. BTW it is criminal in our country because we have standards of conduct that is not the case in some places. In fact kids are pimped out to older men. The cirminal act is irrelevent to the argument because it does not speak to the issue NateR makes and that is they want the right because htey feel that is just the way they are. SO you fail your burden of rebuttal here because you just assume the two cannot equate because of your personal belief.

i will go real slow so you understand...

ONE....IS...A...CRIMINAL....ACT...AND...ONE...IS.. .NOT ! ! ! ! ! !

ONE....IS....A...CONSENTING....ACT....BETWEEN....T WO....ADULTS....AND....THE....OTHER....IS.....AN.. ..ACT...OF....RAPE....BY...AN....ADULT...ON...A... MINOR
and for you or anyone to compare the two as being the same just screams insanity on your part.
so unless you dont see a pedophile as being a criminal then it is you that fails your burden of rebuttal....

Crisco
12-28-2010, 06:19 PM
do you have the heart to tell them they can't be n combat?

What's that? You wouldn't let them be in combat? Isn't that discrimination? You wouldn't discriminate would you? But what if he loves his country? Oh okay, then it would be okay. A person is a wheelchair is not combat capable you will be hardpressed to find a wheel chair bound person willing to put the lives of an entire unit at risk simply so then can wheel around in the desert.



they don't want to be discriminated against, but they sure don't mind parking in the handicapped spots when it is snowing and five below out, they don't mind that special treatmentThat's just cold homes. LEt the guy with no leg have the closer spot... That's not something to be bitter about that's just plan the decent thing to do.



red

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 06:22 PM
do you have the heart to tell them they can't be n combat?

Sure I would...


What's that? You wouldn't let them be in combat? Isn't that discrimination? You wouldn't discriminate would you? But what if he loves his country? Oh okay, then it would be okay.


there are many combat roles... Of course you remember the movie 300.. Ephialtes couldn't lift his shield...he became a tratior...

they don't want to be discriminated against, but they sure don't mind parking in the handicapped spots when it is snowing and five below out, they don't mind that special treatment

you know... when did we start dragging the handicapped.. into this :wink:

Parking spaces and such.. is extending a helping hand...not easy getting by in this world without two arms and two legs... but there is a guy in my bjj class with no legs.. his take downs are great and you can not break his grip if he grabs you.. so maybe we all don't think of "handicapped" the same.

Crisco
12-28-2010, 06:23 PM
But not everyone in this country shares the same belifes in regards to religion.. A religious standard for a country based on freedoms would be very difficult (granted there are plenty of Christian and Jewish standards in the USA that most people don't even know about)...then you start having disagreements on which religious view should be used to draw standards.. then the other groups complain.. then some kook from a really small groups make a bomb... or the biggest group has a crusade/jihad..

I agree with you here. Spirit.

America is not guided by Gods law... I'm sorry if you feel differently but it's just not the case Adam.

As much as you would like to see Sodomites and the like made criminals it just don't jive in America homes...

America is not about God's law on earth it's about equality for all who live in it... It a hard truth but a truth none the less.

Chris F
12-28-2010, 06:31 PM
I agree with you here. Spirit.

America is not guided by Gods law... I'm sorry if you feel differently but it's just not the case Adam.

As much as you would like to see Sodomites and the like made criminals it just don't jive in America homes...

America is not about God's law on earth it's about equality for all who live in it... It a hard truth but a truth none the less.

This is acording to you. The declaration of Independence still says our rights coe from our creator. Our constitution was based upon biblical principals as was the plan of the fouder who wrote them. Just because some modern fools want to change things does not make it truth. If you tell a lie enough than people will start claiming it is true, just as you have here.

adamt
12-28-2010, 06:40 PM
But not everyone in this country shares the same belifes in regards to religion.. A religious standard for a country based on freedoms would be very difficult (granted there are plenty of Christian and Jewish standards in the USA that most people don't even know about)...then you start having disagreements on which religious view should be used to draw standards.. then the other groups complain.. then some kook from a really small groups make a bomb... or the biggest group has a crusade/jihad..

conceded

BUT my point remains, you have to have a superior standard, not just a detiorating standard of whatever political class happened to buy their power

Sure I would...



there are many combat roles... Of course you remember the movie 300.. Ephialtes couldn't lift his shield...he became a tratior...



you know... when did we start dragging the handicapped.. into this :wink:

Parking spaces and such.. is extending a helping hand...not easy getting by in this world without two arms and two legs... but there is a guy in my bjj class with no legs.. his take downs are great and you can not break his grip if he grabs you.. so maybe we all don't think of "handicapped" the same.

crisco started it j/k crisco :)

i'm not at all complaining, i am just pointing out the double standard

including your own hypocritical views, they are either handicapped or not, but don't try to have your cake and eat it too




I agree with you here. Spirit.

America is not guided by Gods law... I'm sorry if you feel differently but it's just not the case Adam. wasn't the point, point is, you need a concrete standard, not whims and ebbs of constant change

As much as you would like to see Sodomites and the like made criminals it just don't jive in America homes...maybe not now but there was once a day when sodomy was abhored, just like rape is today, and it is only permissible to think that one day we could be having this discussion but about rape or necrophilia instead of sodomy

America is not about God's law on earth it's about equality for all who live in it... It a hard truth but a truth none the less.

Would you draft handicapped people spirit and crisco?

I am just trying to establish a baseline, to determine if what you are arguing is fair, and not discrimination

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 06:48 PM
This is acording to you. The declaration of Independence still says our rights coe from our creator. Our constitution was based upon biblical principals as was the plan of the fouder who wrote them. Just because some modern fools want to change things does not make it truth. If you tell a lie enough than people will start claiming it is true, just as you have here.

You must be referring to the Bill of Rights correct?

If you actually read the US Constitution before the amendments.. there is little that I remember specifically about religion..

Now the 2nd amendment... that's a great one..

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "


Had the framers said "God".. wouldn't you agree that some groups would say.. "Allah" is God.. and others use the word god.. to describe what they belived the framers meant...


If only they had been more specific... or maybe it was done intentionaly.. like maybe other documents that we belive in ...

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 07:03 PM
conceded

BUT my point remains, you have to have a superior standard, not just a detiorating standard of whatever political class happened to buy their power



crisco started it j/k crisco :)

i'm not at all complaining, i am just pointing out the double standard


including your own hypocritical views, they are either handicapped or not, but don't try to have your cake and eat it too

Where is the double standard?




Would you draft handicapped people spirit and crisco?
I am just trying to establish a baseline, to determine if what you are arguing is fair, and not discrimination

sure I would.. no arms/legs? I am sure that there are MANY useful jobs that they can do.. some even better than those with arms/legs...

Mentally handicapped... that's tougher.. but I don't see why not.. What could Rainman do with allocating supplies and such.. prolly be tremdous at it..

TENNESSEAN
12-28-2010, 07:16 PM
Lets see who agrees with you. If you agree with this please reply and say yes. If you do not agree please reply and say no.

no

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 07:22 PM
This is acording to you. The declaration of Independence still says our rights coe from our creator. Our constitution was based upon biblical principals as was the plan of the fouder who wrote them. Just because some modern fools want to change things does not make it truth. If you tell a lie enough than people will start claiming it is true, just as you have here.

Sorry.. got sidetracked...

Declaration of Independence -


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It doesn't say "God", Allah, Budda... To me the implication is clear...

Miss Foxy
12-28-2010, 07:23 PM
Lets see who agrees with you. If you agree with this please reply and say yes. If you do not agree please reply and say no.

NO!!!!! Serving in our military is a PRIVILEGE not a right. This isn't the days when most of the military were joining to avoid serving jail time. Our service men and women should not be rejects of society.

Chuck
12-28-2010, 07:35 PM
This isn't the days when most of the military were joining to avoid serving jail time. Our service men and women should not be rejects of society.

You're kidding right????

You do realize how many of these "rejects of society" died for your freedom in WWII right??? :huh:

Since when did committing a crime make you a reject of society?

TENNESSEAN
12-28-2010, 07:40 PM
Aside from failing the basic intelligence exam what do we rightly think should prevent a patriot from trying their hardest to be of some kind of good use to the country?

Please keep in mind the word patriot I used there. I do not mean some muslim terrorist bent on the downfall of America.

nothing is stopping a gay patriot from serving his country. if he truly loves and wants to serve this country. (that means putting country above himself) he would in list and keep his mouth shut and do his job.

walking in waving a rainbow flag is not going to help anything. the people pushing this repeal couldn't care less about their country.

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 07:43 PM
NO!!!!! Serving in our military is a PRIVILEGE not a right. This isn't the days when most of the military were joining to avoid serving jail time. Our service men and women should not be rejects of society.

Wow... and I thought I was hard core.... There are plenty of people that make mistakes and go to jail/prison.. but once they have paid their debt.. they should be able to join.. it might even help some make better people.

Granted.. I also belive in the electric BENCH..

Miss Foxy
12-28-2010, 07:48 PM
Wow... and I thought I was hard core.... There are plenty of people that make mistakes and go to jail/prison.. but once they have paid their debt.. they should be able to join.. it might even help some make better people.

Granted.. I also belive in the electric BENCH..

I didn't mean it in a mean way. I just think some people still view the military requirements as anyone can join and I think we should keep filtering out anyone not fit to be in there. I understand some people make mistakes, but when our national security depends on them we should always be selective. I did not mean to offend anyone.

Miss Foxy
12-28-2010, 07:50 PM
You're kidding right????

You do realize how many of these "rejects of society" died for your freedom in WWII right??? :huh:

Since when did committing a crime make you a reject of society?

Before you blow my post off tracks. I was not referring to anyone that has died for our country. I am a daughter of a Vietnam Vet so lets not go there.

TENNESSEAN
12-28-2010, 07:51 PM
I didn't mean it in a mean way. I just think some people still view the military requirements as anyone can join and I think we should keep filtering out anyone not fit to be in there. I understand some people make mistakes, but when our national security depends on them we should always be selective. I did not mean to offend anyone.

your right. if anyone was offended that's their problem.

Chuck
12-28-2010, 07:54 PM
your right. if anyone was offended that's their problem.

Scott you're just sucking up because she's hot. :wink:

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 07:54 PM
your right. if anyone was offended that's their problem.

That's not always the case.. you should know that..

Foxy... I get you.. that just kinda caught me off guard...

Dahamier.. Unabomber.. OJ... those people are the rejects... and no, they wouldn't pass my tests to serve..

Miss Foxy
12-28-2010, 07:57 PM
That's not always the case.. you should know that..

Foxy... I get you.. that just kinda caught me off guard...

Dahamier.. Unabomber.. OJ... those people are the rejects... and no, they wouldn't pass my tests to serve..

Lol.. Hey I have a few uncles from my mothers side that served in the Army to avoid jail time for being bad kids and honestly it was the best thing for them. However times have changed and I think passing people thru for the sake of a body to serve is very dangerous for everyone involved. It's also not fair for the ones who serve proudly and honestly..

TENNESSEAN
12-28-2010, 07:59 PM
Scott you're just sucking up because she's hot. :wink:

afraid not chuck:)if she was ugly, she would still be right.

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 08:00 PM
Scott you're just sucking up because she's hot. :wink:

There is that....:ashamed:

Chuck
12-28-2010, 08:05 PM
afraid not chuck:)if she was ugly, she would still be right.

Hey I'm ugly! How come I'm never right????????????????????? :D

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 08:07 PM
Hey I'm ugly! How come I'm never right????????????????????? :D

I woulnd't say thaaaaaat..... :ashamed::wub:

You want top or bottom.... bunk.. in the barracks..

Miss Foxy
12-28-2010, 08:07 PM
I woulnd't say thaaaaaat..... :ashamed::wub:

You want top or bottom.... bunk.. in the barracks..

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chuck
12-28-2010, 08:15 PM
I woulnd't say thaaaaaat..... :ashamed::wub:

You want top or bottom.... bunk.. in the barracks..

Hey I thought you weren't supposed to tell????????? :laugh:

Where's Boomer when you need him??????????? :laugh::laugh:

VCURamFan
12-28-2010, 08:48 PM
Hey I thought you weren't supposed to tell????????? :laugh:

Where's Boomer when you need him??????????? :laugh::laugh:
No, that's the whole problem: now he's allowed to!!! :ninja:

NateR
12-28-2010, 08:59 PM
Lets see who agrees with you. If you agree with this please reply and say yes. If you do not agree please reply and say no.

No, military service is a privilege not a right.

Everyone has the right to defend their own property from invaders, to the death if necessary, but no one has the right to serve in the military.

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 09:00 PM
No, that's the whole problem: now he's allowed to!!! :ninja:

And now the circle of life starts again.... Oh Wait..:scared0011:

NateR
12-28-2010, 09:25 PM
i will go real slow so you understand...

Getting angry is the sign of a weak argument.

ONE....IS...A...CRIMINAL....ACT...AND...ONE...IS.. .NOT ! ! ! ! ! !

ONE....IS....A...CONSENTING....ACT....BETWEEN....T WO....ADULTS....AND....THE....OTHER....IS.....AN.. ..ACT...OF....RAPE....BY...AN....ADULT...ON...A... MINOR
and for you or anyone to compare the two as being the same just screams insanity on your part.
so unless you dont see a pedophile as being a criminal then it is you that fails your burden of rebuttal....

Except for the fact that the age of consent is widely variant depending on where you go in the world, so it's not always a crime depending on your location. Plus, there are groups out there who are looking to abolish it completely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform
Paedophile advocacy groups
During the late 1950s to early 1990s, several paedophile membership organisations advocated lowering or abolishing age of consent laws[19][20][21][22] to legalize sexual activities involving an adult and a child (something often considered as child sexual abuse[23][24]). As one of their arguments to lower or abolish the age of consent, members of paedophile advocacy groups promoted their belief that children are psychologically capable of consenting to sexual interactions with adults[25] (although this opinion is contrary to legal and scientific consensus [26][27]), and they often portrayed themselves as fighting for the right of children to engage in what the activists consider to be consensual sex with adults.[22][25] Some activists tried to link their goals with those of the early LGBT social movements, but in the course of time those movements universally rejected this linkage.[19][28][29][30]
The age of consent reform efforts of paedophile advocacy groups such as the Danish Pedophile Association and the North American Man/Boy Love Association did not gain any public support[19][22][28][31][32] and today those groups that have not dissolved have only minimal membership and have ceased their activities other than through a few websites.[22][32][33][34] Beginning in the 1990s, public focus on and disapproval of paedophilia resulted in more stringent legislation and stronger criminal penalties regarding child pornography, child sexual abuse, and use of the internet to facilitate these offenses.[35][36][37]

They try to use the exact same arguments as the Gay Rights movement, but haven't gained any traction. However, if morality is really just a matter of societal norms, then we've see how quickly that can change: in the 1920s, it wasn't extremely uncommon to see adult men marrying girls as young as 7-years old; as recently as the 1980s, an actor 'coming out of the closet' as a homosexual usually spelled the end of that actor's career; in many ancient cultures, rape and child molestation wasn't even considered a serious crime.

Now, before you try to twist my words, then understand that I consider pedophilia and child molestation to be the worst form of sexual immorality and I believe that it is an offense punishable by death, without exception (as long as there is physical evidence of the act). However, if you we are going to allow popular opinion to dictate our morality, then you need to understand that society changes and acts that we consider reprehensible now might be considered normal and natural within just a few decades.

This is the ultimate consequence of moral relativism and why we, as human beings, are not qualified to dictate our own morality and why we must stick to GOD's standard alone.

Miss Foxy
12-28-2010, 09:28 PM
No, military service is a privilege not a right.

Everyone has the right to defend their own property from invaders, to the death if necessary, but no one has the right to serve in the military.

I said the exact same thing in my post! lol.

bradwright
12-28-2010, 09:36 PM
Getting angry is the sign of a weak argument.



Except for the fact that the age of consent is widely variant depending on where you go in the world, so it's not always a crime depending on your location. Plus, there are groups out there who are looking to abolish it completely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform


They try to use the exact same arguments as the Gay Rights movement, but haven't gained any traction. However, if morality is really just a matter of societal norms, then we've see how quickly that can change: in the 1920s, it wasn't extremely uncommon to see adult men marrying girls as young as 7-years old; as recently as the 1980s, an actor 'coming out of the closet' as a homosexual usually spelled the end of that actor's career; in many ancient cultures, rape and child molestation wasn't even considered a serious crime.

Now, before you try to twist my words, then understand that I consider pedophilia and child molestation to be the worst form of sexual immorality and I believe that it is an offense punishable by death, without exception (as long as there is physical evidence of the act). However, if you we are going to allow popular opinion to dictate our morality, then you need to understand that society changes and acts that we consider reprehensible now might be considered normal and natural within just a few decades.

This is the ultimate consequence of moral relativism and why we, as human beings, are not qualified to dictate our own morality and why we must stick to GOD's standard alone.

not angry...just amazed at how little you guys understand when it comes to things considered to be against the law in the western world....or dont you abide by laws in the western world...

NateR
12-28-2010, 09:50 PM
not angry...just amazed at how little you guys understand when it comes to things considered to be against the law in the western world....or dont you abide by laws in the western world...

You do realize that anal intercourse is illegal in Canada, with only two exceptions:

Anal intercourse

159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
Idem

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 159; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 3.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-4.html#anchorbo-ga:l_V-gb:s_150_1

So the question is do YOU understand what's considered against the law in the Western World?

Also, as Christians, we abide by GOD's Law, not man's law; because we are citizens of Heaven first and foremost.

bradwright
12-28-2010, 09:57 PM
You do realize that anal intercourse is illegal in Canada, with only two exceptions:



http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-4.html#anchorbo-ga:l_V-gb:s_150_1

So the question is do YOU understand what's considered against the law in the Western World?

Also, as Christians, we abide by GOD's Law, not man's law; because we are citizens of Heaven first and foremost.

so you dont abide by mans law...thats a laugh....and if you really did abide by Gods law you wouldn't be so quick to judge people.

god has pointed out the sins of man and it is your job to try not to sin...its not your job to condemn anyone that you think is sinning...thats Gods job.

God tells us to love thy neighbor as if yourself....not hate people that you think are sinners.
so why dont you follow Gods law then ?


maybe you should read the stuff you put up instead of beating your chest.

Spiritwalker
12-28-2010, 10:04 PM
maybe you should read the stuff you put up instead of beating your chest.


Slow down there buddy.... think a bit more before you type...

bradwright
12-28-2010, 10:08 PM
Slow down there buddy.... think a bit more before you type...

whys that ?

he obviously didn't read it or he would realize Anal intercourse isn't anymore against the law in Canada then being nude in Canada.

or didn't you guys know intercourse between a man and a woman is against the law if its in public as well ?

NateR
12-28-2010, 10:18 PM
so you dont abide by mans law...thats a laugh....and if you really did abide by Gods law you wouldn't be so quick to judge people.

god has pointed out the sins of man and it is your job to try not to sin...its not your job to condemn anyone that you think is sinning...thats Gods job.

God tells us to love thy neighbor as if yourself....not hate people that you think are sinners.
so why dont you follow Gods law then ?


maybe you should read the stuff you put up instead of beating your chest.

That just shows how little you understand about GOD's law.

Loving others is one of GOD's commands, but we are also not allowed to tolerate or endorse sin. So, to claim that homosexuality is normal and that GOD "made them that way" would be a direct violation of GOD's law and a sin (in fact, multiple sins to include blasphemy). To allow the homosexual agenda to be taught to our children in public schools would be a sin. To silence Christians from preaching GOD's Word by declaring it as "hate speech" would be a sin.

That's what I am taking a stand against, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is between them and GOD, it's none of my business.

bradwright
12-28-2010, 10:30 PM
That just shows how little you understand about GOD's law.

Loving others is one of GOD's commands, but we are also not allowed to tolerate or endorse sin. So, to claim that homosexuality is normal and that GOD "made them that way" would be a direct violation of GOD's law and a sin (in fact, multiple sins to include blasphemy). To allow the homosexual agenda to be taught to our children in public schools would be a sin. To silence Christians from preaching GOD's Word by declaring it as "hate speech" would be a sin.

That's what I am taking a stand against, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is between them and GOD, it's none of my business.

your perception of God and his laws is flawed at best.

you some how think its up to you to judge when God tells you in no uncertain terms its not yours but HIS right to judge ! !

oh well...its you that has to face God in the end.

Chuck
12-28-2010, 10:35 PM
....but we are also not allowed to tolerate or endorse sin.

How does the Bible define "tolerate" ?

Crisco
12-28-2010, 10:42 PM
How does the Bible define "tolerate" ?

I've often wondered that I mean how are we suppose to spread the gospel if we can't be near sinners? Sounds contradictory and the bible doesn't contradict itself...

Christ ate with thieves and prostitutes and tried to teach them the way....

I'll eat with anyone if it gives me the chance to help them along their walk and I like to believe I'm in good company.

adamt
12-28-2010, 11:39 PM
I've often wondered that I mean how are we suppose to spread the gospel if we can't be near sinners? Sounds contradictory and the bible doesn't contradict itself...

Christ ate with thieves and prostitutes and tried to teach them the way....

I'll eat with anyone if it gives me the chance to help them along their walk and I like to believe I'm in good company.

Christ also fasted 40 days, raised people from the dead and never sinned, are you going to do that too?

I love the people that go around spouting WWJD.

I always think to myself, um He would prolly do alot of miracles and then offer Himself as a sacrifice then raise Himself from the dead then ascend into heaven.


point is, partaking in sin just to evangelize don't jive, the Bible doesn't teach that

If you want to go to a gay bar and teach against homosexuality then i would give you props

unfortunately when most people say they have to be in the world to evangelize it is just an excuse to be of the world


btw no one said don't be near sinners, they said don't condone their sin just to patronize them

adamt
12-28-2010, 11:43 PM
your perception of God and his laws is flawed at best.

you some how think its up to you to judge when God tells you in no uncertain terms its not yours but HIS right to judge ! !

oh well...its you that has to face God in the end.

people take that part of the bible so far out of context it is disgusting

if people would continue reading it goes on to tell them to beware false prophets and wolves in sheeps clothing, how can one decide if it is a false prophet without judging?

No we are commanded to judge.